Here's the story.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/toronto/teen-girl-was-too-drunk-to-consent-to-sex-at-beach-party-toronto-judge-rules/article34929177/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe (http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/toronto/teen-girl-was-too-drunk-to-consent-to-sex-at-beach-party-toronto-judge-rules/article34929177/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe)
Two teens have sex after a beach party where alcohol gets consumed. Boy gets charged. What's Languish's take?
A teenage girl who was in and out of consciousness and had vomited on herself was too drunk to consent to unprotected sex with another intoxicated teen at a beach party last year, a Toronto judge said in finding the boy guilty of sexual assault.
Both teens had been drinking with friends for some time and had kissed briefly that April 2016 night, and the boy, who was 15 at the time, testified the girl then asked him to have sex with her by some rocks, according to court documents.
She, on the other hand, recalled little of the evening and only learned what happened through text messages and social media the next morning, the documents said.
Friends testified during trial that the girl, who was 14 at the time, was drunk to the point of having difficulty walking and talking, with one friend expressing concern she would choke on her own vomit, it said.
The boy was also drunk but not as much, they testified. He told the court he did not believe alcohol had affected his behaviour but noted a friend had commented on his level of intoxication, the documents said.
In a decision released last week, Justice Kimberley Crosbie said she rejected the boy's version of events and his assertion that he did not believe the girl was too drunk to consent to sex.
The boy was "either reckless or wilfully blind to (the girl's) lack of capacity to consent," Crosbie said.
"They drank while walking to the streetcar and while on the streetcar. Further, when they got to the beach and soon thereafter sat down near the bonfire, they continued drinking. It is simply not possible that he was unaware that she was drinking a lot of alcohol," she said.
What's more, at the time when he claimed to be having consensual sex with her, the girl was in and out of consciousness and had already thrown up, the judge said.
"In these circumstances, it is incumbent on a person to ascertain that they actually do have a voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question," she said.
Instead, the boy "forged ahead, knowing there existed a danger or risk that she was too drunk," Crosbie said. "Further, he was aware of a need for some inquiry but he did not wish to pursue the truth – he preferred to remain ignorant."
Neither teenager can be identified under law.
Court heard the teens and their friends pooled their money and asked strangers to buy them alcohol at the LCBO, according to the documents. They then made their way to an east-end beach, where they joined a group of older teens at a bonfire.
The boy and the girl had known each other for a few months but weren't close, court heard. They talked at the bonfire and kissed a bit, the documents said.
The girl did not testify at trial but her interview with police was entered as evidence. In it, the girl said she could remember a shadowy figure she believed to be the boy approach her and she thought they had kissed. The next memory she had was of pulling up her pants and seeing him walk away, she told police.
The following morning, the girl woke up to a text message telling her that she and the boy had "had sex," court heard.
She called out to her mother, and the two went to the hospital, court heard. After talking with her mother, the girl decided to file a report with police, which led to charges against the boy.
Don't have sex with someone who is black-out drunk. It's not complicated.
I agree with the judge. A reasonable person should conclude that it is next to impossible to obtain clear consent from the girl under the circumstances. Therefore, he should refrain from having sex with the girl until clear consent can be established. That he went ahead anyway suggested that he tried to take advantage of her.
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 09, 2017, 07:44:50 AM
Don't have sex with someone who is black-out drunk. It's not complicated.
Since that wasn't the case here, whether your scenario is complicated or not is moot.
Situations like this are complicated by a number of factors. Is it possible to establish mens rea in a case like this? Is the girl really not at all legally responsible for the situation she found herself in (it's legally all the guy's fault)? Is there more evidence than presented here that allowed the judge to reject any reasonable doubt that he thought he was engaged in lawful sex?
My reaction to the guilty verdict is different if this is a juvenile conviction; I think it might be salutatory. If this is an adult judgement, then I think it is extreme.
WTF is a 14-year-old girl doing getting blind drunk in any case? Aren't there people who have some legal obligation to care for her and try to make sure that she isn't involved in such activities? Same for a 15-year-old boy.
As an aside, the judge sounds like an absolute ass. I hate judges that deliver sermons rather than verdicts. I find myself doubting their ability to be dispassionate about their judgments.
Though I agree with not having sex with people who are black out drunk there's too much power with women in these situations. Way too easy for them to call rape if they have buyers remorse.
Not sure of a decent solution though. A bit harsh to blood test the girl if she has just been raped. And what if the guy was also black out drunk.
A considered and reasoned decision, I think that's all you can ask for of a judge.
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 08:07:54 AM
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
His own testimony removed the possibility that the judge could find he was too intoxicated to be culpable.
QuoteHe told the court he did not believe alcohol had affected his behaviour
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2017, 08:09:05 AM
Is the girl really not at all legally responsible for the situation she found herself in (it's legally all the guy's fault)?
:huh:
You would have a judge rule that if a 14 year old girl gets drunk she takes the risk of having sex without consenting to it?
wow, just wow.
Decision seems reasonable based on the version of the facts reported.
The boy claimed he wasn't incapacitated by booze; the evidence apparently shows that the girl was. Therefore, he had the requisite capacity for mens rea and she lacked the capacity to give consent: therefore, he's guilty.
