Judges coming out against "yes means yes"

[slimreaper]

You must be registered for see links

I agree 100% that it's un-constitutional to assume a "rapist"(in most cases men) is guilty until proven innocent. I'm glad we are finally having people stand up and acknowledge that this law is harmfully presumptuous of a person's guilt.

Here is a link to another good article about regret not equalling rape

You must be registered for see links

In your opinion, is it rape just because a woman(or man) just goes along with it and regrets it later?

Just fyi, I understand that forceful *** and *** with someone unconscious is rape.

 

[The Necromancer]

You must be registered for see links

I agree 100% that it's un-constitutional to assume a "rapist"(in most cases men) is guilty until proven innocent. I'm glad we are finally having people stand up and acknowledge that this law is harmfully presumptuous of a person's guilt.

Here is a link to another good article about regret not equalling rape

You must be registered for see links

In your opinion, is it rape just because a woman(or man) just goes along with it and regrets it later?

Just fyi, I understand that forceful *** and *** with someone unconscious is rape.

I'm not going to open the can of worms having to do with the Bold, but it is most definitely unconstitutional to assume the accuser is always the victim, as it goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" system we have established.

Does this mean we shouldn't take these accusations seriously? Of course not, but I'm seeing far too much support for every accuser of rape, saying that their word should always be taken at face value, while the accused doesn't seem to get the same constitutional right.

 

[ChicagoJhawk]

You must be registered for see links

I agree 100% that it's un-constitutional to assume a "rapist"(in most cases men) is guilty until proven innocent. I'm glad we are finally having people stand up and acknowledge that this law is harmfully presumptuous of a person's guilt.

Here is a link to another good article about regret not equalling rape

You must be registered for see links

In your opinion, is it rape just because a woman(or man) just goes along with it and regrets it later?

Just fyi, I understand that forceful *** and *** with someone unconscious is rape.

Nope. That's just called being a hoe

 

[Kaneki Kun]

If she's smiling it isn't rape.....better slip that pill when she's laughing.

 

[Ciao]

i think false rape allegations have a lot to due with media attention to victims of crimes and peer pressure

"ew you slept with that boy? hes such a creep" girl hears this from her friends and regrets the *** and claims rape

 

[slimreaper]

i think false rape allegations have a lot to due with media attention to victims of crimes and peer pressure

"ew you slept with that boy? hes such a creep" girl hears this from her friends and regrets the *** and claims rape

There are always going to be real and fake claims against rape.

What shouldn't be tolerated is

1. Broadening the definition of rape to include drunk (but not necessarily incapacitated people), or that just because she didn't stop you or speak up, doesn't mean it wasn't rape.
2. That the accused get fair trials under the law, and don't have to prove their innocence. It should be up to the plaintiff to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence.

 

[Punk Hazard]

I'm not going to open the can of worms having to do with the Bold, but it is most definitely unconstitutional to assume the accuser is always the victim, as it goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" system we have established.

Does this mean we shouldn't take these accusations seriously? Of course not, but I'm seeing far too much support for every accuser of rape, saying that their word should always be taken at face value, while the accused doesn't seem to get the same constitutional right.

Have to agree with Necromancer.

 

[Ciao]

There are always going to be real and fake claims against rape.

What shouldn't be tolerated is

1. Broadening the definition of rape to include drunk (but not necessarily incapacitated people), or that just because she didn't stop you or speak up, doesn't mean it wasn't rape.
2. That the accused get fair trials under the law, and don't have to prove their innocence. It should be up to the plaintiff to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence.

what do you mean in #1

 

[Punk Hazard]

There are always going to be real and fake claims against rape.

What shouldn't be tolerated is

1. Broadening the definition of rape to include drunk (but not necessarily incapacitated people), or that just because she didn't stop you or speak up, doesn't mean it wasn't rape.
2. That the accused get fair trials under the law, and don't have to prove their innocence. It should be up to the plaintiff to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence.

Nope. Having *** with a drunk person can be considered rape because consent can only be given when one fully understands the situation. That is why a 7 year old can't give consent. Being drunk blurs your mental competency and your judgement. An eyewitness account from a drunk person isn't valid. A testimony from a person while they're drunk isn't valid. Fact of the matter is, your judgement is compromised while you are drunk. The simple solution is, don't have *** with drunk strangers.

