California redefines rape for college students

[OriginalShroom]

I have always found it amazing how Men are always responsible for their actions, even when stoned or drunk, but women are not.

Just more of the hypocritical, dual system that is in place.

Women are Equal to men, except when they don't want to be equal to men. Women are able to be trained killers and put into the most elite fighting units of the military, yet they need special laws to protect them from men.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Care to counter my argument, and not just provide your usual baseless snark?

Being drunk is never a defense, it may become a mitigating factor in terms of sentencing (for example day for day credit for entering and completing a substance abuse treatment program) but being drunk is the essential element of drunk driving, felony drunk driving is driving drunk and injuring another person; and, Vehicular Manslaughter when drunk and someone is killed.

Murder is either of the first or second degree and does not apply to driving drunk, for the essential element of either premeditation (in first degree) or the killing of another by intent but without premeditation (as in the second degree) is missing.

Why you persist in exposing your ignorance is enigmatic.

You counter your own point in your response, and you do not even realize it. The very fact that vehicular homicide is a SEPARATE CRIME than regular old fashioned homicide shows that being drunk changes the type of crime committed, and is thus a defense against the base charge. If you are sober and you drive in a wreck-less manner you would be charged with a higher crime than if you were drunk. You INTENDED to drive poorly, and that makes the difference in the sober case.

Wrong, again. Homicide is a generic word and embraces every mode by which the life of one person is taken by another. It maybe lawful, unlawful, justifiable or excusable. The word includes both murder and manslaughter.

Manslaughter is the killing of another without malice and is either voluntary - when the act of killing another is done with a real design and purpose - or involuntary, when the act is caused by some illegal activity but not with any intention to kill which in CA is filed as Vehicular Manslaughter.

There are other technical nuances, degrees of involuntary - first, second, third and fourth but by now you either get the point or never will.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have always found it amazing how Men are always responsible for their actions, even when stoned or drunk, but women are not.

Just more of the hypocritical, dual system that is in place.

Women are Equal to men, except when they don't want to be equal to men. Women are able to be trained killers and put into the most elite fighting units of the military, yet they need special laws to protect them from men.

Who says? In the eyes of the law they are equally culpable. As for your final paragraph, it's clear you're a practicing Misogynist.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have always found it amazing how Men are always responsible for their actions, even when stoned or drunk, but women are not.

Just more of the hypocritical, dual system that is in place.

Women are Equal to men, except when they don't want to be equal to men. Women are able to be trained killers and put into the most elite fighting units of the military, yet they need special laws to protect them from men.

Who says? In the eyes of the law they are equally culpable.

Really?

If a man and woman have drunken sex and the next day she has regrets and makes a sexual assault complaint an investigation is immediately opened and everyone assumes the guy is guilty. Now reverse the situation and say the male is the one who goes and files a complaint against the woman and watch him get laughed out of the room.

Technically, the law may say men and women are equal, but in practice we all know it doesn't work that way.

 

[1751_Texan]

How is requiring affirmative assent going to help rape victims?

maybe this is your problem in believing this legislation would prevent sexual assualt and or "help" rape victims.

Need I go on?

 

[eflatminor]

An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. “Affirmative consent” is a freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in particular sexual activity or behavior...

So let me get this straight. Anytime two people in California are contemplating engaging in a particular sexual act, they must first verbally affirm their intent to do so or face prosecution afterward as a rapist? That's not a slippery slope for even more unfounded accusations of rape or anything...

What next? A signed and notarized document before each sexual act?

"Excuse me, but before I touch you there, can you please sign here and initial here, here, and...here"

I though it was Conservatives that were accused of meddling in people's bedrooms?

Does anyone believe such a law would actually prevent REAL rape?

 

[Plasmaball]

Im not seeing where the op claims what is happening is happening in the bill.

 

[Iceweasel]

Put it all on video. Problem solved.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have always found it amazing how Men are always responsible for their actions, even when stoned or drunk, but women are not.

Just more of the hypocritical, dual system that is in place.

Women are Equal to men, except when they don't want to be equal to men. Women are able to be trained killers and put into the most elite fighting units of the military, yet they need special laws to protect them from men.

Who says? In the eyes of the law they are equally culpable.

Really?

If a man and woman have drunken sex and the next day she has regrets and makes a sexual assault complaint an investigation is immediately opened and everyone assumes the guy is guilty. Now reverse the situation and say the male is the one who goes and files a complaint against the woman and watch him get laughed out of the room.

Technically, the law may say men and women are equal, but in practice we all know it doesn't work that way.