Could be that the facts as reported aren't correct. Assuming that they are, the verdict seems reasonable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2017, 08:19:59 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2017, 08:09:05 AM
Is the girl really not at all legally responsible for the situation she found herself in (it's legally all the guy's fault)?
:huh:
You would have a judge rule that if a 14 year old girl gets drunk she takes the risk of having sex without consenting to it?
wow, just wow.
:huh: This is the only interpretation you could place on my comment, and you claim to be a lawyer?
Wow. Just wow.
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2017, 08:09:05 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 09, 2017, 07:44:50 AM
Don't have sex with someone who is black-out drunk. It's not complicated.
Since that wasn't the case here, whether your scenario is complicated or not is moot.
Situations like this are complicated by a number of factors. Is it possible to establish mens rea in a case like this? Is the girl really not at all legally responsible for the situation she found herself in (it's legally all the guy's fault)? Is there more evidence than presented here that allowed the judge to reject any reasonable doubt that he thought he was engaged in lawful sex?
My reaction to the guilty verdict is different if this is a juvenile conviction; I think it might be salutatory. If this is an adult judgement, then I think it is extreme.
WTF is a 14-year-old girl doing getting blind drunk in any case? Aren't there people who have some legal obligation to care for her and try to make sure that she isn't involved in such activities? Same for a 15-year-old boy.
As an aside, the judge sounds like an absolute ass. I hate judges that deliver sermons rather than verdicts. I find myself doubting their ability to be dispassionate about their judgments.
Girl was in and out of consciousness and had vomited on herself. Sounds like "black out drunk" to me.
It is possible to establish mens rea. For policy reasons Parliament has ruled that voluntary intoxication can not negate mens rea - you are responsible for your own actions after consuming alcohol or drugs.
Personally, girl definitely did put herself in a vulnerable situation. If I were her parent or guardian, I would have a long chat with her. That however in no way reduces the guilt of the accused. It may be foolish to leave your front door unlocked, but that doesn't make it okay to come in and burgle your stuff while you're out.
This would be a youth court decision given the ages involved. Sentences are wildly different than adult court. That being said the standard for a finding of guilt is exactly the same.
The quotes attributed to Justice Crosbie sound perfectly reasonable to me. Judges have an obligation to explain their verdict and not just blankly say "guilty".
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2017, 09:46:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2017, 08:19:59 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2017, 08:09:05 AM
Is the girl really not at all legally responsible for the situation she found herself in (it's legally all the guy's fault)?
:huh:
You would have a judge rule that if a 14 year old girl gets drunk she takes the risk of having sex without consenting to it?
wow, just wow.
:huh: This is the only interpretation you could place on my comment, and you claim to be a lawyer?
Wow. Just wow.
Ok, keep digging. What legal liability do you think the girl should have in this context?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2017, 08:19:59 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 08:07:54 AM
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
His own testimony removed the possibility that the judge could find he was too intoxicated to be culpable.
Is a 15 year old boy qualified to testify on his own judgement while intoxicated?
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2017, 09:49:37 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2017, 08:19:59 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 08:07:54 AM
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
His own testimony removed the possibility that the judge could find he was too intoxicated to be culpable.
Is a 15 year old boy qualified to testify on his own judgement while intoxicated?
That was his testimony and there does not appear to be any evidence led by the Defense to suggest his level of intoxication impaired his ability to make his own assessment. There may be cases where that is true but apparently this was not one of them. Judges have to makes decisions based on the evidence presented to them, not on what might be the case.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2017, 09:48:14 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2017, 08:09:05 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 09, 2017, 07:44:50 AM
Don't have sex with someone who is black-out drunk. It's not complicated.
Since that wasn't the case here, whether your scenario is complicated or not is moot.
Situations like this are complicated by a number of factors. Is it possible to establish mens rea in a case like this? Is the girl really not at all legally responsible for the situation she found herself in (it's legally all the guy's fault)? Is there more evidence than presented here that allowed the judge to reject any reasonable doubt that he thought he was engaged in lawful sex?
My reaction to the guilty verdict is different if this is a juvenile conviction; I think it might be salutatory. If this is an adult judgement, then I think it is extreme.
WTF is a 14-year-old girl doing getting blind drunk in any case? Aren't there people who have some legal obligation to care for her and try to make sure that she isn't involved in such activities? Same for a 15-year-old boy.
As an aside, the judge sounds like an absolute ass. I hate judges that deliver sermons rather than verdicts. I find myself doubting their ability to be dispassionate about their judgments.
Girl was in and out of consciousness and had vomited on herself. Sounds like "black out drunk" to me.
It is possible to establish mens rea. For policy reasons Parliament has ruled that voluntary intoxication can not negate mens rea - you are responsible for your own actions after consuming alcohol or drugs.
This is the part I don't get.
If you are responsible for your own actions, then how is SHE not responsible for consenting to sex while drunk?
I don't understand this - if two drunk people have sex, how is it that only one of them is responsible for the actions they both engaged in, presuming she wasn't actively saying "NO" or making it clear she did not wish to have sex?