It can still be rape if they didn't stop you. I had a friend who had a guy come onto her while they were hanging out, and she didn't say anything because she was worried how he would react, and felt threatened. That's still rape. Once again, it's so simple to just go "Do you want to do this?" and proceed if they say yes. If you can't restrain yourself and just not have *** if you don't hear yes, you have a ****ing problem.

 

[slimreaper]

what do you mean in #1

In the yes mean yes law it states that someone who has consumed any alcohol can't give consent. And therefore they or a third party can accuse someone of raping a person even if they themselves are drunk or just happened to have *** with a person who had one drink but regretted it the next day.

 

[Multiply]

Holy shit, Slim made a semi decent thread. Is this real life?

OT: People agree with the accuser instantly without ever hearing the mans side of the story and that needs to change.

 

[Punk Hazard]

In the yes mean yes law it states that someone who has consumed any alcohol can't give consent. And therefore they or a third party can accuse someone of raping a person even if they themselves are drunk or just happened to have *** with a person who had one drink but regretted it the next day.

No it doesn't. I remember reading the section about alcohol the last time you posted this because you said the exact same thing then. It did not say consumed any alcohol. I can't remember the exact phrasing, but it clearly said when a person has been significantly hindered by drug use, including alcohol. If you're gonna talk about the law, don't make shit up.

 

[Ciao]

No it doesn't. I remember reading the section about alcohol the last time you posted this because you said the exact same thing then. It did not say consumed any alcohol. I can't remember the exact phrasing, but it clearly said when a person has been significantly hindered by drug use, including alcohol. If you're gonna talk about the law, don't make shit up.

You must be registered for see images

 

[slimreaper]

Nope. Having *** with a drunk person can be considered rape because consent can only be given when one fully understands the situation. That is why a 7 year old can't give consent. Being drunk blurs your mental competency and your judgement. An eyewitness account from a drunk person isn't valid. A testimony from a person while they're drunk isn't valid. Fact of the matter is, your judgement is compromised while you are drunk. The simple solution is, don't have *** with drunk strangers.

It can still be rape if they didn't stop you. I had a friend who had a guy come onto her while they were hanging out, and she didn't say anything because she was worried how he would react, and felt threatened. That's still rape. Once again, it's so simple to just go "Do you want to do this?" and proceed if they say yes. If you can't restrain yourself and just not have *** if you don't hear yes, you have a ****ing problem.

No it can't be considered rape if they are conscious. Just as you don't get out of drunk driving charges for being a drunk woman, you don't get out of being responsible for the decisions you make.

2. It's not rape at all. You are creating rapists. For all your friend knows, if she would have said stop the dude might have been totally apologetic and would have stopped. She is 100% to blame. Adding to that, I don't know if you've ever approached what ever *** you like. But most of the time it totally kills any chance of copulation if you ask permission first. It makes you look weak (and to most women that's unattractive). You just make a move, and if they say no you apologize and move on. It's that simple.

 

[Avani]

A student expelled from the University of California-San Diego had an “unfair” hearing, Superior Court Judge Joel M. Pressman ruled in July. The John Doe accused in the case said he was unable to cross-examine his accuser and other witnesses. He also said he was forced to submit questions to a hearing panel in advance, and many of his questions were then rejected. Pressman agreed this was a violation of his due process rights.

...........

...............

A right to due process at state universities may seem like a novel concept, but Banzhaf said the fourth amendment protection was never intended to apply solely to the court system.

...
Banzhaf explains that means that not every element of protection for the accused must be provided in every case. A “minimal amount of procedural protection” – such as the right to cross examine witnesses – must be provided in all cases, however.

The American Bar Association on Aug. 4 adopted three resolutions focusing on campus assaults and gender-based violence. Some of the language includes “assuring that the rights of those accused of such acts are recognized, respected and protected.”

These protections for the accused are vital from both a fairness perspective and a financial outlook, Banzhaf said. Not only can universities be sued by those accused of assaults whose due process rights may have been violated, Banzhaf added, but administrators can also be sued and possibly held individually liable.

“Colleges who are smart are going to look at these cases and say maybe we should start thinking about this when we craft our policies,” he said.

You must be registered for see links

I wonder if your newreporter or you understand that it was the procedure school took was questioned and not the law itself.


