California redefines rape for college students

[iamwhatiseem]

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

1) yeah...so...the girl is not a fool, just the guy, who is also drunk....
2) protect himself? Care to define? You mean get a written statement first?
3) So...hate men much?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

No they don't you moron. For a recent example look what happened at Penn St. when the administration covered up Sandusky's behavior.

Civilly they have duty to protect their students:

"The scandal had far-reaching outcomes for the university. The report of an independent investigation commissioned by the PSU board and conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh and his law firm stated that Spanier and Paterno, along with Curley and school vice president Gary Schultz, had known about allegations of child abuse on Sandusky's part as early as 1998, and were complicit in failing to disclose them. In so doing, Freeh stated that the most senior leaders at Penn State showed a "total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims" for 14 years and "empowered" Jerry Sandusky to continue his abuse"

Penn State child sex abuse scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On July 30, 2013, Penn State's ex-president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz and ex-athletic director Tim Curley were ordered by Judge William Wenner to stand trial on charges accusing them of a cover-up."

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

No they don't. For a recent example look what happened at Penn St. when the administration covered up Sandusky's behavior.

Civilly they have duty to protect their students:

"The scandal had far-reaching outcomes for the university. The report of an independent investigation commissioned by the PSU board and conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh and his law firm stated that Spanier and Paterno, along with Curley and school vice president Gary Schultz, had known about allegations of child abuse on Sandusky's part as early as 1998, and were complicit in failing to disclose them. In so doing, Freeh stated that the most senior leaders at Penn State showed a "total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims" for 14 years and "empowered" Jerry Sandusky to continue his abuse"

Penn State child sex abuse scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they appear to be criminally culpable:

"On July 30, 2013, Penn State's ex-president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz and ex-athletic director Tim Curley were ordered by Judge William Wenner to stand trial on charges accusing them of a cover-up."

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

1) yeah...so...the girl is not a fool, just the guy, who is also drunk....
2) protect himself? Care to define? You mean get a written statement first?
3) So...hate men much?

See the PM I wrote you.

 

[justonemorevoice]

As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.

This bill would require these governing boards to adopt policies concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with on-campus and community-based organizations to make services available to victims. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.

Yep, can't see anything wrong with this.

Fortunately for me, I'm very talkative during sex.

Never assume what you're doing is doing what you think it's doing. Always ask.

oh boy. had to read the second sentence twice. LOL. very wise observation.

 

[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.

No they don't you moron. For a recent example look what happened at Penn St. when the administration covered up Sandusky's behavior.

Civilly they have duty to protect their students:

"The scandal had far-reaching outcomes for the university. The report of an independent investigation commissioned by the PSU board and conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh and his law firm stated that Spanier and Paterno, along with Curley and school vice president Gary Schultz, had known about allegations of child abuse on Sandusky's part as early as 1998, and were complicit in failing to disclose them. In so doing, Freeh stated that the most senior leaders at Penn State showed a "total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims" for 14 years and "empowered" Jerry Sandusky to continue his abuse"

Penn State child sex abuse scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On July 30, 2013, Penn State's ex-president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz and ex-athletic director Tim Curley were ordered by Judge William Wenner to stand trial on charges accusing them of a cover-up."

Tell me something, how does an example of a college not involving the police in a criminal investigation negate my argument that colleges think they can refuse to involve the police in a criminal investigation? I, as usual, can't follow the lack of logic you are using.

 

[bripat9643]

As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.

This bill would require these governing boards to adopt policies concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with on-campus and community-based organizations to make services available to victims. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.

Yep, can't see anything wrong with this.

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.

You are truly scary.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No they don't you moron. For a recent example look what happened at Penn St. when the administration covered up Sandusky's behavior.

Civilly they have duty to protect their students:

"The scandal had far-reaching outcomes for the university. The report of an independent investigation commissioned by the PSU board and conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh and his law firm stated that Spanier and Paterno, along with Curley and school vice president Gary Schultz, had known about allegations of child abuse on Sandusky's part as early as 1998, and were complicit in failing to disclose them. In so doing, Freeh stated that the most senior leaders at Penn State showed a "total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims" for 14 years and "empowered" Jerry Sandusky to continue his abuse"

Penn State child sex abuse scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On July 30, 2013, Penn State's ex-president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz and ex-athletic director Tim Curley were ordered by Judge William Wenner to stand trial on charges accusing them of a cover-up."

Tell me something, how does an example of a college not involving the police in a criminal investigation negate my argument that colleges think they can refuse to involve the police in a criminal investigation? I, as usual, can't follow the lack of logic you are using.

That's not surprising since Wry Catcher has never demonstrated the ability to commit logic. He also just proved that he wipes his ass on the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.



Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.