I am not trying to place the blame on her, I am just trying to understand how there can be what looks like such an obvious double LEGAL standard here.
The law says you are responsible for having sex with a woman while drunk. OK, I get that.
The law says that you cannot consent to sex with a man while drunk. OK, I am ok with that as well.
I just don't know how they work together in a reasonable manner.
If he had said he was drunk and didn't remember anything, does that change the outcome? According to your rule above, it does not. He is still responsible.
If she had said she was drunk, and DID remember agreeing to sex, does THAT change anything? According to the rule about not being capable of consent while drunk, it would seem that would not change anything either.
So in a situation where both people are drunk, and they have sex, have they both committed a rape?
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 07:36:50 AM
Two teens have sex after a beach party where alcohol gets consumed. Boy gets charged. What's Languish's take?
1) European posters are more tolerant and dismissive of rape
2) grumbler is contrarian, even when it comes to judges
3) there is apparently a legal equivalence between committing a crime and being a victim of crime
4) Ed would bang anybody covered in their own vomit, because that's his thing
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2017, 09:49:37 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2017, 08:19:59 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 08:07:54 AM
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
His own testimony removed the possibility that the judge could find he was too intoxicated to be culpable.
Is a 15 year old boy qualified to testify on his own judgement while intoxicated?
There is no one more qualified to talk about his intoxication. It's his own body. Of course such evidence should be viewed with caution.
It's an issue that comes up in, oh, I dunno, 60-70% of my cases. I have to ask my witnesses "so, how drunk were you?" There's no great way to answer that though. Sometimes I'll use "On a scale from 1 to 10...". Sometimes "would you say you were safe to drive". Generally people de-emphasize their level of intoxication (or don't like to admit how drunk they were).
But evidence of intoxication is pretty important, and a person really is the best one to be able to assess their own level of intoxication.
I am not sure how much that applies to someone not at all familiar with being intoxicated though, like some 15 year old kid.
what Berkut asks is the conundrum I see with cases like this.
If, for instance, the defence maintains that the boy also vomited once or twice, does that legally absolve him, like it does her.
It is a worrying situation for anyone who goes to a bar to pick women up. Alcohol always plays a part in that.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2017, 09:55:06 AM
This is the part I don't get.
If you are responsible for your own actions, then how is SHE not responsible for consenting to sex while drunk?
I don't understand this - if two drunk people have sex, how is it that only one of them is responsible for the actions they both engaged in, presuming she wasn't actively saying "NO" or making it clear she did not wish to have sex?
I am not trying to place the blame on her, I am just trying to understand how there can be what looks like such an obvious double LEGAL standard here.
The law says you are responsible for having sex with a woman while drunk. OK, I get that.
The law says that you cannot consent to sex with a man while drunk. OK, I am ok with that as well.
I just don't know how they work together in a reasonable manner.
If he had said he was drunk and didn't remember anything, does that change the outcome? According to your rule above, it does not. He is still responsible.
If she had said she was drunk, and DID remember agreeing to sex, does THAT change anything? According to the rule about not being capable of consent while drunk, it would seem that would not change anything either.
So in a situation where both people are drunk, and they have sex, have they both committed a rape?
The law in this area is less than fully satisfying, as their are several competing policy objectives at play.
People are able to be drunk and consent to sex. Otherwise college campuses and nightclubs would be the source of multiple rapes per night. The law (and this case was from Canada so I'll talk about Canadian law thank you very much Seedy) is not that your capacity to consent is reduced - it is when you are
unable to give consent that it becomes a crime. Given my post above there's no firm line where 'unable to consent' exists, but it's generally when a person is no longer conscious.
There was a case 20-30 years ago (R v Daviault) where the SCC actually held that an Accused was not guilty of a sexual assault because he was so grossly intoxicated he couldn't form the requisite mens rea. This was met with much popular outrage, and so the Criminal Code was amended such that self-induced intoxication can never negate mens rea. The reasoning is simply that if you chose to drink (or do drugs) to that level of intoxication it's your own damn fault and you're responsible for what you do. It's in some ways a legal fiction - a court might otherwise have held the person not guilty, but the reasoning seems sound on public policy grounds.
And yes - if the girl says she remembered agreeing to have sex, that would no longer be sexual assault.
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 10:25:17 AM
what Berkut asks is the conundrum I see with cases like this.
If, for instance, the defence maintains that the boy also vomited once or twice, does that legally absolve him, like it does her.
It is a worrying situation for anyone who goes to a bar to pick women up. Alcohol always plays a part in that.
Two separate thoughts:
-if you have sex with a drunk woman who you think will regret it once she's sober you're a cad. But it's not illegal.
-it's only once you're having sex with a girl so out of it she's unable to know what's happening to her that it becomes a crime.
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 10:25:17 AM
what Berkut asks is the conundrum I see with cases like this.
If, for instance, the defence maintains that the boy also vomited once or twice, does that legally absolve him, like it does her.
It is a worrying situation for anyone who goes to a bar to pick women up. Alcohol always plays a part in that.