This was what I said last time you posted the the thread on this law:

And no the bill doesn't rule out implied consent. It only played with wording a bit as far as I can read it. I doubt they can remove that part ever- someone out there will legally challenge the bill then and there. Some legal firm or lawyers will take it upon themselves. The basic definition of consent is not limited to rape cases only and it would cause many other issues. Or they should have that option and do so in such a case.

They should check the validity of such claims when the case is registered.

So there you go. ^^

I told you before- understand laws better or find a good lawyer when you are in trouble. Internet news heading will only get people like you either crying murder or make you careless if you think it's that simple and now you are allowed to have night out with a too drunk a girl without caring.

 

[Punk Hazard]

You must be registered for see images

The Yes Means Yes law is an alternative to the No Means No law. The latter basically said that if someone says "No," then consent has not been given and you must stop. That was fine and dandy, but it became clear that a loophole existed in the form of "If saying no means consent was not given, then not saying no means consent was given." Basically, the law allowed a loophole to get away with rape. So, Yes Means Yes was introduced. This new law says:

1. Consent must be clearly expressed, whether verbally or physically. If she starts taking off your clothes and reaching for things, and starts going down on you, that can validly be taken as consent. Obviously, saying "Yes" or other verbal means that mean "yes, I want to have *** with you" is consent. If you do not get affirmation of consent, then you do not have consent.

2. Consent must be ongoing. SlimReaper tried to say this means that you have to ask your partner over and over if they want to have ***. What this means is that one can withdraw consent at any time during sexual acts. If she says yes, she wants to come back to your apartment, but changes her mind about engaging in ***, then you have to stop or it's rape. If you're in the middle of penetration, and she says she wants to stop, then you must stop. If you are doing something, and you want to switch to something else, you have to communicate it. Meaning, a woman can't tie up a man and just go shoving dildos where she wants them. While personal relationships may be fine with "I'm gonna try something," not all are, and you shouldn't assume that your partner is immediately down for whatever. Communicate.

3. Consent is not valid if the party in question was drunk, drugged, or otherwise incapable of evaluation the situation or expressing whether or not they want to have ***. Meaning, if someone is unconscious, it's rape. If you meet someone who is drunk out of their mind, and you have *** with them, they can file rape charges. If you get someone drunk with the intention of their intoxicated state making them more likely to perform sexual acts with or on you, then that's rape.

SlimReaper is against this law because he doesn't understand the concept that a drugged person cannot give consent, that you can get consent from sober people, and that normal human beings have the ability to restrain themselves sexually because the safety of others is more important than his orgasms.

 

[slimreaper]

You must be registered for see links

I wonder if your newreporter or you understand that it was the procedure school took was questioned and not the law itself.


This was what I said last time you posted the the thread on this law:





So there you go. ^^

The entire law Infringes on the rights of due process.

In the constitution it says"innocent until proven guilty" not guilty until proven innocent. By forcing the accused to provide a yes, you are assuming guilt naturally. No means no works, because it puts the burden of proof on the accuser

 

[BrillyMac]

I'm not going to open the can of worms having to do with the Bold, but it is most definitely unconstitutional to assume the accuser is always the victim, as it goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" system we have established.

Does this mean we shouldn't take these accusations seriously? Of course not, but I'm seeing far too much support for every accuser of rape, saying that their word should always be taken at face value, while the accused doesn't seem to get the same constitutional right.

Like the liters dozens of women coming out ok Bill Cosby. It's a new woman every freaking week. I'm not saying he's innocent, but the news is taking these women's stories on face value. How the **** could he rape over 20 women and not be in jail by now? Who is he the serial rapsts if the century? Shit is crazy

 

[Ciao]

The Yes Means Yes law is an alternative to the No Means No law. The latter basically said that if someone says "No," then consent has not been given and you must stop. That was fine and dandy, but it became clear that a loophole existed in the form of "If saying no means consent was not given, then not saying no means consent was given." Basically, the law allowed a loophole to get away with rape. So, Yes Means Yes was introduced. This new law says:

1. Consent must be clearly expressed, whether verbally or physically. If she starts taking off your clothes and reaching for things, and starts going down on you, that can validly be taken as consent. Obviously, saying "Yes" or other verbal means that mean "yes, I want to have *** with you" is consent. If you do not get affirmation of consent, then you do not have consent.