Any guy who has sex with a drunken women or a women on drugs is a fool.
Any guy who engages in a one night stand and doesn't protect himself is a fool.
Yet it is not because the law is biased, it's because there are more male fools than female fools.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have a bad reaction to your meds today, QW?

Did you find actual fault with my argument, or did you just respond by reflex?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No I can't. Maybe you can explain your reservations. I'd be happy to debate you on the issues since I ran a Domestic Violence//Sexual Assault Unit, wrote VAWA Grants, managed said grants and managed units of law enforcement officers/deputies/volunteers and counselors/therapists.

Tell me what troubles you and I'll set you straight.

Are you actually serious? How is requiring affirmative assent going to help rape victims? When did rape stop being an act against someone's will? Do you honestly think required verbal assent before every single stage of sex for every single person who has sex, every single time they do it, is going to reduce actual rape?

I can see it now:

Lisa: Susan, since we are students at UC Berkley there are some things I am required, by law, to do before we get started. *shuffling through a prepared list of questions approved by the government approved Violence Against Women, Men, and Differently Gendered Students"

Susan: We got married today Lisa, we don't have to do this anymore.

L: The law doesn't care if we are married or not, it still requires affirmative consent. Can we kiss?

S: *sighs* I hate this shit, why is the government in the bedroom with us anyway?

L: *reaches for Susan, then remembers the papers in her hand* Can I hug you?

S: *nods*

L: Susan, you have to say it out loud.

S: *bursts into tears, running into the bedroom and slamming the door*
​

Should I go on?

By the way, since you are willing to defend this piece of shit, can you explain what gave California the authority to ignore Lawrence v Texas? Did it get repealed while I wasn't paying attention? do these girls also have to worry about getting arrested for performing lewd and unnatural acts on each other?

Lawrence v. Texas? See: Lawrence v. Texas ? Case Brief Summary

Rape is about power and control. Your head is securely up your ass on most issues, on this it reaches deep into the colon.

I thought you said you were willing to debate me, I guess you lied.

What a surprise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's a novel approach. Since "rape" and "sexual assault" are crimes with legal definitions already, why not remove the college administration and "campus police" entirely from the transaction. If a person believes she (it's always a she) has been assaulted, raped, or otherwise insulted, she should march down to the local police department (or call them up) and file a complaint.

The only things that are gained by having the college injected into the matter is (a) increase the number of people on the college payroll, and (b) minimize embarrassment to the institution, and (c) muddy the water about whether a crime has been committed. And regulations like the one proposed here do nothing to add to the already bad situation.

No college should have ANY jurisdiction where possible crimes have been committed. Period. If a crime has been commited, the police should handle it. If not, the police should handle it anyway. If the victim is too intimidated by the thought of prosecuting the case...why is she any different than a victim who happens not to be enrolled in college?

Does this distinction make any logical sense?

A college campus is not an alternate universe. If someone commits a crime on a college campus, is there any logical reason not to treat it the same way as if it were committed by someone on the other side of town? I don't think so.

Colleges claim that, because they are acting in loco parentis, they have the power to decide whether to involve police.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Being drunk isn't a defense. Being drunk just means what you wanted to do you did lacking any inhibitions against doing so.

Calling it rape if we have consensual sex, and you change your mind three years later, is absurd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's a novel approach. Since "rape" and "sexual assault" are crimes with legal definitions already, why not remove the college administration and "campus police" entirely from the transaction. If a person believes she (it's always a she) has been assaulted, raped, or otherwise insulted, she should march down to the local police department (or call them up) and file a complaint.

The only things that are gained by having the college injected into the matter is (a) increase the number of people on the college payroll, and (b) minimize embarrassment to the institution, and (c) muddy the water about whether a crime has been committed. And regulations like the one proposed here do nothing to add to the already bad situation.

No college should have ANY jurisdiction where possible crimes have been committed. Period. If a crime has been commited, the police should handle it. If not, the police should handle it anyway. If the victim is too intimidated by the thought of prosecuting the case...why is she any different than a victim who happens not to be enrolled in college?

Does this distinction make any logical sense?

A college campus is not an alternate universe. If someone commits a crime on a college campus, is there any logical reason not to treat it the same way as if it were committed by someone on the other side of town? I don't think so.

Campus Police are sworn Police Officers under the California Penal Code. See sec. 830.2 (a), (b) below:

CA Codes (pen:830-832.17)

Yet campus rapes rarely go to actual California courts. Can you explain that, oh he of the infinite ability to defend the government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No I can't. Maybe you can explain your reservations. I'd be happy to debate you on the issues since I ran a Domestic Violence//Sexual Assault Unit, wrote VAWA Grants, managed said grants and managed units of law enforcement officers/deputies/volunteers and counselors/therapists.