I think that the line is pretty hardcore and not usually a problem - that is, drunkenness to the point of being
incapable of giving consent.
The reverse of the coin isn't usually at issue - someone drunk to that extent isn't capable of affirmatively committing a sexual act (because you can't actively have sex if you are in effect unconscious).
Thus, a "double standard" situation - two drunk people have sex, both are somehow guilty of sexual assault - ought never to happen. If they were both drunk enough, no sex should occur, because they would both be basically passed out (perhaps in a shared pool of vomit - how romantic! :D ).
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2017, 10:34:41 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 10:25:17 AM
what Berkut asks is the conundrum I see with cases like this.
If, for instance, the defence maintains that the boy also vomited once or twice, does that legally absolve him, like it does her.
It is a worrying situation for anyone who goes to a bar to pick women up. Alcohol always plays a part in that.
I think that the line is pretty hardcore and not usually a problem - that is, drunkenness to the point of being incapable of giving consent.
The reverse of the coin isn't usually at issue - someone drunk to that extent isn't capable of affirmatively committing a sexual act (because you can't actively have sex if you are in effect unconscious).
Thus, a "double standard" situation - two drunk people have sex, both are somehow guilty of sexual assault - ought never to happen. If they were both drunk enough, no sex should occur, because they would both be basically passed out (perhaps in a shared pool of vomit - how romantic! :D ).
OK, that is an important distinction.
I thought it was basically saying that someone who is hammered, and says "I totally want to bang you, lets go!" is NOT giving legal consent, as they are not able to consent.
But it is really about the actual physical incapability to consent, not the idea that the consent is given but ought to be ignored (like say a 10 year old consenting to sex with a 30 year old - that "consent" is not meaningful).
So someone drunk off their ass can in fact give consent.
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 08:07:54 AM
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
Or, that he was pretty drunk too, and thus also not able to give consent. (not in this case because of his statement, but in general)
If both people are too drunk to give consent are they assaulting each other, legally speaking? I'm fairly certain they're not, but I'm not sure of the mechanism for that.
So someone who is impaired to the point of being unable to legally operate a motor vehicle safely can still legally consent to sexual activity when impaired to a debilitating degree.
How trivializing. Then again it's the victimization of women we're talking about, and they're all cunts and whores.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 10:58:00 AM
So someone who is impaired to the point of being unable to legally operate a motor vehicle safely can still legally consent to sexual activity when impaired to a debilitating degree.
How trivializing. Then again it's the victimization of women we're talking about, and they're all cunts and whores.
HOw else are you going to do it?
The respectable way. You pay them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 10:58:00 AM
So someone who is impaired to the point of being unable to legally operate a motor vehicle safely can still legally consent to sexual activity
How is that even remotely similar?
It doesn't take much intoxication to reduce my reaction time and judgement enough to make me a dangerous driver.
I would be pretty fucking pissed off if I had a couple drinks and suddenly was not allowed to have sex because someone like you decided you know better than I do whether or not I am capable of giving consent with a nice buzz going.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 10:58:00 AM
Then again it's the victimization of women we're talking about, and they're all cunts and whores.
You know, you make this statement an order of magnitude more than anyone on Languish could reasonably be said to imply it...
In Sweden there are constant discussions about raising the bar for consent more and more and making it hard to consent while quite drunk. I don't see anything particularly strange about two people both going to jail for rape in such a situation. I'd find that law not to be awesome but laws don't have to be.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2017, 11:14:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 10:58:00 AM
So someone who is impaired to the point of being unable to legally operate a motor vehicle safely can still legally consent to sexual activity
How is that even remotely similar?
It doesn't take much intoxication to reduce my reaction time and judgement enough to make me a dangerous driver.
I would be pretty fucking pissed off if I had a couple drinks and suddenly was not allowed to have sex because someone like you decided you know better than I do whether or not I am capable of giving consent with a nice buzz going.
We're not talking about a "nice buzz going" now are we, Hurricane Berkut? We're discussing lack of consent when incapacitated. But good job dialing it straight to Category 5 as usual. A nice buzz going. Goofball.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2017, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 10:58:00 AM
Then again it's the victimization of women we're talking about, and they're all cunts and whores.
You know, you make this statement an order of magnitude more than anyone on Languish could reasonably be said to imply it...
Then stop using such shitty examples for arguments of equivalency. All it does is turn the misogyny dial up to 11.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2017, 09:48:14 AM
Personally, girl definitely did put herself in a vulnerable situation. If I were her parent or guardian, I would have a long chat with her. That however in no way reduces the guilt of the accused. It may be foolish to leave your front door unlocked, but that doesn't make it okay to come in and burgle your stuff while you're out.
But if you were highly intoxicated and invited your neighbor to come take your stuff, presumably that would have some implication for your neighbor's guilt when charged with stealing it.
I am not arguing for the innocence of the boy; I don't ave the evidence that the judge had. I am merely pointing out that, had the girl not willfully violated the law, no crime would have occurred. That leaves her morally responsible (in some degree) for the crime happening, and I was wondering if the law would penalize her. Apparently not.
QuoteThis would be a youth court decision given the ages involved. Sentences are wildly different than adult court. That being said the standard for a finding of guilt is exactly the same.
That is sorta what i figured, but I wasn't sure that Canada lacked the morally bankrupt political prosecutors we have in the States that try to make every high profile case an adult case. Maybe this kid will learn from some time in custody that getting drunk isn't a great idea.
QuoteThe quotes attributed to Justice Crosbie sound perfectly reasonable to me. Judges have an obligation to explain their verdict and not just blankly say "guilty".
The judge wasn't explaining her decision. She was telling the boy what he thought and preaching to him.
Quote"It is simply not possible that he was unaware that she was drinking a lot of alcohol," she said
Of course it is possible.
Quotenstead, the boy "forged ahead, knowing there existed a danger or risk that she was too drunk," Crosbie said. "Further, he was aware of a need for some inquiry but he did not wish to pursue the truth – he preferred to remain ignorant."
This isn't the language of logic and evidence, this is the language of someone preaching about what another person thought (contrary to what the other person said).
Not everyone objects to that, of course, but I do. Judges who preach make it less likely for the non-religious to accept that the judge is reaching conclusions according to the secular law. I don't expect you to agree; people can have different standards and expectations for judges, and standards and expectations for judges can vary by locality (she'd fit right in in, say, Alabama, I think).
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2017, 12:05:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2017, 09:48:14 AM
Personally, girl definitely did put herself in a vulnerable situation. If I were her parent or guardian, I would have a long chat with her. That however in no way reduces the guilt of the accused. It may be foolish to leave your front door unlocked, but that doesn't make it okay to come in and burgle your stuff while you're out.
But if you were highly intoxicated and invited your neighbor to come take your stuff, presumably that would have some implication for your neighbor's guilt when charged with stealing it.
I am not arguing for the innocence of the boy; I don't ave the evidence that the judge had. I am merely pointing out that, had the girl not willfully violated the law, no crime would have occurred. That leaves her morally responsible (in some degree) for the crime happening, and I was wondering if the law would penalize her. Apparently not.
I really, strongly, disagree that the girl is "morally responsible (in some degree)". She put herself in a very vulnerable position. I guess she even broke the provincial liquor laws (which would be a ticketable offence, nothing more). But the moral culpability rests 100% with the offender.
Quote
QuoteThis would be a youth court decision given the ages involved. Sentences are wildly different than adult court. That being said the standard for a finding of guilt is exactly the same.
That is sorta what i figured, but I wasn't sure that Canada lacked the morally bankrupt political prosecutors we have in the States that try to make every high profile case an adult case. Maybe this kid will learn from some time in custody that getting drunk isn't a great idea.
We can't take youths into adult court at all. What we can theoretically do is give an adult sentence in youth court. In practice it absolutely never happens. Not once in my 13 years have I seen it.
Odds are this kid doesn't see the inside of a jail at all. Probably house arrest. Youth court is VERY different.
QuoteNot everyone objects to that, of course, but I do. Judges who preach make it less likely for the non-religious to accept that the judge is reaching conclusions according to the secular law. I don't expect you to agree; people can have different standards and expectations for judges, and standards and expectations for judges can vary by locality (she'd fit right in in, say, Alabama, I think).
It just doesn't sound religious to me. And I suspect a female youth court judge from Ontario would not fit in at all in Alabama.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 11:42:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2017, 11:14:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 10:58:00 AM
So someone who is impaired to the point of being unable to legally operate a motor vehicle safely can still legally consent to sexual activity
How is that even remotely similar?
It doesn't take much intoxication to reduce my reaction time and judgement enough to make me a dangerous driver.
I would be pretty fucking pissed off if I had a couple drinks and suddenly was not allowed to have sex because someone like you decided you know better than I do whether or not I am capable of giving consent with a nice buzz going.
We're not talking about a "nice buzz going" now are we, Hurricane Berkut? We're discussing lack of consent when incapacitated. But good job dialing it straight to Category 5 as usual. A nice buzz going. Goofball.
No, YOU said "impaired to the extent they cannot legally operate a vehicle" which is not at all incapacitated.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 11:44:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2017, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 10:58:00 AM
Then again it's the victimization of women we're talking about, and they're all cunts and whores.
You know, you make this statement an order of magnitude more than anyone on Languish could reasonably be said to imply it...
Then stop using such shitty examples for arguments of equivalency. All it does is turn the misogyny dial up to 11.
I think you have the dial permanently nailed there. Or rather your indicator only has "11" on it.
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 08:07:54 AM
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
Quote
The boy was "either reckless or wilfully blind to (the girl's) lack of capacity to consent,"
[..]
What's more, at the time when he claimed to be having consensual sex with her, the girl was in and out of consciousness and had already thrown up, the judge said.
1) You can't invoke your own self-induced state to excuse your behavior. Otherwise, you could claim you're not responsible for drunk driving and killing someone because you were so drunk/stoned that you had no idea what you were doing. Although that defense was successfully used in a marijuana case, it has been since overturned.
2) She's passing in and out of consciousness and he's with her the whole night. You're not talking about a girl midly drunk but in an altered state of consciouness because of some strong medication she takes but never told you.
