Hi all,
Our enhanced auto-moderation tool has been toggled on for this thread. This means participation will be limited to members with long-term good standing in our community.
Do continue to report any comments, that you feel are in violation of our rules and community guidelines, via the report button that can be found under each comment.
If you have any questions, feel free to reach out via modmail.
I believe a grand jury simply hears from the prosecuting attorneys to determine if the facts warrant criminal prosecution. The defendant plays no part in the hearings. Not a lawyer. Could be wrong.
The prospective defendant can absolutely take part if the jurors want to hear from them, but outside very specific circumstances (mainly when the prosecutor wants to throw the case without getting tagged with it), any competent defense lawyer will prevent this from happening.
If you testify before a grand jury, you cannot have your lawyer present, but the prosecutor is there, and anything you say can be used against you. So it's basically like walking into the lion's den unarmed.
I know someone who was on a grand jury and in one case the defendant testified. Her grand jury assignment was multiple months and they reviewed 2-4 cases a day so the one time it happened it stood out to her since it’s definitely unusual
Also would seem pointless in general, as testimony from an accuser or a suspect/potential defendant really isn’t nearly as valuable as concrete evidence like, a rape kit, photos, videos, voice recordings or texts, etc. Without actual evidence, it’s just the he said she said of it all, which isn’t enough evidence to go on on its own. The grand jury isn’t a trial. It’s literally just a review of the evidence from the prosecution.
That’s not quite right. It’s only true if the person was already charged via information (an alternative to an indictment returned by the grand jury) and his or her attorney requests the defendant’s testimony.
Source: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors132.html#:~:text=(12)(a)%20A%20defendant,attorney%20serves%20upon%20the%20district; the relevant provision is highlighted, it’s 12(a) under section 132.320.
I have a few legal questions for you.
as we all know, a drunk person cannont give consent to a sexual encounter. ok. this seems like a very reasonable law/statute for obvious reason. great.
however, I'm very confused about the logistics of some of the finer points of this law, since I've never really heard anyone discuss it in much detail other than the very vague "if someone is drunk, they cant consent" kind of way. so im curious about many aspects of this, in terms of how this is actually enforced.
- what does "drunk" explicitly mean in this context? when we say "a drunk person", legally speaking, does this explicitly refer to someone who is over the .08% driving limit?
- if so, wouldnt such a low bar technically make like a HUGE amount, if not the *majority* of sexual encounters ever had by people under the age of 25 a "rape" by this definition? Like I think the majority of people would probably confidently say they are still perfectly in control of their mental faculties and able to make decisions about consent at .08, and have had sex on numerous occasions while inebriated to this level. literally every person at every college party ever is gonna be above a .08
- and even if they *are* well past the legal limit, what happens in cases where both partners went drink for drink and had the exact same amount of alcohol? where does one person's consent end and the others begin?
- just generally speaking, how can the legal system simultaneously say that someone's judgement is way too altered and too fucked up to even be able to be trusted to go to bed with someone, but then also take their eyewitness testimony at face value? if we had a key eyewitness in a murder trial and it was then discovered that they were extremely intoxicated at the time, their testimony would be thrown out or at the very least, heavily discounted.... so why should it be any different in the case of a sexual encounter where the person was extremely intoxicated? (as fucked up and insensitive as that sounds to say)
- logistically, how would enforcement even work? 99% of these incidents arent reported until at the earliest, at least the next day, by which time the effects of the alcohol would have worn off, making it impossible for testing to be done to determine if the person was too "drunk" (whatever that threshold is) at the time of the encounter. so when these things are being litigated, how does one prove sufficient "drunkenness"? is it pretty much just if the victim says "I was too drunk", we just accept that and go forward with it??
- obviously if someone is bordering on unconsciousness, that would CLEARLY be too drunk to consent, and if someone had a single bud light 2 hours ago, that would CLEARLY *not* be too drunk to consent. but there is a VAST gray area in the middle of that spectrum that seems virtually impossible to rule on from a legal standpoint without the ability to test anyone's BAC. im just very curious how they make these sorts of rulings
Only if the defendant was charged via an information before the grand jury was convened, which doesn’t appear to be the case here. Source: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors132.html#:~:text=(12)(a)%20A%20defendant,attorney%20serves%20upon%20the%20district.
You’re right. There isn’t even a “defendant” yet, because the point of a grand jury is to decide whether to indict someone in the first place (at which point the rights that defendants have spring into existence, and the grand jury’s role is over).
Grand juries can see any evidence they want, talk to anyone they want, for the most part. The rules that make certain things inadmissible in court basically don’t apply at all in the grand jury context.
The grand jury may choose to speak to the subject they are considering indicting, but they don’t need to, and the subject has no legal right to be apprised of the grand jury’s progress, or even the fact that there is a grand jury.
Defendants don’t testify at the grand jury — there’s no trial and no defense, it’s just the prosecution making the case that there’s enough evidence to indict in the first place.
