Disagree. Recommendation of the prosecutor should hold more weight than that of the probation officer - particularly in a case like this, where the perpetrator showed blatant disregard for human life. |
He *did* rape her. |
+1 As a young girl, I got drunk plenty of times (with groups of people who were also drunk). No man during these times ever tried to rape me. The time I was sexually violated (I won't call it rape because I don't consider it rape, really) was when I was sleeping in bed with my sober then-boyfriend and he started having sex with me - while I was still sleeping. Alcohol does not a rapist make. |
| I was also sexually assaulted while sober. The perpetrator was sober. |
Completely ignores PP's poin. The only way comments like yours an pad others magpie sense is to pretend his blood work didn't show him well over the limit (i.e. Drunk as well) and to pretend his judgement wasn't also impaired by alcohol. If you read that CA law? Ignores that fact too. No surprise. |
| And others make sense ^^^^. |
| I love the infantilization. "The boy was impaired." HOW ABOUT MAN, HE IS A MAN NOW. Quit minimizing his crime by calling him a poor lil drunk boy. He's a predatory man. |
A frat boy really needs to file rape charges against a woman after they've both had drunk sex. Only then will you see the ridiculousness of your one-sided statements. |
Are you noticing, pp, that the more you take this conversation into rational, intelligent thinking, the more emotional and mean the comments get? This is because you are 100% correct and these folk know it. They are trying to ignore facts, using phrases like "accidentally drunk" and not wanting to acknowledge that he was drunk and impaired as well. The CA law states "and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused. ". When someone is as drunk as this boy's lab test indicated, there is a question as to whether or not this criteria was met. It would take a mighty strong judge to face the political fallout had he/she ruled otherwise. That is why, though, the boy got a light sentence, and rightfully so. Personally, were I the judge, I would have ruled otherwise. |
Here's the difference between her drunk and his drunk: She was unconscious He was conscious Ergo, the onus was on him to determine SHE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO BE FINGERED BEHIND A DUMPSTER |
Based on your experiences, what advice will you give your kids about alcohol, sexual violations, and rape? |
And yet that doesn't stop people in this thread from making up 'facts' and convincing him on those 'facts'. |
Not PP but my discussions with my kids about alcohol will be completely separate from my discussions with them about sexual violations and rape because they are two different animals. |
You don't know when she went from consciousness to unconsciousness, and you don't know, therefore, if she gave consent or not. When she WAS conscious, she was physically engaged with him. |
| It doesn't matter if she consented when she was conscious. If she lost consciousness, he needed to stop. |