Tell me what troubles you and I'll set you straight.

Are you actually serious? How is requiring affirmative assent going to help rape victims? When did rape stop being an act against someone's will? Do you honestly think required verbal assent before every single stage of sex for every single person who has sex, every single time they do it, is going to reduce actual rape?

I can see it now:

Lisa: Susan, since we are students at UC Berkley there are some things I am required, by law, to do before we get started. *shuffling through a prepared list of questions approved by the government approved Violence Against Women, Men, and Differently Gendered Students"

Susan: We got married today Lisa, we don't have to do this anymore.

L: The law doesn't care if we are married or not, it still requires affirmative consent. Can we kiss?

S: *sighs* I hate this shit, why is the government in the bedroom with us anyway?

L: *reaches for Susan, then remembers the papers in her hand* Can I hug you?

S: *nods*

L: Susan, you have to say it out loud.

S: *bursts into tears, running into the bedroom and slamming the door*
​

Should I go on?

No, that rant is enough absurdity to fill my day.

What, precisely, is absurd about it? Am I misrepresenting what the bill says? Did I make the entire thing up? Do I lack a fundamental grasp of the English language? Can you explain what makes your lack of a position right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is requiring affirmative assent going to help rape victims?

maybe this is your problem in believing this legislation would prevent sexual assualt and or "help" rape victims.

Need I go on?

On the other hand, maybe my problem isn't really my problem, maybe it is yours.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Im not seeing where the op claims what is happening is happening in the bill.

Have you tried the novel approach of actually thinking?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Who says? In the eyes of the law they are equally culpable.

Really?

If a man and woman have drunken sex and the next day she has regrets and makes a sexual assault complaint an investigation is immediately opened and everyone assumes the guy is guilty. Now reverse the situation and say the male is the one who goes and files a complaint against the woman and watch him get laughed out of the room.

Technically, the law may say men and women are equal, but in practice we all know it doesn't work that way.

Any guy who has sex with a drunken women or a women on drugs is a fool.
Any guy who engages in a one night stand and doesn't protect himself is a fool.
Yet it is not because the law is biased, it's because there are more male fools than female fools.

Unless he's having sex with himself or another male it's a one to one ratio, so how do you figure?

 

[martybegan]

Who says? In the eyes of the law they are equally culpable.

Really?

If a man and woman have drunken sex and the next day she has regrets and makes a sexual assault complaint an investigation is immediately opened and everyone assumes the guy is guilty. Now reverse the situation and say the male is the one who goes and files a complaint against the woman and watch him get laughed out of the room.

Technically, the law may say men and women are equal, but in practice we all know it doesn't work that way.

Any guy who has sex with a drunken women or a women on drugs is a fool.
Any guy who engages in a one night stand and doesn't protect himself is a fool.
Yet it is not because the law is biased, it's because there are more male fools than female fools.

Its because people are biased, and despite everyone's claim of equality, some people still want special treatment in certain areas along with their equality in others.

Being a fool does not make you automatically a criminal, and this is what the newer standards for universities are doing, without using the criminal justice system or standards of evidence.

 

[martybegan]

Being drunk is never a defense, it may become a mitigating factor in terms of sentencing (for example day for day credit for entering and completing a substance abuse treatment program) but being drunk is the essential element of drunk driving, felony drunk driving is driving drunk and injuring another person; and, Vehicular Manslaughter when drunk and someone is killed.

Murder is either of the first or second degree and does not apply to driving drunk, for the essential element of either premeditation (in first degree) or the killing of another by intent but without premeditation (as in the second degree) is missing.

Why you persist in exposing your ignorance is enigmatic.

You counter your own point in your response, and you do not even realize it. The very fact that vehicular homicide is a SEPARATE CRIME than regular old fashioned homicide shows that being drunk changes the type of crime committed, and is thus a defense against the base charge. If you are sober and you drive in a wreck-less manner you would be charged with a higher crime than if you were drunk. You INTENDED to drive poorly, and that makes the difference in the sober case.

Wrong, again. Homicide is a generic word and embraces every mode by which the life of one person is taken by another. It maybe lawful, unlawful, justifiable or excusable. The word includes both murder and manslaughter.

Manslaughter is the killing of another without malice and is either voluntary - when the act of killing another is done with a real design and purpose - or involuntary, when the act is caused by some illegal activity but not with any intention to kill which in CA is filed as Vehicular Manslaughter.

There are other technical nuances, degrees of involuntary - first, second, third and fourth but by now you either get the point or never will.

Your statement is still wrong, because being drunk is still a defense against stronger charges, due to the lack of men rea.