Teenager Accused of Rape Deserves Leniency Because He’s From a ‘Good Family,’

[DarthKyrie]

did you seriously just compare rape to drunk driving?

They're the same thing aren't they?

/s

 

[fskimospy]

Okay here is the opportunity for @fskimospy to outline all the reasons why he thinks a convicted rapist may deserve sentencing leniency. Evidently he doesn't like it for elite sports athletes (Brock Turner) or guys "from good families" (the guy in OP story). Maybe it's only rapists from poor families who need a break in sentencing when they rape and it's his way of saying "I support the 99% and not top 1%". Or certain races/ethnicity groups since "it's a cultural thing."

Regardless, I await his list with great interest.

Honestly what the hell are you even babbling about now? The idea that every person who commits an offense should get the exact same punishment is how we got our insane three strikes laws where people go to prison for life for stealing a pack of cigarettes.

I'm kind of amazed that this sort of common sense even needs to be explained.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Oh really? Try that defense next time when drunk driving.

"No, but you see sir, I was so intoxicated that I did not consent to driving! I wasn't able to control myself!"

Huh? You got it backwards, bud. A person cannot legally agree to do a_thing while intoxicated, sex included. That would likely extend in a court of law to things like signing a contract, or giving verbal affirmation to do something. That has nothing to do with getting in a car and driving, as you aren't 'consenting' to something, you're performing an action.

If you want to try to obfuscate this, you can, but it won't work. This is established in the court of law and mindshare of the people.

 

[thilanliyan]

Oh really? Try that defense next time when drunk driving.

"No, but you see sir, I was so intoxicated that I did not consent to driving! I wasn't able to control myself!"

I don't think it applies the same way? Drunk driving vs non-consensual stuff I mean.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Huh? You got it backwards, bud. A person cannot legally agree to do a_thing while intoxicated, sex included. That would likely extend in a court of law to things like signing a contract, or giving verbal affirmation to do something. That has nothing to do with getting in a car and driving, as you aren't 'consenting' to something, you're performing an action.

If you want to try to obfuscate this, you can, but it won't work. This is established in the court of law and mindshare of the people.

You mean I can't give tell a doctor to remove a person's liver without that person's consent. Where's the fun in that?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You mean I can't give tell a doctor to remove a person's liver without that person's consent. Where's the fun in that?

I mean, you can... there's nothing technically illegal about asking a doctor to harvest organs. I think he'd be on the hook though.

I wonder if you can harvest organs from someone if someone else that has a General POA gives permission while you're unconscious. /ponder

 

[UNCjigga]

Oh really? Try that defense next time when drunk driving.

"No, but you see sir, I was so intoxicated that I did not consent to driving! I wasn't able to control myself!"

Same logic applies to the person actually charged with a crime...not just the victim. Can’t excuse a rape away because the perp was drunk, especially if he texted video with the word “rape” at the time.

 

[DarthKyrie]

I mean, you can... there's nothing technically illegal about asking a doctor to harvest organs. I think he'd be on the hook though.

I wonder if you can harvest organs from someone if someone else that has a General POA gives permission while you're unconscious. /ponder

I think we need to get one of our resident Reichwingers drunk and ask if we can harvest their organs. It should hold up in court as long as we have them sign a form giving consent.

 

[thilanliyan]

That has nothing to do with getting in a car and driving, as you aren't 'consenting' to something, you're performing an action.

I dunno about yours but my car doesn't always give me consent...unless I tell her she's got nice hips

 

[Sunburn74]

Huh? You got it backwards, bud. A person cannot legally agree to do a_thing while intoxicated, sex included. That would likely extend in a court of law to things like signing a contract, or giving verbal affirmation to do something. That has nothing to do with getting in a car and driving, as you aren't 'consenting' to something, you're performing an action.

If you want to try to obfuscate this, you can, but it won't work. This is established in the court of law and mindshare of the people.

This. A verbal contract if the other person is intoxicated or under some sort of similar duress (ie sick, delirious etc)is generally null. For example, if you're in a hospital and need surgery a doctor will not accept the consent of a drunk person (or intoxicated person, or delirious person). In such a situation they would either contact family to provide consent or do the procedure under emergent classification which would require generally at least 2 health professionals (ie a doc and a nurse ) to both agree that it's emergent and unreasonable to withhold that treatment even from a patient that cannot consent to it. Consent laws in medicine are razor tight and believe it or not generally apply to sexual stuff as well I would say.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This. A verbal contract if the other person is intoxicated or under some sort of similar duress (ie sick, delirious etc)is generally null. For example, if you're in a hospital and need surgery a doctor will not accept the consent of a drunk person (or intoxicated person, or delirious person). In such a situation they would either contact family to provide consent or do the procedure under emergent classification which would require generally at least 2 health professionals (ie a doc and a nurse ) to both agree that it's emergent and unreasonable to withhold that treatment even from a patient that cannot consent to it. Consent laws in medicine are razor tight and believe it or not generally apply to sexual stuff as well I would say.

