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.
Does anyone know - is there another explanation for her being out there, by the dumpster except that she intended to go home with him and passed out on the way to his room?
No one knows why, for certain. Questions when did she pass out?
Several scenarios are tossed around.
She went out to urinate, she went out bc she felt sick, she was looking for her sister who she didn't recall leaving, she left with Brock to go to his dorm.....
How did you surmise that a drunk man can discern how drunk she was? Or that she was unconscious when they got there? How can anyone, let alone a drunk person, tell who will or won't remember what next day, or how much?
Brilliant. Let's apply this to drunk drivers who kill people as well. How could we hold the the drunk driver accountable when he is obviously too drunk to discern his surroundings? Who would knowingly drive the wrong way on the highway? Drive at excessively dangerous speeds? It must be obvious the drunk driver is not aware that his situation is a danger to himself or others.
Being drunk is not a defense of the law. Drunk people are held accountable for their actions and their inability to act within the constraints of the law.
PassTheChocolate, do you have any legal education or experience? Have you ever worked in a prosecutor's or DA's office, and in a special victims unit or DV unit? Have you ever seen a sexual assault trial in person? Are you aware of how difficult these cases typically are to prosecute, that this one was not much more difficult than the average case? Have you ever worked closely with detectives who investigate these types of crimes? Speak to victims or see them speak about it to investigators?
I'm victim advocate. I was also victim, several times over. I am aware. What do you do?
Quote:
His appeal doesn't mean anything about the case or sufficiency of the state's evidence. It is nothing unusual or particular. A first appeal is a right, and many appeal just because why not, what do they have to lose?, and if courts will hear it, you can appeal all the way to a state supreme court and in rare cases, SCOTUS. He and thousands and thousands of other convicted defendants appeal their cases for similar reasons. He has been convicted by a jury who obviously saw enough evidence to convict. On appeal, the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, because it has been reviewed once already by a group of people and there has been a conviction. It is unlikely his case will be overturned on evidence sufficiency.
Also, not news.
Quote:
Probably because he is actually guilty. Like 95-99% of convicted people.
It is immoral to base any one case on stats, especially the ones suit your argument.
Quote:
Brock is mad that he didn't get away with a sexual assault. He is mad that his bad decisions got him in trouble. He has an entitlement issue. Take a number, Brock.
So you're a psychologist? Attorney? Victim advocate? What?
Does anyone know - is there another explanation for her being out there, by the dumpster except that she intended to go home with him and passed out on the way to his room?
Nope. All we know is that Brock said they were going to his place. If they were suppose to go back to his room, as he stated, why were they having sex behind the dumpster? Oh, that is right, it is because she was falling down drunk and unable to make it to his room. Sounds like no consent could be given.
That being said running is traditionally seen as consciousness of guilt so I cant really fault the jury for seeing it that way. There's also the aspect of leaving his partner unconscious on the ground if he thought the two men were somehow dangerous. Not a good look.
Agreed. However, someone yelling "What the **** are you doing?! She's ****ing unconscious!!" says they're coming after him in her defense. Not to harm her.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 1 day ago)
35,580 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50617
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnaGWS
Nope. All we know is that Brock said they were going to his place. If they were suppose to go back to his room, as he stated, why were they having sex behind the dumpster? Oh, that is right, it is because she was falling down drunk and unable to make it to his room. Sounds like no consent could be given.
The law used to be the woman had to say "no". This would obviously not apply if he purposely drugged her. Or, if at the party he went into a room where she was obviously passed out on a bed and he quietly molested her.
In this case, it just becomes hard to tell what was happening when she passed out, and if he was aware of it, and whether she had indicated a pretty clear consent before passing out.
It's an unfair burden, and it kind of infantasizes women who give consent for the law to come in and say actually you aren't sober enough to consent. Which may not apply in this case, she may have not given original consent. We don't know.
I don't think as a society we'll ever get to the point where if the guy knows she's been drinking sex is illegal. But it does seem we're coming up to that.
The law used to be the woman had to say "no". This would obviously not apply if he purposely drugged her. Or, if at the party he went into a room where she was obviously passed out on a bed and he quietly molested her.
In this case, it just becomes hard to tell what was happening when she passed out, and if he was aware of it, and whether she had indicated a pretty clear consent before passing out.
I don't think as a society we'll ever get to the point where if the guy knows she's been drinking sex is illegal. But it does seem we're coming up to that.
Oh, I think we'll get there lol.
Funny, that the liberals always complaining about people in their bedrooms are probably the ones who will drag us there.
But, once there, both parties will be guilty of engaging in illegal sex and next we will start seeing men accusing women of same when they are accused.
I'm victim advocate. I was also victim, several times over. I am aware. What do you do?
Also, not news.It is immoral to base any one case on stats, especially the ones suit your argument.
So you're a psychologist? Attorney? Victim advocate? What?
You break down parts of posts far too much, I won't do the same. It's a waste of my time. It's why I didn't reply to your last reply to me, we'll be stuck in a freaking never ending long sentence to sentence debate, and for what? Because you don't like the results of this case?
I'm halfway to being an attorney with experience in prosecutor's office units dedicated to victims of sexual assault. Give me a year and I'll have that JD.
I don't know what your deal is with this case and why you're debating it so hard. The fact is that competent evidence from both sides was presented to a jury, and they reached a verdict. All, if any, attempts by the defense prior to the jury reaching a verdict to dismiss this case on insufficient evidence grounds were lost. It doesn't really matter what YOU think happened here. I bring up the info about appeals because it is unlikely anything will change about this verdict, and again, probably because he really is guilty and does deserve at least some type of punishment; what is proper is a whole other debate.
And I think it's important to note that we weren't in the courtroom, we weren't jurors, we did not see the case being presented by both sides, see the victim testify, see Brock in the courtroom. We were not there, we do not know as much as those close to the case or as those jurors, despite all the court documents we can read.
This case is a good lesson for people, especially younger people, to be vigilant. I thought it was common knowledge to not mess around sexually with a severely drunk, then passed out, person but evidently some still need to learn. Voluntary intoxication is typically not an excuse or defense for crimes, and even if it is in some instances, like for specific intent crimes, the defense presents the intoxication to the jury or judge and it is a question of fact. The jury decided the facts here, which is exactly what is supposed to happen. A defense attorney alleging that Brock did not have the requisite state of mind, if any, does not automatically mean he did not actually have the requisite state of mind.
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.