Given these two elements, I agree with the judge. It's a case by case basis when it comes to this. But generally speaking, if you find a girl unsconcious or semi-conscious, it's not a good idea to sleep with her.
Sounds like sexual assault to me. Besides, who wants to have sex with a chick covered in vomit?
Yeah, from the facts reported I don't see anything wrong with the judge's decision.
The girl had vomited and was drifting in and out of consciousness. There's no real possibility of consent there.
Conversely, it seems the boy had a good solid buzz going but was still in a state where he could reasonably be expected to be aware of the girl's state and her inability to give consent. I mean, I understand how a 15 year old boy could be really keen on having sex, and how being drunk would affect his judgment enough to make him think it was okay to ignore the lack of consent - but that does not make him any less guilty.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 09, 2017, 07:44:50 AM
Don't have sex with someone who is black-out drunk. It's not complicated.
Don't have sex with anybody who has been drinking at all unless you really trust them or really want to spend time in prison.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2017, 01:59:54 PM
Besides, who wants to have sex with a chick covered in vomit?
Well, there are some very dark parts of the Internet where that question gets answered ... :blink:
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 02:10:18 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 09, 2017, 07:44:50 AM
Don't have sex with someone who is black-out drunk. It's not complicated.
Don't have sex with anybody who has been drinking at all unless you really trust them or really want to spend time in prison.
I've only anecdotal evidence to rely on but I think chances are lower of being accused if its just man on man.
I've heard about guys who get off on fucking *while* a girl is puking, because of the muscle contractions.
if she's throwing up on herself you know you're doing something wrong and should stop. Kids guilty.
That said, kids these days get a signed waiver like a celeb, it's just safer that way :P
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 08:07:54 AM
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
This is generally not a valid defense in court.
Quote from: HVC on May 09, 2017, 02:58:00 PM
if she's throwing up on herself you know you're doing something wrong and should stop. Kids guilty.
That said, kids these days get a signed waiver like a celeb, it's just safer that way :P
Well we don't know she vomited all over herself and was covered in puke. All we know is she was vomiting. She may have vomited behind a rock, and he didn't see that. Though, if they French kissed, he probably coulda guessed. :lol:
Quote from: Tyr on May 09, 2017, 08:09:40 AM
Though I agree with not having sex with people who are black out drunk there's too much power with women in these situations. Way too easy for them to call rape if they have buyers remorse.
Is this really a common, major problem in society? I believe the vast majority of such cases are never even reported, because the woman will be closely questioned, slut-shamed, and have her testimony doubted.
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 09, 2017, 02:58:00 PM
if she's throwing up on herself you know you're doing something wrong and should stop. Kids guilty.
That said, kids these days get a signed waiver like a celeb, it's just safer that way :P
Well we don't know she vomited all over herself and was covered in puke. All we know is she was vomiting. She may have vomited behind a rock, and he didn't see that. Though, if they French kissed, he probably coulda guessed. :lol:
I was gonna say that a girl leaving to go throw up isn't the best sign either, but kids 15, doubt he lasted long enough for the getting up and leaving part :lol:
I can understand dismissing and distrusting mutual drunk mistakes being prosecuted, and even abhor next day regrets turning into rape allegations, but there's a simple enough line to see that consent isn't valid (or given), and that's a shambling drunk vomiting mess.
Quote from: Solmyr on May 09, 2017, 04:06:43 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 09, 2017, 08:09:40 AM
Though I agree with not having sex with people who are black out drunk there's too much power with women in these situations. Way too easy for them to call rape if they have buyers remorse.
Is this really a common, major problem in society? I believe the vast majority of such cases are never even reported, because the woman will be closely questioned, slut-shamed, and have her testimony doubted.
there was a very high-profile case in Toronto not long ago. Guy was caught on bar and hotel security cams. Looked quite obvious girl was barely conscious. Guy fled to Pakistan, where he was born I think, before sentencing.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2017, 10:12:24 AM
There is no one more qualified to talk about his intoxication. It's his own body.
So if he was accused of DUI, he could just testify that, no, he wasn't drunk and the courts should accept that?
Quote from: Solmyr on May 09, 2017, 04:03:09 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 08:07:54 AM
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
This is generally not a valid defense in court.
Legally 15 year olds cannot consent to sex. Legally drunk people cannot consent to sex. So it is kind of weird that he is not at all responsible for having sex under every single other scenario except this one. I mean so long as we are going for court based talk.
Which is why I presume he was convicted as a juvenile which would make sense.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2017, 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 07:36:50 AM
Two teens have sex after a beach party where alcohol gets consumed. Boy gets charged. What's Languish's take?
1) European posters are more tolerant and dismissive of rape
2) grumbler is contrarian, even when it comes to judges
3) there is apparently a legal equivalence between committing a crime and being a victim of crime
4) Ed would bang anybody covered in their own vomit, because that's his thing
Keep me out of your sexual fantasies.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 06:02:33 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 09, 2017, 04:03:09 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 08:07:54 AM
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
This is generally not a valid defense in court.
