Judges coming out against "yes means yes"

[slimreaper]

I cited your Senate Bill No. 967.

This is what I said in the post you quoted:

"(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.
(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.
(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition."​

You must be registered for see links

Your constitution already made sure that the investigation follows the due procedure. The bill doesn't tough that process. I told you the first time around it would happen. You were complaining earlier because you didn't understand the law. And you are getting elated over nothing. It as bound to happen.

All of this is illegal under no means no( except the part about drunk consent (note drunk and incapacitated are different words with different meanings)).

The difference is the need for the defendant to provide evidence of affirmative consent once this accusation gets to court, violates the defendant's constitutional rights. In particular "innocent until proven guilty".

Basicallt the defendant could show up to court butt naked with no lawyer and he's still innocenr until the plaintiff's lawyer proves him guilty without a shadow of a doubt ( or mostly guilty in civil cases and college investigations)

 

[Avani]

All of this is illegal under no means no( except the part about drunk consent (note drunk and incapacitated are different words with different meanings)).

The difference is the need for the defendant to provide evidence of affirmative consent once this accusation gets to court, violates the defendant's constitutional rights. In particular "innocent until proven guilty".

Basicallt the defendant could show up to court butt naked with no lawyer and he's still innocenr until the plaintiff's lawyer proves him guilty without a shadow of a doubt ( or mostly guilty in civil cases and college investigations)

That's still the case under this bill too. It's the "consent" in question that has to be 'affirmative', not the "assumption of crime". They are distinct from each other.

 

[Anorien16]

Yea and the domestic abuse victims end up dead. That's a thing too.

Otherwise, good luck proving that in a court of law.

As I said ... No wonder people make tapes.

 

[Avani]

As I said ... No wonder people make tapes.

Yeah.. They make tapes of rape alright. Not that a Nirbhaya will have a chance.

You must be registered for see links

They made tapes and uploaded it online. The town was supporting the rapists since they played for the sports team of the town, and girl was wrong to let herself get drunk anyway.

In another similar case- rapist accepted making a tape but seeing the earlier case they didn't upload it this time. - police never bothered to recover tape. Victim's mom was fired from her job and their home was burned down instead.

Fourteen-year-old Daisy and her 13-year-old friend were both high school freshman in January 2012, when they were invited to a house party by a senior star of the Maryville football team. Once there, the older girl was given a large glass filled with alcohol and urged by a room full of some of the school’s most popular athletes to drink it. She did, and they handed her a second glass.

The following morning, Daisy’s mother discovered her daughter, alone on her front lawn in sub-freezing temperatures, weeping. She helped Daisy into the bathtub after finding her outside, where she noticed reddish, irritated areas around her daughter’s genitalia and buttocks.

Daisy’s mom also found the 13-year-old friend was upstairs in Daisy’s room, also “confused.” Both girls were taken to a hospital. On Daisy’s body, a doctor found small vaginal tears emblematic of someone who has just had ***. The 13-year-old, who remembered the night’s events, told investigators she was forced to have ***, despite saying “no” over and over again.

Eyewitnesses who spoke with the Star, including Daisy’s 13-year-old friend, recall seeing Daisy being carried — crying — by some of the older boys out of the house into a car.

It didn’t take long for police to round up Barnett and other partiers for questioning. Barnett, a 17-year-old defensive end for the Maryville High School football team, admitted to having *** with Daisy but said it was consensual. Jordan Zech, a teammate and standout wrestler for Maryville, admitted to recording some of the encounter on another friend’s iPhone.

Within days, both were arrested in the case. Barnett was facing a felony sexual assault charge and one count of endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor. Zech was also charged, for sexual exploitation of a minor.

But like Steubenville before it, the town of Maryville revolted against the facts in the case.

Days after the incident became public knowledge, students at the high school began attacking Daisy and her family. On social media, fellow Maryville students began threatening Daisy, tweeting that she would “get whats comin.” Daisy’s older brother Charlie, who was himself an athlete for Maryville, was booed by his own classmates during a wrestling meet. Her mother, a veterinarian, was fired from her job two weeks after the incident without so much as an explanation, only later learning that her boss feared that her presence “was putting stress” on her other employees.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Sure... she should have made tape herself...

 

[slimreaper]

That's still the case under this bill too. It's the "consent" in question that has to be 'affirmative', not the "assumption of crime". They are distinct from each other.

Not really

You must be registered for see links

 

[Avani]

Not really

You must be registered for see links

Yes it is- from a legal point of view the "consent" in question has to be 'affirmative', not the "assumption of crime". They are distinct from each other.

And the provisions of the act make it mandatory to report the case to the law enforcement agencies. (

You must be registered for see links

but some people here would prefer)

In a twit yesterday, the holding in Mock v. University of Tennessee was wrongly broadcast as “affirmative consent ruled unconstitutional.” It wasn’t. Chancellor Carol McCoy ruled that shifting the burden under “yes means yes” to the male to prove that he had consent, rather than placing it on the accuser to prove he did not, was unconstitutional.

You must be registered for see links

Thanks for the confirmation-

The blogger agreed with me on the factual point I have been making - that the verdict of court in the case you presented wasn't for the definition of "affirmative consent". Rest is his opinion about the definition and I agree with him to the extent that it's confusing.

