Incedent at DTD

[FlightlessDuck]

What if he was trashed too and doesn't remember anything either? What if she is the one that forced herself onto him and took advantage of him?

Does that stop people from being convicted if they kill someone in a DUI? Nope.

 

[Squirlz]

Does that stop people from being convicted if they kill someone in a DUI? Nope.

No comparison whatsoever. It is illegal to drive drunk.

 

[Ambear]

No comparison whatsoever. It is illegal to drive drunk.

So it's illegal to drive drunk... even if you don't know you're drunk.

It's not illegal to rape a person while drunk... even if you don't know you're drunk.

Makes sense!

 

[FlightlessDuck]

No comparison whatsoever. It is illegal to drive drunk.

So it's illegal to drive drunk... even if you don't know you're drunk.

It's not illegal to rape a person while drunk... even if you don't know you're drunk.

Makes sense!

Ambear did my work for me.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

This is a tough one. I hope they can find something on the security cameras to indicate whether he was dragging her behind the bar or they were both going of the own free will.

It IS tricky and "own free will" would be even more difficult to judge since she was wasted/drugged whatever. If he wasn't as trashed as she, then he basically took advantage of her IMO. Rape doesn't have to be forceful. I think it's going to be very difficult for this guy to prove it was what is considered consensual. Sad situation all around.

 

[NHdisneylover]

So it's illegal to drive drunk... even if you don't know you're drunk.

It's not illegal to rape a person while drunk... even if you don't know you're drunk.

Makes sense!

I should make it clear that my last response and this one are not about the case at DTD, since we really have no idea what occurred, but about the more general discusssion.

This is not really the same thing at all. If it is "rape" to have sex with someone who is drunk because then the person cannot consent, then if both people are drunk, and neither forces the other in any other way (both consent as much as one can while impaired) essentially BOTH people have committed rape, and it should not be that only one gender is held accountable for that and the other is considered the victim.

A more accurate comparison would be that an adult having sex with a 13 year old would be committing statutory rape. Two 13 year olds who both "consent" and have sex with one another are not committing statutory rape--both are under age and equally unable to consent. (though, I think in some cases only the male does get convicted of this as well).

This does not mean that it is wise for two drunk people or two 13 year olds to have sex--but it means one person is not necessarily the victim when both are equally at the same disadvantage. I mean, that is kind what rape is, right, one party using some advantage (physical strength, being sober when the other is not, being in a position of authority over the other, etc) over the other to "force" (physically, or otherwise) someone into having sex when that is not what they would chose if the other person was not leveraging their advantage. If both parties are drunk, no one has an advantage on the sobriety thing.

 

[PollyannaMom]

It IS tricky and "own free will" would be even more difficult to judge since she was wasted/drugged whatever. If he wasn't as trashed as she, then he basically took advantage of her IMO. Rape doesn't have to be forceful. I think it's going to be very difficult for this guy to prove it was what is considered consensual. Sad situation all around.

I agree it will be difficult, and that it's sad, but I do see two very different scenarios.

If there was any physical force, any threat of force, if he gave her drugs or alcohol she didn't know about, even if he was sober and knew that she was very drunk, I see it as rape.

But if they were both drinking of their own accord, both had too much, and made a stupid decision together, I don't see why that makes him a criminal and her a victim.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I should make it clear that my last response and this one are not about the case at DTD, since we really have no idea what occurred, but about the more general discusssion.

This is not really the same thing at all. If it is "rape" to have sex with someone who is drunk because then the person cannot consent, then if both people are drunk, and neither forces the other in any other way (both consent as much as one can while impaired) essentially BOTH people have committed rape, and it should not be that only one gender is held accountable for that and the other is considered the victim.

A more accurate comparison would be that an adult having sex with a 13 year old would be committing statutory rape. Two 13 year olds who both "consent" and have sex with one another are not committing statutory rape--both are under age and equally unable to consent. (though, I think in some cases only the male does get convicted of this as well).

This does not mean that it is wise for two drunk people or two 13 year olds to have sex--but it means one person is not necessarily the victim when both are equally at the same disadvantage. I mean, that is kind what rape is, right, one party using some advantage (physical strength, being sober when the other is not, being in a position of authority over the other, etc) over the other to "force" (physically, or otherwise) someone into having sex when that is not what they would chose if the other person was not leveraging their advantage. If both parties are drunk, no one has an advantage on the sobriety thing.

I walked away from computer and didn't see this reply before I typed mine. It explains it even better!

 

[dragonrider2014]

Just a quick correction...the law does not say if you are intoxicated it is rape, it is if you are incapacitated. Many drunk people have consensual sex...it is at the point where one is drunk to the point they are considered incapacitated that it becomes rape...and yes, that can be hard to define because incapacitated does not necessarily mean passed out.

 

[aristocatz]

What if he was trashed too and doesn't remember anything either? What if she is the one that forced herself onto him and took advantage of him?

That's a good point. I know nothing about this stuff, but what happens if you have two individuals who are both extremely intoxicated, they have sex, & then in the morning, one party regrets it & accuses the other of taking advantage of them-claims "sexual assault". But they were BOTH drunk-neither one consented. Is the guy still responsible???? I'm not talking about physical injury involved. Does it ever happen that the case is dismissed because both parties were equally too drunk to consent?

ETA: Sorry, I should have read through all the posts before posting-it looks like this is the current discussion it morphed into.

 

[Ambear]

I should make it clear that my last response and this one are not about the case at DTD, since we really have no idea what occurred, but about the more general discusssion.

This is not really the same thing at all. If it is "rape" to have sex with someone who is drunk because then the person cannot consent, then if both people are drunk, and neither forces the other in any other way (both consent as much as one can while impaired) essentially BOTH people have committed rape, and it should not be that only one gender is held accountable for that and the other is considered the victim.

Well... my response is based on the DTD incident this thread is about, at least with the very little we actually know about it. And based on that, it's just very hard to believe two drunk willing participants having sex would result in one blacked out naked and alone. I mean it could totally happen I suppose but it just seems strange that if both were conscious during the act that they didn't finish the job and walk their separate ways or something. Why leave one participant unconscious? That makes me think she blacked out completely during sex, and then she's unable to give consent. And since we all know she has the right to call it off anytime during sex and if he continues then it's rape, her being unable to do so is well.. not looking good for whoever left her there... as unfair as it may seem to some.

That's why we all need sober buddies to watch over us while we get wasted, right? Both for males and females.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Well... my response is based on the DTD incident this thread is about, at least with the very little we actually know about it. And based on that, it's just very hard to believe two drunk willing participants having sex would result in one blacked out naked and alone. I mean it could totally happen I suppose but it just seems strange that if both were conscious during the act that they didn't finish the job and walk their separate ways or something. Why leave one participant unconscious? That makes me think she blacked out completely during sex, and then she's unable to give consent. And since we all know she has the right to call it off anytime during sex and if he continues then it's rape, her being unable to do so is well.. not looking good for whoever left her there... as unfair as it may seem to some.

That's why we all need sober buddies to watch over us while we get wasted, right? Both for males and females.

I agree with what little we do know (assuming anything we are sharing is accurate), it seems likely she was far worse off than him, someone thought to use a condom, and one got dressed and left while the other was not able to dress herself. Certainly if she blacked out, and he kept going, that is rape. Or if she blacked out and he stopped, or it was afterwards but hestill left her without getting help for her, that is wrong--so it does look bad.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

I agree with what little we do know (assuming anything we are sharing is accurate), it seems likely she was far worse off than him, someone thought to use a condom, and one got dressed and left while the other was not able to dress herself. Certainly if she blacked out, and he kept going, that is rape. Or if she blacked out and he stopped, or it was afterwards but hestill left her without getting help for her, that is wrong--so it does look bad.