Legally 15 year olds cannot consent to sex. Legally drunk people cannot consent to sex. So it is kind of weird that he is not at all responsible for having sex under every single other scenario except this one. I mean so long as we are going for court based talk.
Which is why I presume he was convicted as a juvenile which would make sense.
age of consent is 16 years old, but with a 5 years limits. So 15-15 years old sex can both legally consent to sex. A 22 year old a and a 14 year old, it would be presumed rape.
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2017, 05:18:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2017, 10:12:24 AM
There is no one more qualified to talk about his intoxication. It's his own body.
So if he was accused of DUI, he could just testify that, no, he wasn't drunk and the courts should accept that?
Well if there is an instrument that scientifically measured the amount of alcohol in his body, well no.
Sometimes though we run drunk driving charges without such a scientific analysis. In those cases often the Accused takes the stand to say "no, I wasn't really drunk, I was just stumbling because I was really dizzy from an ear infection". And the judge may or may not accept that evidence.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 06:02:33 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 09, 2017, 04:03:09 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2017, 08:07:54 AM
Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.
This is generally not a valid defense in court.
Legally 15 year olds cannot consent to sex. Legally drunk people cannot consent to sex. So it is kind of weird that he is not at all responsible for having sex under every single other scenario except this one. I mean so long as we are going for court based talk.
Which is why I presume he was convicted as a juvenile which would make sense.
15 year olds absolutely can consent to sex. As long as it is someone roughly their same age (depending on precise local laws). Hell in Canada up until a few years ago the age of consent for unrestricted sex was 14, so a 15 year old could sleep with basically anyone not related to them or not their teacher.
If someone is so drunk that she's essentially a living blowup doll, then yeah, that's rape. That said, the "you may think you're capable of consenting, but we know better what your little pretty head is capable of" cases are hurting the legitimacy of rape prosecutions, as the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Lots of things are scummy and disgusting but not decades of prison time and lifetime of registry kind of scummy and disgusting.
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2017, 10:06:47 PM
If someone is so drunk that she's essentially a living blowup doll, then yeah, that's rape. That said, the "you may think you're capable of consenting, but we know better what your little pretty head is capable of" cases are hurting the legitimacy of rape prosecutions, as the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Lots of things are scummy and disgusting but not decades of prison time and lifetime of registry kind of scummy and disgusting.
*like*
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2017, 06:02:33 PM
Legally 15 year olds cannot consent to sex.
Not true in Canada.
Quote from: Department of Justice
For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity will be considered a criminal offence. There is a narrow exception for couples who were married before 2015, and one of the spouses was under the age of 16 at the time of the marriage.
There is also a "closeinage" exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html
Swedish age of consent is 15.
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:39:34 PM
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
My male outrage was leading me to this same conclusion, but on the other hand how can you get a woodie and stick it in a vagina without consenting?
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:39:34 PM
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
Sure that hypothetical scenario gets rolled out all the time, but that wasn't the case here.
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:39:34 PM
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
I'm pretty sure that if a guy is blackout drunk and unable to give consent, and a girl who is slightly drunk but able to make decisions has sex with him, she will be considered the guilty one. At least, if your laws are those of a normal country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2017, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:39:34 PM
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
My male outrage was leading me to this same conclusion, but on the other hand how can you get a woodie and stick it in a vagina without consenting?
Yi never got hard in his sleep. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2017, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:39:34 PM
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
My male outrage was leading me to this same conclusion, but on the other hand how can you get a woodie and stick it in a vagina without consenting?
We're talking legal requirements for consent, not consent in a more casual, informal meaning. It's certainly not impossible to be able to get an erection while being too intoxicated to give legal consent. Sure, some guys can't get it up when they're drunk, but others can. For that matter, ever woke up, not from a drunken stupor, but just from a normal sleep with wood? (Anecdotally, I actually had a guy tell me about one time on a camping trip or something, he woke up and some chick was riding him. He didn't mind, but technically under current laws, that probably would be rape. But there's that double standard thing again--if he had minded and gone to the police, you think the girl would have even been prosecuted successfully? I very much doubt it. Most cops would probably just laugh at him; if they did investigate, few prosecutors would actually file charges, because even if a given prosecutor wasn't applying a double standard, he'd know that getting a jury to convict in such a case would be very, very unlikely.)
Quote from: Solmyr on May 10, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:39:34 PM
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
I'm pretty sure that if a guy is blackout drunk and unable to give consent, and a girl who is slightly drunk but able to make decisions has sex with him, she will be considered the guilty one. At least, if your laws are those of a normal country.
See my previous post. That might be what the laws on the books technically say, but do you really think any girl is going to get convicted under them?
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on May 10, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:39:34 PM
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
I'm pretty sure that if a guy is blackout drunk and unable to give consent, and a girl who is slightly drunk but able to make decisions has sex with him, she will be considered the guilty one. At least, if your laws are those of a normal country.
See my previous post. That might be what the laws on the books technically say, but do you really think any girl is going to get convicted under them?
Why wouldn't she be? If cops or prosecutors dismiss such cases when a man is raped, that's not a problem with the legal system, that's a problem with a culture of toxic masculinity claiming that a man cannot be raped.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2017, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:39:34 PM
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
My male outrage was leading me to this same conclusion, but on the other hand how can you get a woodie and stick it in a vagina without consenting?
