Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 114

Thread: Rapists, false accusations and the like

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    626
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Federal definition of rape, sexual assault, abusive contact, etc.

    Definition of consent:

    (8)Consent.—
    (A) The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.
    (B) A sleeping, unconscious, or incompetent person cannot consent. A person cannot consent to force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm or to being rendered unconscious. A person cannot consent while under threat or in fear or under the circumstances described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection (b)(1).

    (C) Lack of consent may be inferred based on the circumstances of the offense. All the surrounding circumstances are to be considered in determining whether a person gave consent, or whether a person did not resist or ceased to resist only because of another person’s actions.

    Now state laws might be worded slightly differently. I don't think any law states that if you're "drunk" you can't consent. It usually states if you're incapacitated or intoxicated. It usually ends up in the hands of the prosecutor after the investigation to decide on what to charge.

    The military has been wrongly teaching that if you're drunk you can't consent at all. I don't think they should have been teaching that in SHARP or SAPR training. There are a lot of ways they shouldn't have been teaching or things that should have been the focus.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,812
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sparks82 View Post



    The military has been wrongly teaching that if you're drunk you can't consent at all. I don't think they should have been teaching that in SHARP or SAPR training. There are a lot of ways they shouldn't have been teaching or things that should have been the focus.
    This is confusing..... In other words, Sometimes, when they say "No", they really mean, "Yes"?

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,267
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    It is also to keep in mind that just because a claim is not proven, doesn't make it a false complaint. Yes, the alleged perpetrator cannot be shunned, dinged on evals etc. but it is rare that an unproven complaint is actually proven to be false. Often the issue is not a matter of sexual contact having happened, but under what context: one person saying something happened one way, the other saying it happened a different way. She said, he said.
    That is true, just cause a court trial ruled not guilty/acquitted, doesn't mean the crime didn't happen, but just that there wasn't enough proof to convict.
    What i am more on about is when during the investigation leading up TO a potential trial, it is sussed out that the claims ARE false.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    So does/would the prosecuting of people who make false complaints influence people with legitimate complaints to not file a complaint? Very probably, I do think so. I can see how a victim could view prosecuting or attempting to prosecute someone who made a false claim apprehensive about filing a complaint themselves.
    But how? How is seeing someone who makes a false claim getting punished for it, pushing real victims to stay silent?

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    I believe they believe its true. That's why the "law" gives women the "right" to cry rape if they were "too drunk to remember". Although the guy could never get away with that line. And it never works if the woman was too drunk to remember she was driving. Feminism is a supremacist movement.
    That's something that has always gotten me.. IF a female can't consent cause she is too drunk, then how could the guy also consent if he is also drunk?
    If you are inebriated and thus can't make good decisions, as Bos says shouldn't it apply both ways?

  4. #14
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,923
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Shit, I remember times I got drunk on purpose just to have sex with someone I normally wouldn't have sex with (I know I'm not the only one. The term "beer goggles" has been around long before I was born). For example: about three months before I joined the Navy (this was back in 1999), I was on AOL chat rooms... feeling a little lonely that night. I didn't have a car. I used to drive my mother's car; but she needed to keep it that night.

    Anyway, so I started talking to this chick on AOL and we agreed to meet at her house. My mother took me over there, dropped me off, and left. I knocked on the door, and a 300 lb Mexican woman answered.

    Guess what? My mother was already gone. Not everybody had cell phones back then, and I was among those who didn't. I was stuck there for the night. Luckily, she had a liquor cabinet.

    Was I "raped?" If not, would it be "rape" if the sexes were reversed?
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    626
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    This is confusing..... In other words, Sometimes, when they say "No", they really mean, "Yes"?
    I never said that at all. No means no. If someone tells you no, you stop. You leave them alone. That's pretty clear cut to anyone I would think.

  6. #16
    Senior Member WILDJOKER5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    939
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Shit, I remember times I got drunk on purpose just to have sex with someone I normally wouldn't have sex with (I know I'm not the only one. The term "beer goggles" has been around long before I was born). For example: about three months before I joined the Navy (this was back in 1999), I was on AOL chat rooms... feeling a little lonely that night. I didn't have a car. I used to drive my mother's car; but she needed to keep it that night.

    Anyway, so I started talking to this chick on AOL and we agreed to meet at her house. My mother took me over there, dropped me off, and left. I knocked on the door, and a 300 lb Mexican woman answered.

    Guess what? My mother was already gone. Not everybody had cell phones back then, and I was among those who didn't. I was stuck there for the night. Luckily, she had a liquor cabinet.

    Was I "raped?" If not, would it be "rape" if the sexes were reversed?
    Well, you already admitted that the intent was to get drunk enough to have sex. I think its when women wake up drunk after the club and they weren't fully intending on sex that night, but wake up to fugly Joe or happen to remember they are married is when "to drunk to consent" gets played.

    But I admit to being in the same situation kind of. She wasn't 300lbs, but still a big girl. Drove about 30-45 mins to her house few month after my divorce. Saw what I was in for and chugged my beers I brought.
    Last edited by WILDJOKER5; 09-14-2016 at 06:28 PM.
    Progressivism; such great ideas, they need to force you to follow them.

    Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

    Economic Left/Right: 7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
    politicalcompass.org

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    626
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Nowhere does any law say if you have had any alcohol that you can't consent to sex. Show me one law that states that. I haven't seen it. The military teaches "don't have sex if you have any alcohol" because they're just trying to avoid any kind of situation. That's not a very good interpretation of UCMJ.

    This is what Article 120 says about consent:


    (8) Consent.
    (A ) The term ‘consent’ means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent.
    Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent.
    (B) A sleeping, unconscious, or incompetent person cannot consent. A person cannot consent to force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm or to being rendered unconscious.
    A person cannot consent while under threat or fear or under the circumstances described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of subsection
    (b)(1).
    (C ) Lack of consent may be inferred based on the circumstances of the offense. All the surrounding circumstances are to be considered in determining whether a person gave consent, or whether a person did not resist or ceased to resist only because of another person’s actions.

    I think it's pretty clear what consent is in the military. Leaders who have been preaching "if you're drunk you can't consent at all" are wrong. If both participants state "yes" the it's consensual. If at ANY point a participant states "No" or "stop" then the other person needs to stop. There's nothing I have seen within UCMJ or civilian law that states if either one of you has had even a drop of alcohol you can't consent to sex.

    I don't understand how people who are supposed to be adults can't comprehend this at all. No means no. It doesn't mean "maybe" it doesn't mean "yes." It means no. You might think you read some "signals" but you don't. I don't know why someone would keep going anyway in this day and age once someone says "stop."

    The only mention of impairment by drug or other intoxicant is the definition of sexual assault:

    (b) Sexual Assault. Any person subject to this
    chapter who—
    (1) commits a sexual act upon another person
    by—
    (A) threatening or placing that other person
    in fear;
    (B ) causing bodily harm to that other person;
    (C ) making fraudulent representation that the sexual act serves a professional purpose;
    or
    (D) inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense,
    or concealment that the person is another
    person;
    (2) commits a sexual act upon another person
    when the person knows or reasonably should
    know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act
    is occurring; or
    (3) commits a sexual act upon another person
    when the other person is incapable of consenting
    to the sexual act due to—
    (A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is
    known or reasonably should be known by the
    person; or
    (B) a mental disease or defect, or physical
    disability, and that condition is known or reasonably
    should be known by the person;
    is guilty of sexual assault and shall be punished
    as a court-martial may direct.


    This is why the investigate every accusation. If each one is not taken seriously THAT is what stops people - women AND men - from coming forward.

    I don't know why it's so hard for adults to comprehend.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,923
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    In any case, when I was single, I never got involved with female military members. If my wife were to give me the finger and walk out of my life for good right now, I STILL wouldn't. There are plenty of reasons why, with shit like this being one of them.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,267
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post

    Was I "raped?" If not, would it be "rape" if the sexes were reversed?
    Yes and yes.. Well based on the letter of the law. However if based on how the justice system SEES things (and many in society), No and yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Well, you already admitted that the intent was to get drunk enough to have sex. I think its when women wake up drunk after the club and they weren't fully intending on sex that night, but wake up to fugly Joe or happen to remember they are married is when "to drunk to consent" gets played.
    Some of the situations i heard while working security in Bahrain, were on the opposite end of that.. Gal goes out intending to bonk hunk she is into, but winds up in the sack with him and someone else. She gets buck wild during the session, but wakes up later regretting doing both guys and crys foul.

    Though to me some of the worst ones i have heard were when both were underage, do the deed, keep the relationship going on till the guy is over age while she is still under, then dear ole dad finds out and grasses out the dude. Which is why several states over the past 10 or so years passed those romeo & Juliette laws..

    Quote Originally Posted by sparks82 View Post
    Nowhere does any law say if you have had any alcohol that you can't consent to sex. Show me one law that states that. I haven't seen it. The military teaches "don't have sex if you have any alcohol" because they're just trying to avoid any kind of situation. That's not a very good interpretation of UCMJ.

    This is what Article 120 says about consent:


    (8) Consent.
    (A ) The term ‘consent’ means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent.
    You yourself showed why being 'drunk' classes as can't consent. If they are inebriated, how can they be seen as competent to give consent?

  10. #20
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,923
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WILDJOKER5 View Post
    Well, you already admitted that the intent was to get drunk enough to have sex. I think its when women wake up drunk after the club and they weren't fully intending on sex that night, but wake up to fugly Joe or happen to remember they are married is when "to drunk to consent" gets played.

    But I admit to being in the same situation kind of. She wasn't 300lbs, but still a big girl. Drove about 30-45 mins to her house few month after my divorce. Saw what I was in for and chugged my beers I brought.
    But the other thing they teach is us that consent can be withdrawn at ANY time. Even DURING intercourse. That being said, even if you get drunk to have sex... wouldn't consent be automatically withdrawn as soon as you're intoxicated?
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •