Oh please. This bull**** notion that people are just innocently asking for evidence is old and tired.
Yes, what happened to the good old days where we simply convicted without it?
What's happening in this thread is an example of how rape victims have been traditionally treated. They report that they've been raped and people question, doubt and interrogate them in the name of ensuring that the accused are protected and not unfairly treated. In other words, people have more concern for the accused than they do for the accuser (the victim). It's sick. It's a part of rape culture that sustains the acceptability of rape in our society and it's rape apologism.
No, we have more concern for the truth. Why should making an allegation be free of questioning? If I accuse you of murder, should we just accept my word for it?
The point is assuming an allegation to be true is not only dangerous, it's also against our very deeply held notions of justice. Just because we question the story told by the rape victim, it does not mean we think she is lying.
She couldn't give legal consent. Period. End of story.
Then neither could the boys, so arrest her for rape.
You're arguing in circles and it's tiresome.
Legally, you can argue all you want about if it is considered rape or sexual assault or the misdemeanor of sexual contact with a minor, but she literally and legally did not have the capability to provide consent and all sexual activity initiated against her would be illegal.
Nonsense. If her alcohol consumption makes her incapable of consent, then the boys consumption makes them incapable of consent. It works both ways.
Also, being drunk is not a legal excuse for the commission of ANY crime.
I've already explained this multiple times. Go read one of those.
A) we all know there are different levels of "drunk".
:lamo
So she was at the level which says she cannot consent, but the boys were at the level which says they could. Got it. Good thing you're remaining unbiased.
B) a young 14 year old girl can get unconsciously drunk while the guy can still be just boisterously drunk. Huge difference.
I agree. Just like a young 17 year old boy can get unconsciously drunk while the woman can just be boisterously drunk.
C) If he was "as drunk as she was" he couldn't have had sex with her.
If she consented and he was as drunk as her, then yes he could.
He would have been passed out
If she was passed out, then she couldn't have consented. We're discussing if she did consent, so we're assuming (for this part of the discussion) she wasn't passed out.
and/or incapable of achieving erection.
I do not recall anything being said about him having an erection or raping with his penis. Everything I've seen has been fingers.
D) No matter how drunk a guy is - he's got no right or justification what-so-ever to put his penis in any hole he can.
Right...women are not responsible for their actions when drunk but guys are.
Double standards at their finest.
E) No matter how drunk a girl is, she doesn't deserve to be violated.
Agreed, and have from the beginning. Where we differ is on the point of whether it's consider being violated if you agree to it.
I'm saying a full-on investigation, and an honest trial are warranted. Obviously the investigation needs to be done by agencies outside of this podunk-backwards-ass mid-western hell hole.
And I'm saying a trial is not an investigation and should never be considered as one. You keep yelling about a trial, but a trial is only after investigation shows the prosecutor there is a real likelihood of conviction.
Actually "the drunk argument" does have a place given that there are different degrees of intoxication.
Ahh...so these boys are just naturally rapists? Or would you say their degree of intoxication was so great it put them to actions they would not normally do?
No, the drunk argument has no place.