 

[Punk Hazard]

SlimReaper doesn't read his own links confirmed

 

[Karna]

You people are arguing just for the **** of it now.

 

[Punk Hazard]

You people are arguing just for the **** of it now.

As opposed to doing what before?

 

[Karna]

As opposed to doing what before?

Discussing if this law is really unnecessary or exploitable and talking some sense into mr slime, what I mean is by now it's obvious that the source of this discomfort in op isn't exactly or only this law, even I can tell that and I think yall arguing can too, but you still keep one-shotting his arguments when they are most likely going to bounce back the same either way, arguing just for the **** of it, maybe I am wrong, in which case you are right and my comment makes no sense.

 

[System001]

It doesn't matter that they are rare, they happen, and that's why this law exists. Simply because it's rare doesn't mean measures to combat it are unnecessary.

Yes, it is rape. Rape is *** with the absence of consent; consent requires both parties have full knowledge of who, where, when and how, which is not the case with alcohol. Repeat that to yourself and copy it in your notebook a few hundred times, and you may begin to comprehend this simple concept.



I'ma have to stop you at the second sentence. Once again, not the same concept. If you drive drunk and kill someone, you are not victim. If you are drunk and someone takes advantage of that and has *** with you, you are the victim. It is that simple because no one is to blame for being raped. Yes, you have a responsibility towards how much alcohol you drink. But look at this way: You know walking into a dark alley late at night is dangerous. You know you can be murdered. So if you are murdered, will the police go "Oh, he CHOSE to go into that alley knowing he could get murdered? Well, we can't arrest the murderer now."? No. It's the same concept.

Since when does hanging out with someone alone mean it has to be ***? Have you never hung out with someone in a platonic manner? You are basically saying "If a guy wants to have ***, don't hang out with him because he's gonna try to have ***." Well, why can't it be that if you know the person you are hanging out with doesn't want to have ***, don't try to have to *** with them? Why is that the person who doesn't want to have *** has give up hanging out platonically with someone they enjoy the company of and not that people should exhibit decency and self-control? You are basically saying "Oh it's okay to just throw yourself at someone, they should have not been there if they didn't want to have someone throw themselves at them."

Your drunk driving is a more fitting analogy than that whole alley thing. lol
You're acting like every guy who has *** with a girl that's consumed some amount of alcohol has had malicious intent, when that simply isn't the case. What if they were both drunk? Is it double rape then? What if she was coming onto him from before she was drunk? What if they were doing shots on a date that they were both really getting into, and she happened to be a lot weaker to alcohol than he was and things continue to heat up further once she's drunk? There's a million and one scenarios, and very few of them involve a sober guy walking into the bar, scanning to see if there's a hottiemcpisseddrunks, and if so exploiting her drunken state to fulfil his own sexual needs in the most creepy and vindictive way possible.

What I'm saying is that putting yourself into that situation in the first place is a bad idea. At the end of the day it'll come down to your word against his, and it'll be really difficult to prove either or. Not to mention just taking a girls word for it isn't the best of ideas (It's a terrible idea actually). You're acting like girls don't lie about this shit. They do, and with increasing frequency at that. For all you know your friend could've been lying through her teeth.

 

[slimreaper]

Yes it is- from a legal point of view the "consent" in question has to be 'affirmative', not the "assumption of crime". They are distinct from each other.

And the provisions of the act make it mandatory to report the case to the law enforcement agencies. (

You must be registered for see links

but some people here would prefer)

You must be registered for see links

Thanks for the confirmation-

The blogger agreed with me on the factual point I have been making - that the verdict of court in the case you presented wasn't for the definition of "affirmative consent". Rest is his opinion about the definition and I agree with him to the extent that it's confusing.

It says the exact words I've been saying this entire time

"Chancellor Carol McCoy ruled that shifting the burden under "yes means yes" to the male to prove that he had consent, rather than placing it on the accuser to prove he did not,(COMMA) was unconstitutional."

You must be registered for see links

The Tennessee court held that it was unconstitutional for the University, under its "yes means yes" standard, to require the male student to establish his own innocence with proof that consent had been given, rather than putting the burden of proof on the accuser or the University as is always the case in both criminal and civil proceedings.

"If both students were too drunk to even remember if intercourse occurred, much less the circumstances under which it happened, it is obviously fundamentally unfair to require only one student but not the other to prove that there was consent," argued Banzhaf.

 

[Avani]

It says the exact words I've been saying this entire time

"Chancellor Carol McCoy ruled that shifting the burden under "yes means yes" to the male to prove that he had consent, rather than placing it on the accuser to prove he did not,(COMMA) was unconstitutional."

You must be registered for see links

The Tennessee court held that it was unconstitutional for the University, under its "yes means yes" standard, to require the male student to establish his own innocence with proof that consent had been given, rather than putting the burden of proof on the accuser or the University as is always the case in both criminal and civil proceedings.

"If both students were too drunk to even remember if intercourse occurred, much less the circumstances under which it happened, it is obviously fundamentally unfair to require only one student but not the other to prove that there was consent," argued Banzhaf.

" for the university" that's the key word.

For a criminal court the criteria, to make a decision, has always been a lot stricter than a civil court or private institutions.