2. Consent must be ongoing. SlimReaper tried to say this means that you have to ask your partner over and over if they want to have ***. What this means is that one can withdraw consent at any time during sexual acts. If she says yes, she wants to come back to your apartment, but changes her mind about engaging in ***, then you have to stop or it's rape. If you're in the middle of penetration, and she says she wants to stop, then you must stop. If you are doing something, and you want to switch to something else, you have to communicate it. Meaning, a woman can't tie up a man and just go shoving dildos where she wants them. While personal relationships may be fine with "I'm gonna try something," not all are, and you shouldn't assume that your partner is immediately down for whatever. Communicate.

3. Consent is not valid if the party in question was drunk, drugged, or otherwise incapable of evaluation the situation or expressing whether or not they want to have ***. Meaning, if someone is unconscious, it's rape. If you meet someone who is drunk out of their mind, and you have *** with them, they can file rape charges. If you get someone drunk with the intention of their intoxicated state making them more likely to perform sexual acts with or on you, then that's rape.

SlimReaper is against this law because he doesn't understand the concept that a drugged person cannot give consent, that you can get consent from sober people, and that normal human beings have the ability to restrain themselves sexually because the safety of others is more important than his orgasms.

all your points seem like common sense

Like the liters dozens of women coming out ok Bill Cosby. It's a new woman every freaking week. I'm not saying he's innocent, but the news is taking these women's stories on face value. How the **** could he rape over 20 women and not be in jail by now? Who is he the serial rapsts if the century? Shit is crazy

publicly claiming rape against a big celebrity would have serious consequences if you were proven a liar so i think these women are telling the truth

 

[slimreaper]

The Yes Means Yes law is an alternative to the No Means No law. The latter basically said that if someone says "No," then consent has not been given and you must stop. That was fine and dandy, but it became clear that a loophole existed in the form of "If saying no means consent was not given, then not saying no means consent was given." Basically, the law allowed a loophole to get away with rape. So, Yes Means Yes was introduced. This new law says:

1. Consent must be clearly expressed, whether verbally or physically. If she starts taking off your clothes and reaching for things, and starts going down on you, that can validly be taken as consent. Obviously, saying "Yes" or other verbal means that mean "yes, I want to have *** with you" is consent. If you do not get affirmation of consent, then you do not have consent.

2. Consent must be ongoing. SlimReaper tried to say this means that you have to ask your partner over and over if they want to have ***. What this means is that one can withdraw consent at any time during sexual acts. If she says yes, she wants to come back to your apartment, but changes her mind about engaging in ***, then you have to stop or it's rape. If you're in the middle of penetration, and she says she wants to stop, then you must stop. If you are doing something, and you want to switch to something else, you have to communicate it. Meaning, a woman can't tie up a man and just go shoving dildos where she wants them. While personal relationships may be fine with "I'm gonna try something," not all are, and you shouldn't assume that your partner is immediately down for whatever. Communicate.

3. Consent is not valid if the party in question was drunk, drugged, or otherwise incapable of evaluation the situation or expressing whether or not they want to have ***. Meaning, if someone is unconscious, it's rape. If you meet someone who is drunk out of their mind, and you have *** with them, they can file rape charges. If you get someone drunk with the intention of their intoxicated state making them more likely to perform sexual acts with or on you, then that's rape.

SlimReaper is against this law because he doesn't understand the concept that a drugged person cannot give consent, that you can get consent from sober people, and that normal human beings have the ability to restrain themselves sexually because the safety of others is more important than his orgasms.

The first one is wrong as i've proven. You are manufacturing rapists. This is the hypocritical argument you're making. You are assuming that body language and actions of a girl are enough to give you a yes, while at the same time saying that if she just goes along with it it's rape. Women have a responsibility to let you know that your advances aren't welcomed. If they don't, it isn't rape because you didn't even give the guy a chance to not rape you. You gave him no idea that his advances weren't welcomed.

2. Why don't women get excused from drunk driving laws then? Any lawyer would shit all over this argument. Unconscious and really drunk are different. While in a state of consciousness, women are responsible for their actions. Unless you force feed someone alcohol or slip them pills, you can't "get someone drunk".

Drunk people do have a responsibility for the dumb decisions they make. Live with it