Yep, can't see anything wrong with this.

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.

You are truly scary.

And dishonest.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No they don't you moron. For a recent example look what happened at Penn St. when the administration covered up Sandusky's behavior.

Civilly they have duty to protect their students:

"The scandal had far-reaching outcomes for the university. The report of an independent investigation commissioned by the PSU board and conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh and his law firm stated that Spanier and Paterno, along with Curley and school vice president Gary Schultz, had known about allegations of child abuse on Sandusky's part as early as 1998, and were complicit in failing to disclose them. In so doing, Freeh stated that the most senior leaders at Penn State showed a "total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims" for 14 years and "empowered" Jerry Sandusky to continue his abuse"

Penn State child sex abuse scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On July 30, 2013, Penn State's ex-president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz and ex-athletic director Tim Curley were ordered by Judge William Wenner to stand trial on charges accusing them of a cover-up."

What do obvious criminal offenses have to do with redefining consensual sex to be rape?

 

[boedicca]

Prediction: prostitutes will see a booming business....

 

[bripat9643]

Just get a written agreement.

Consensual Sexual Acts & Confidentiality Agreement | SexAgreement.com

Yeah, and have it notarized.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Nope, they aren't equally culpable in the eyes of the law. Do women ever pay child support?

 

[bripat9643]

Put it all on video. Problem solved.

That's also illegal without consent.

 

[Contumacious]

As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.

.

'Date Rape' on Campus

For generations now, girls, while consenting implicitly to sex, have wanted to assuage their guilt by being able to tell themselves afterward that they had not planned the action, and that they were merely “swept off their feet” by the charm of the guy and/or the magic of the moment. Hence, as all implicitly consenting parties have been long aware, the use of liquor is a marvelous catalyst of this feet-sweeping. Now, along comes our baneful feminist theoreticians who have been able to use their besotted theories to (a) free girls, once and for all, from guilt for their actions, and (b) to load that guilt onto the poor, hapless male population."

.

 

[DriftingSand]

As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.

This bill would require these governing boards to adopt policies concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with on-campus and community-based organizations to make services available to victims. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.

Yep, can't see anything wrong with this.

Leave it to the deranged libs of California. The next phase of this "Big Brother" approach is to define how a man is supposed to look at a woman. He will be required to lower his eyes to the ground and grovel for any attention. He will then be required to beg permission from a butch, campus counselor and plead with her before asking a female student out on a date. Of course, she will construe his request as sexist and will have him expelled. It's coming folks.

 

[Contumacious]

As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.

This bill would require these governing boards to adopt policies concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with on-campus and community-based organizations to make services available to victims. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.

Yep, can't see anything wrong with this.

Leave it to the deranged libs of California. The next phase of this "Big Brother" approach is to define how a man is supposed to look at a woman. He will be required to lower his eyes to the ground and grovel for any attention. He will then require permission from a butch, campus counselor and ask permission from her before asking a woman out on a date. Of course, she will construe his request as sexist and will have him expelled. It's coming folks.

The Dworkin-McKinney axis of femi-nazi evil defines rape as ANY sexual act between a man and a woman.......ANY.

.

 

[DriftingSand]

Put it all on video. Problem solved.

That's also illegal without consent.

With all the laws we currently have on the books I'm pretty sure that you and I (and the rest of America) are doing something illegal right now without even knowing it. I know I think mean thoughts sometimes -- isn't that a "thought crime?"

 

[DriftingSand]

The Dworkin-McKinney axis of femi-nazi evil defines rape as ANY sexual act between a man and a woman.......ANY.

.

LOL. I don't doubt it. Just THINKING about some of the "femi-nazis" I've had the horror of seeing is a form of rape. It's rape of my memory bank.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

No they don't you moron. For a recent example look what happened at Penn St. when the administration covered up Sandusky's behavior.

Civilly they have duty to protect their students:

"The scandal had far-reaching outcomes for the university. The report of an independent investigation commissioned by the PSU board and conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeh and his law firm stated that Spanier and Paterno, along with Curley and school vice president Gary Schultz, had known about allegations of child abuse on Sandusky's part as early as 1998, and were complicit in failing to disclose them. In so doing, Freeh stated that the most senior leaders at Penn State showed a "total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims" for 14 years and "empowered" Jerry Sandusky to continue his abuse"

Penn State child sex abuse scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On July 30, 2013, Penn State's ex-president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz and ex-athletic director Tim Curley were ordered by Judge William Wenner to stand trial on charges accusing them of a cover-up."

Tell me something, how does an example of a college not involving the police in a criminal investigation negate my argument that colleges think they can refuse to involve the police in a criminal investigation? I, as usual, can't follow the lack of logic you are using.

Well, I suppose you're stupid.