Ched Evans situation

[Otta]

aquarius moon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So if a woman is drunk, so drunk that she is

> having trouble standing up but is still able to

> speak, then consents to sex, then passes out

> afterwards, has no recollection the next

> day...............

>

> Is the man guilty of rape?

Of course he is, because she's passed out. Unless she specifically said she has a weid fetish and likes to be shagged whilst unconscious (which I can't imagine anyone has ever said), then once she's passed out then anything she said before is null and void.

[Loz]

LadyNorwood Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was in a situation once where he changed his mind and I didn't - I was furious and hit him....

I wonder if a guy had have posted a version of this it would have quietly passed by without any comment.

[aquarius moon]

Otta,

I said if she consents but then passes out after she's participated. And in all honesty, what is the difference between passing out and falling asleep?

Maybe this is the problem I'm having with the Ched Evans case. If the woman was THAT drunk, how did she even remember what happened?

There is a very fine line between consenting while under the influence of alcohol and waking up stone cold sober.

[StraferJack]

You never see Catherine Bennett and quids in same room do you

The 'staunch defenders' of the free press attending today's solidarity rally in Paris https://t.co/AU7A7UKGCg

[????]

I read that today and nearly posted a link :)

[????]

she reads the Forum and steals all my best lines

[Otta]

AqM sorry I misunderstood your post.

[aquarius moon]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> AqM sorry I misunderstood your post.

That's ok. So do you kind of agree with me? Or not........?

[LadyDeliah]

She didn't remember. The evidence came from DNA, CCTV and witnesses.

[StraferJack]

I didn't even post the right link. Dolt (me)

[legalbeagle]

Aquarius Moon - Of course he's guilty of rape in the scenario you describe.

If she's so drunk she can hardly stand up? Wouldn't you wonder whether she knew what she was doing and whether she really agreed? Regardless of what she said?

The law certainly says you should.

[aquarius moon]

All I'm saying is that if a woman is drunk but consents & the guy isn't sober either, chances are he will take notice of what she says regardless.

He will just hear a 'yes' and as others have pointed out, there are loads of different levels of intoxication based on a persons ability to tolerate alcohol.

[LadyDeliah]

Lesson here for our sons then, is don't Fuck women who are drunk even if she's asking you to.

Mine already knows this. Probably about time the rest of them were told.

I told my son this years before it became law, because it's only sleazy guys who do that crap.

A decent guy wouldn't even think of it.

[nashoi]

Aaquarious Moon I would read an explanation of the case case law on consent here before anything on this thread.

http://www.academia.edu/4086224/Intoxicated_Consent_in_Rape_Bree_and_Juror_Decision-Making

[LadyDeliah]

nashoi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Aaquarious Moon I would read an explanation of the

> case case law on consent here before anything on

> this thread.

>

> http://www.academia.edu/4086224/Intoxicated_Consen

> t_in_Rape_Bree_and_Juror_Decision-Making

You think you are the only one who bothered to check the legal definition of consent in 8 pages?

[legalbeagle]

Nashoi the law on consent has actually already been explained, including referring readers to CPS Guidelines and academic papers.

AM I understand your point. But it will not be a good defence to say "She was falling over drunk, but she said yes and I wasn't sober so I thought that would do because I wanted to get laid."

In the same way you can't defend yourself from robbing or burgling or assaulting someone on the basis your judgement was impaired through alcohol.

[Otta]

aquarius moon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > AqM sorry I misunderstood your post.

>

>

> That's ok. So do you kind of agree with me? Or

> not........?

I don't know. As you say, it's about fine lines, so guess the jury were best placed to judge which side of the line they were on that night.

[Robert Poste's Child]

An aspect of the case I wasn't aware of before is that there were only ten minutes between the first guy arriving at the hotel with the girl and Evans arriving - he was in a taxi on the way to a police station to give a statement in support of another friend who had been caught up in a fight and as soon as he got his friend's text he diverted the taxi to the hotel. As I said before, it does all seem shockingly predatory.

[Jeremy]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lesson here for our sons then, is don't @#$%&

> women who are drunk even if she's asking you to.

>

> Mine already knows this. Probably about time the

> rest of them were told.

>

> I told my son this years before it became law,

> because it's only sleazy guys who do that crap.

This basically equates to "never have a one-night-stand with someone you meet at a bar/club/party", which tbh is what I'd expect a good parent to say to their child anyway. But whether the parent stuck to those same rules when they were in their twenties is another matter!

[red devil]

I fear ''Blow on this'' will never quite mean the same again...

http://www.ukbreathalysers.com/images/img_products/large/k3-2_300x500.jpg

[Mick Mac]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> An aspect of the case I wasn't aware of before is

> that there were only ten minutes between the first

> guy arriving at the hotel with the girl and Evans

> arriving - he was in a taxi on the way to a police

> station to give a statement in support of another

> friend who had been caught up in a fight and as

> soon as he got his friend's text he diverted the

> taxi to the hotel. As I said before, it does all

> seem shockingly predatory.

I haven't read the judgement - but one very important point to me (Evans conviction v his friends non conviction) is that the girl did not engage with Evans before going to the hotel and therefore didn't (necessarily) agree/intend to be in the hotel with him at all.

It may not make a difference as regards consent to the actual act, but she didn't know and hadn't engaged with Evans, and had not agreed to go to the hotel with him, but had presumably agreed to go to the hotel with the first guy. This may have been relevant to the jury.

I also think the first guy has some responsibility in his role as a facilitator in a similar way to motivators/spectators in "The Accussed" old Jodie Foster movie.

[Robert Poste's Child]

On top of that, according to the records, as soon as Evans joined in the other guy left the room and sat in reception for a few minutes before leaving. Evans called his friend after a few minutes and then himself abandoned the girl in the room, apparently to catch up with him. The report says there was no DNA evidence for rape as neither guy finished what they were doing (paraphrasing slightly but you know what I mean). I wonder if to the jury it may have appeared that Evans interrupted a fairly straightforward, if drunk, encounter and turned it into something nastier.

The court report is interesting reading.

[Otta]

Sounds absolutely vile.

[????]

Anyway, as SJ hasn't, here's my alter ego's angle

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/one-law-for-polanski-another-for-ched-evans

THIS:

Alternatively, if a serious sex conviction should cost a footballer his entire career (along with the professions routinely closed to sex offenders) then a similar vigilance should, surely, be applied to discernible sleazebaggery in any other profession, from whistleblowing to royal work, where clemency might be mistaken for approval

[legalbeagle]

Completely agree there's a great deal of hypocrisy about quids. I suspect part of the trouble is that people like Polanski effectively work for themselves and so are much harder to affect. With Evans, pressure can be brought to bear on an employer who is very affected by bad publicity and so may be inclined not to court that kind of controversy. Polanski, Woody Allen etc get away with it much more. Shouldn't, but do.