Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm retracting my apology. You did move the goalposts. First you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Why will none of you address the fact that intoxicated women are defined as being unable to give consent?
Then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Ignoring the odd personal attack from a moderator for the moment...
I ask again, will anyone address the point that, given the fact that women are now defined as unable to give consent if they have been drinking
Then go back to intoxication:
Quote:
(and I'm talking in general here, not about this specific case) it is always dangerous for men to be around intoxicated women. Will colleges have to move toward forbidding alcohol or forbidding all coed parties?
Funny you complain about a personal attack and yet attack my reading comprehension.
Correct what? This is what markg wrote in a previous post:
What part of this do you not comprehend?
MarkG's post was fine. Your interpretation of it was wrong. Here's what you actually said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1
You posters have lost all credibility. MarkG made it clear that it's the Probation Officer who comes up with the sentencing that judges follow.
Here's what I replied to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog
Wrong. The JUDGE comes up with the sentence. He can take input from any number of sources including the prosecutors office which wanted 6 years and the probation officer who wanted 6 months. But the buck stops with the judge. Have you seriously done no reading on how widely reviled this judge is at this point, even by other judges and law makers?
There's nothing wrong with what I wrote. It's correct. The JUDGE makes the final call on the sentence. Period. He could have just as well gone with the Prosecutor's recommendation of 6 years, or even averaged the two, but he didn't. He went with the probation officer's ludicrous suggestion of 3 months in a local jail instead of doing hard-time in prison like he should have.
Quote:
And you and Zimbochick have a lot of nerve accusing me of being an apologist for rapists, etc., given my posts here.
Then again, you've both simply lowered your credibility, yet again, with your lies.
I can say without a doubt that I know more about this than you do.
markg91359, I know you know way more about the law than I do; after all, you're a lawyer. I'll defer to your area of expertise.
I think what hacks off a lot of people, men as well as women, not all of whom are "bra-burning" feminists, is that the judge gave this guy the minimum possible jail sentence. The crime Brock committed was sadistic. Not only was Emily Doe intoxicated, she was out stone cold. She didn't wake up until several hours later in the hospital. In fact, the Swedish bicyclists first thought nothing was amiss; then they noted Emily wasn't moving. That's when they intervened, and by that point, Brock was thrusting her, according to their accounts. One of them broke down crying talking to the police. Brock stuck debris inside this woman's most private parts! I'm not given to idle speculation, but what would have happened next, had this little "action" not been interrupted? It's possible Emily could have died of alcohol intoxication, if Brock left her alone when his "action" was complete, or even if he took her back to the frat house to sleep it off. It happens. Community turns drinking death into legacy of prevention
His family and friends just seem appalling. One even questioned that he had done the crime. One has since retracted her letter of recommendation.
One person on this board have questioned if the assault really happened, wanting to see a picture of the crime scene. Unfortunately, that post was removed. It probably should have remained standing as an example. Many others questioned Brock's conviction, as he did not penetrate Emily. It has had to be pointed out several times that a jury of his peers convicted Brock of three counts of felony sexual assault. Many question Emily's role in this incident, claiming that since she was falling-down drunk, she somehow is responsible for the assault. So yeah, there's a lot of anger about this, even if not from a purely legal perspective.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 06-12-2016 at 05:18 PM..
What's the confusion about? You're the one who posted this to me:
Because of.........
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1
I think I know what you're saying now. You're saying that taking this case out of the equation, women are not to blame for being raped, but if they get so drunk they black out, they are being irresponsible for not taking precautions to remain as safe as possible. In fact, the opposite, because their actions put them in risky, vulnerable situations. Do I have that right?
If so, I don't know how anyone could argue with that.
And perhaps you are not aware how that post may read to some, but it's a bit
It is always dangerous to be involved with a person and/or environment where any sort of risk exists, but if you are concerned about such a person or circumstance, avoid it. Otherwise, just how difficult can it be for anyone to know if/when they are "crossing the line" between such risk and normal everyday encounters with the opposite sex?
Just how difficult can it be to know the difference between consent and all these twisted versions of who knows what? If at first you're not sure, ask again...
Or pour another one?
Word of caution, with every additional glass of alcohol, in particular with someone you don't know, your risk of "unintended consequences" increases, and so should one's level of caution. Drink enough and decide to "throw caution to the wind," and be prepared for those consequences! Including a little one...
If the woman is defined as not being able to consent when she is drinking, then her answer matters not at all. So, from a legal standpoint, what is the point in even asking?
And perhaps you are not aware how that post may read to some, but it's a bit
Oh, please. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that post unless you're looking for something wrong with it - particularly given ALL of my posts in this thread defending the victim, indicting the criminal and saying the family is as in denial as Joe Paterno's family is.
And still you accuse me of being a rapists apologist. What a lie.
markg91359, I know you know way more about the law than I do; after all, you're a lawyer. I'll defer to your area of expertise.
I think what hacks off a lot of people, men as well as women, not all of whom are "bra-burning" feminists, is that the judge gave this guy the minimum possible jail sentence. The crime Brock committed was sadistic. Not only was Emily Doe intoxicated, she was out stone cold. She didn't wake up until several hours later in the hospital. In fact, the Swedish bicyclists first thought nothing was amiss; then they noted Emily wasn't moving. That's when they intervened, and by that point, Brock was thrusting her, according to their accounts. One of them broke down crying talking to the police. Brock stuck debris inside this woman's most private parts! I'm not given to idle speculation, but what would have happened next, had this little "action" not been interrupted? It's possible Emily could have died of alcohol intoxication, if Brock left her alone when his "action" was complete, or even if he took her back to the frat house to sleep it off. It happens. Community turns drinking death into legacy of prevention
His family and friends just seem appalling. One even questioned that he had done the crime. One has since retracted her letter of recommendation.
One person on this board have questioned if the assault really happened, wanting to see a picture of the crime scene. Unfortunately, that post was removed. It probably should have remained standing as an example. Many others questioned Brock's conviction, as he did not penetrate Emily. It has had to be pointed out several times that a jury of his peers convicted Brock of three counts of felony sexual assault. Many question Emily's role in this incident, claiming that since she was falling-down drunk, she somehow is responsible for the assault. So yeah, there's a lot of anger about this, even if not from a purely legal perspective.
Its easy to misconstrue what I am saying here as defending Brock and his actions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What I do find necessary to defend is a system that does not always work well, but--on the whole--does work well for our society. Regrettably, that sometimes requires us to defend decisions we don't always agree with.
I do know without an independent judiciary, free to make tough decisions, this country would be much worse off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