Yeppers, that's why previously I said 'generally', there's a few corner cases where consent doesn't specifically apply, really just in emergent medical considerations. I can't think of any specific ones outside of that.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

did you seriously just compare rape to drunk driving?

No dipshit, I'm talking about personal responsibility when it comes to drinking. If you wake up the next morning with a guy you don't know and you don't remember what happened, that doesn't mean rape occurred.


Rape should have a pretty simple qualification - but you morons love to blur the lines on shit.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Huh? You got it backwards, bud. A person cannot legally agree to do a_thing while intoxicated, sex included. That would likely extend in a court of law to things like signing a contract, or giving verbal affirmation to do something. That has nothing to do with getting in a car and driving, as you aren't 'consenting' to something, you're performing an action.

If you want to try to obfuscate this, you can, but it won't work. This is established in the court of law and mindshare of the people.

LOL. You can't legally agree to do anything? Did you agree to drive or operate a motor vehicle?

You are 100% full of shit and 100% wrong.

 

[alien42]

No dipshit, I'm talking about personal responsibility when it comes to drinking. If you wake up the next morning with a guy you don't know and you don't remember what happened, that doesn't mean rape occurred.


Rape should have a pretty simple qualification - but you morons love to blur the lines on shit.

you sure went straight to childish personal insults fast, i suggest seeing a professional about that.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

No dipshit, I'm talking about personal responsibility when it comes to drinking. If you wake up the next morning with a guy you don't know and you don't remember what happened, that doesn't mean rape occurred.


Rape should have a pretty simple qualification - but you morons love to blur the lines on shit.

If you did not intend to have sex it does.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh really? Try that defense next time when drunk driving.

"No, but you see sir, I was so intoxicated that I did not consent to driving! I wasn't able to control myself!"

I mean...did you make it through 4th grade?

 

[zinfamous]

No dipshit, I'm talking about personal responsibility when it comes to drinking. If you wake up the next morning with a guy you don't know and you don't remember what happened, that doesn't mean rape occurred.


Rape should have a pretty simple qualification - but you morons love to blur the lines on shit.

So, do you ever read the news, then think back on your life and wonder if most of your experience with sex was actually rape?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So, do you ever read the news, then think back on your life and wonder if most of your experience with sex was actually rape?

Can't say so. I've only ever had sex with 1 person....

And it was in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation for our lord and savior. We have twenty kids.

 

[TheVrolok]

No dipshit, I'm talking about personal responsibility when it comes to drinking. If you wake up the next morning with a guy you don't know and you don't remember what happened, that doesn't mean rape occurred.


Rape should have a pretty simple qualification - but you morons love to blur the lines on shit.

It also doesn't mean that rape DIDN'T happen.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Can't say so. I've only ever had sex with 1 person....

And it was in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation for our lord and savior. We have twenty kids.

Somehow I doubt the second part of your statement it is just oozing sarcasm. The first part I can believe because I know plenty of people that have only ever had sex with their significant other.

Edit: grammar

 

[Maxima1]

Honestly what the hell are you even babbling about now? The idea that every person who commits an offense should get the exact same punishment is how we got our insane three strikes laws where people go to prison for life for stealing a pack of cigarettes.

I'm kind of amazed that this sort of common sense even needs to be explained.

Glenn is narrowing this to rape only from what I can see from the exchange. Many people see rape as rape even to the point of considering statutory rape (of female teacher and male student) the same, so he's suggesting why not get rid of the discretion for these cases.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Somehow I doubt the second part of your statement it's is just oozing sarcasm. The first part I can believe because I know plenty of people that have only ever had sex with their significant other.

aaaand... well... you would be correct.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/def... position for the sole purpose of procreation

 

[DarthKyrie]

aaaand... well... you would be correct.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=consensual sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation

I'm pretty good at picking up on sarcasm in the written form, being a sarcastic prick helps out at times.

 

[zinfamous]

Can't say so. I've only ever had sex with 1 person....

And it was in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation for our lord and savior. We have twenty kids.

Interesting. ...so how is "Mother" doing today?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Interesting. ...so how is "Mother" doing today?

You mean my DEEPLY OPPRESSED South American immigrant wife that is being held down by the system ?

Just fine actually