Same way you can suck dick without consenting, impairment nullifies consent (not nullify in the legal sense, which I think has a specific meaning, I just like the word :D )
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2017, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:39:34 PM
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
My male outrage was leading me to this same conclusion, but on the other hand how can you get a woodie and stick it in a vagina without consenting?
Viagra? Coke?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2017, 01:43:54 PM
My male outrage was leading me to this same conclusion, but on the other hand how can you get a woodie and stick it in a vagina without consenting?
It's doable, but I reckon it's less likely to happen in the wild than the inverse.
But the body can respond to physical stimuli, without the mind being on board (or even conscious).
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2017, 03:32:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2017, 01:43:54 PM
My male outrage was leading me to this same conclusion, but on the other hand how can you get a woodie and stick it in a vagina without consenting?
It's doable, but I reckon it's less likely to happen in the wild than the inverse.
But the body can respond to physical stimuli, without the mind being on board (or even conscious).
Indeed, I think I had already posted about that before. Say they stimulate you and get on top of you while you are asleep/passed out.
edit: And in my case, Languish judged in 2012 that I'd been sexually assaulted.
Sexual assault doesn't require the guy to be hard, of course.
Pass out drunk: wake up to find someone sucking your cock - that counts.
Coercion is also a thing
Quote from: katmai on May 10, 2017, 04:08:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 10, 2017, 01:55:25 PM
Yi never got hard in his sleep. :(
TMI?
I've had exactly one wet dream in my life. It was awesome. :)
only one?
:console:
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2017, 12:44:35 PM
Not true in Canada.
Woah. Crazy.
Fair enough.
My point still stands that he is a kid and I hope he was treated as one.
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2017, 03:44:49 PM
Sexual assault doesn't require the guy to be hard, of course.
Pass out drunk: wake up to find someone sucking your cock - that counts.
I heard a story about something like that happenning above a local bar I used to go to. Guy was totally drunk, suddenly wake up with his pants down and another dude licking his butt. Police intervened, but I do not know about the rest of the story. It didn't reach the media for sure, and given how stuff like that spreads quickly in a small town, I guess the victim never pressed charges for fear of ridicule.
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2017, 05:57:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2017, 12:44:35 PM
Not true in Canada.
Woah. Crazy.
Fair enough.
My point still stands that he is a kid and I hope he was treated as one.
Beeb said, back in post 10, that this is likely youth court given the age of the accused and that sentences there are "wildly different" compared to adult court. So I think the answer is probably that he was treated as a kid.
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2017, 05:57:04 PM
My point still stands that he is a kid and I hope he was treated as one.
summary of what BB said: kids (under 18) are always judged as kids, but if the crime is very severe, if they are old enough, they can be given sentences for adults. They are sent to a juvenile detention center until they turn 18, then transfered to a Federal prison.
Severe crimes: multiple murders, rape+murder of a young child, dui+dangerous driving (racing)+killing someone are likely to give the kid an adult sentencing, but for a lighter case of rape like this one, with both kids being drunk and partying, this being his first offense, I doubt he'll be branded with the Scarlet letter or the Fornicator sign on the forehead. You're talking a 12 year old torturing, raping and killing a 4 year old, that's a different matter.
Quote from: dps on May 10, 2017, 01:39:34 PM
There's simply a disturbing feeling that the way the laws work, if 2 people get drunk and have sex, then the guy is a rapist because the girl couldn't give consent, even though the guy also couldn't legally give consent, either, so why is he a criminal and not her as well? That doesn't appear to be the situation in this particular case, but the laws seen to allow that sort of double standard. And I'm using (or mis-using) "the laws" to mean not so much what the various laws on the books actually say as much as how those laws are open to being mis-used by the police and prosecutors either through malice or incompetence.
Interesting story I just read.
A Tunisian male student falsely accused of raping a foreign female student. The police never believed the man. They never properly investigated him. They arrested him and recommended the University to suspend him.
The guy never had sex with the girl always refused her. He kept all his Facebook posts where she was harrassing it. The police never wanted/bothered to check it, never believed his claim he was being set up and never slept with the girl.
His defense lawyer printed all of his Facebook messages and brought them to court. The Crown desisted itself.
I'm totaly unsure on how he can resume a normal life after that. Your name and your picture in the local papers with the words "rape" ?
It kind speak to the favorable prejudice women receive in these types of cases.
French link (http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/justice-et-faits-divers/201705/10/01-5096772-un-etudiant-de-lul-faussement-accuse-dagression-sexuelle.php)
Indeed.
IIRC in the UK a woman cannot legally rape a man (assuming no tools) . Rape is still legally classified as penetration.
As to getting a hard on... In rape men get hard, women get wet... It's biology.
As any 14 year old boy will tell you sometimes the little guy just does things without their say so.
I don't think there should be any doubt this particular case was rape.
I was wondering however, did the kid make a mistake not claiming he was so drunk he couldn't remember anything after?
Maybe press counter-rape charges against the girl on that basis?