I wonder why a person who just committed rape would leave a used condom behind, which would contain the DNA evidence needed to show his guilt. It just doesn't make sense to me but I suppose there is a lot about all of this none of us will know or understand.

 

[DizBelle]

I wonder why a person who just committed rape would leave a used condom behind, which would contain the DNA evidence needed to show his guilt. It just doesn't make sense to me but I suppose there is a lot about all of this none of us will know or understand.

We don't know if that used condom was from this event. It will have to be tested first.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

We don't know if that used condom was from this event. It will have to be tested first.

Very true. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I wonder why a person who just committed rape would leave a used condom behind, which would contain the DNA evidence needed to show his guilt. It just doesn't make sense to me but I suppose there is a lot about all of this none of us will know or understand.

I would wonder that too.

Could be two drunk people, could be they were "discovered" and he ran off thinking she did too. Could be the condom is not related and happened to be nearby (are they still having lots of issues at DTD like they once did?). Could even be that she just stripped for some reason and passed out and no one else was involved with her.

Could be she was raped forcibly or manipulated by someone sober enough to know they were taking advantage of her.

Far too many possibilities to try to claim anyone is guilty of any terrible thing without more information, IMO. But I can imagine it would not look good for a man involved based on the little bits we have if you go with the most obvious sounding possibility.
What we do know at this point is that some poor woman must be so scared and worried (and likely embarrassed as this goes all over the media) and not even knowing what happened must make it even worse.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

I should make it clear that my last response and this one are not about the case at DTD, since we really have no idea what occurred, but about the more general discusssion.

This is not really the same thing at all. If it is "rape" to have sex with someone who is drunk because then the person cannot consent, then if both people are drunk, and neither forces the other in any other way (both consent as much as one can while impaired) essentially BOTH people have committed rape, and it should not be that only one gender is held accountable for that and the other is considered the victim.

A more accurate comparison would be that an adult having sex with a 13 year old would be committing statutory rape. Two 13 year olds who both "consent" and have sex with one another are not committing statutory rape--both are under age and equally unable to consent. (though, I think in some cases only the male does get convicted of this as well).

This does not mean that it is wise for two drunk people or two 13 year olds to have sex--but it means one person is not necessarily the victim when both are equally at the same disadvantage. I mean, that is kind what rape is, right, one party using some advantage (physical strength, being sober when the other is not, being in a position of authority over the other, etc) over the other to "force" (physically, or otherwise) someone into having sex when that is not what they would chose if the other person was not leveraging their advantage. If both parties are drunk, no one has an advantage on the sobriety thing.

Does that stop people from being convicted if they kill someone in a DUI? Nope.

The two can not be compared. First, we don't know if this is rape because we don't know the entire situation. If this lady was forced and she was fighting him off or passed out I would say it is rape.

I think NHdisneylover explains it the best!

 

[livie1205]

A lady wakes up nude in the bushes I can't imagine anything good went on.. Until proved otherwise she is a victim. If she was that bad off it does not seem at this point it was done with consent.I am sure there will be a full investigation. I feel awful for her.

 

[brockash]

What if he was trashed too and doesn't remember anything either? What if she is the one that forced herself onto him and took advantage of him?

Then I suppose it would be another case of how sad he would get that trashed trashed that he can't remember. How does he know it wasn't consensual?

 

[sam_gordon]

A lady wakes up nude in the bushes I can't imagine anything good went on.. Until proved otherwise she is a victim. If she was that bad off it does not seem at this point it was done with consent.I am sure there will be a full investigation. I feel awful for her.

Two people in a bar get drunk and meet up. They decide to "go somewhere quieter". One thing leads to another and they have their clothes off and are having sex. The girl passes out. The guy panics (either before or after completing the act) and runs away.

Or they complete the act, the guy walks away and the girl passes out.

I disagree with the bolded though. Until proved otherwise, there's no crime. If there's no crime, there's no victim. Just my opinion.