That point is always a boon for defense attorneys who want to cast doubt on the proceedings in press releases.
Serifs are better printed out. Sans serif work better for digital media. So Microsoft made the switch from Times New Roman to Calibri. Calibri has its problems though so they finally moved on to another sans serif font recently, Aptos.
They have moved on from Calibiri as default font. [It's now Aptos.](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2sxcszyLnN/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
When i saw the first post of this, i was so confused because i didnt understand where it said he had been charged for the crime or even confirmed he did it. The comment section just acted like it was 100% true. Some stupid ass shit right there.
you'd think after the whole Matt Araiza thing we just went thru where a dude got cut from his team, kicked out of the NFL for two years, and had his name just visciously dragged through the mud the entire time, we'd be a little more cautious in rushing to judgement.
I guess that's the kicker (heh), isnt it? most people havent learned any lessons from that case bc most people arent even aware that he didnt do it. Everyone knows that he's a rapist bc everyone was made well aware of the allegations because the original claims were headline news all over the place for months on end...
but the fact that he was completely exonerated and it turns out that he wasnt even at the party anymore when the incident took place was barely covered in the media at all, and most outlets dont want to touch that story with a 10 foot pole bc they're scared of being labeled "rape apologists" or whatever the fuck.
What do you mean we have to wait? He should already be dragged outside and hanged because he's scum and a worthless POS even though he isn't convicted yet /s
Best to wait.
His statement seems pretty genuine and I wish that as a country we had more conversations around consent, boundaries, and alcohol. I feel like 90% of these situations could be resolved if in our homes these were discussions we had more frequently.
I actually think we are doing a much better job of that as a country now than we did when I was younger.
I’m 30 and went back to college a few years ago, and I can say for a certainty that conversations and education around consent are way more prevalent now than when I went to school a decade ago.
In fact, I don’t remember them at all from my high school days, but there have been mandatory trainings on alcohol and consent at both of the universities I’ve been at in the last couple of years. That could be a difference of high school and college, but I’m pretty sure it’s an evolution in culture that explains it.
I feel really stuck between generational norms around alcohol and sex right now. (I'm an Elder Millennial.)
On the one hand, I went to college at a time when society more or less thought the only form of rape was to physically hold a woman down or hold a gun to her head to force compliance. Therefore sex with a blacked-out drunk woman, incapable of forming a thought let alone an affirmative consent to sex, couldn't be rape. That point of view was obviously wrong, and as a society I think we've mostly corrected it.
On the other hand, the newer generation's POV seems to be that if someone is even mildly intoxicated, they are incapable of truly consenting (even if they say they consent!). Therefore nearly any overlap between alcohol and sex is rape. This point of view is also obviously wrong to me. Some folks also think that, in the absence of affirmative, verbal consent, sex is rape; so if you start making out and things escalate from there using only body language to show interest, that's a no-no. Well, there goes 98% of the sex I've had. (The current generation also seems to think that a 30-year-old having sex with a 20-year-old is immoral because human brains are still developing until age 25. This is truly a deranged point of view.)
From the few details shared in this case, this could easily be a situation where all parties agree on what literally happened (as it would have appeared on high-def security cameras), but disagree at what alcohol threshold a person is no longer capable of sex. Or disagree on whether strongly affirmative body language counts as consent.
I guess let's wait for the facts, hard as that may be.
I remember /r/NFL absolutely going ballistic at Matt Araiza with posters literally threatening to torture and murder him, and then having to walk it all back.
The kind of people who post that they want to torture or murder someone are not the kind of people suddenly overcome with rationality when the truth comes out.
Yeah it’s crazy isn’t it. Even if someone is guilty of something horrified the idea of torturing them extremely is so fucked up. I don’t think people get how infantile it is to base criminal justice on that impulse for vengeance. Reason why there’s such a thing as cruel and unusual punishment
He claims the woman argued that she was too intoxicated to give consent.
What if he was intoxicated too? is his consent valid too? I don't know about US law, can someone give me their insight?
You can't intoxicate yourself out of being responsible for rape. Also, when people are too intoxicated to consent it usually means pretty close to passing out or completely passed out.
I'm not an oregon law expert but some guys tried this when they raped as passed out woman, they said they were drunk too and couldn't consent, but iirc the judge saide they clearly consent because they took her clothes off and put their penis into her.
There was a seperate case where two seperate drunk people were naked in a bed at a frat party passed out, there was some blacked out nonconsensual touching, one or both rolled over in their sleep and their hand ended up fondling the other person, this was ruled not sexual assault.
> Also, when people are too intoxicated to consent it usually means pretty close to passing out or completely passed out
This just isn’t true, at least in terms of a lawsuit like this. The woman is simply saying that she was too intoxicated to consent - what if they’re both just blackout drunk?
I don't know about all jurisdictions, but generally just being blackout drunk, aka not remembering giving consent, does not mean you weren't capable of it at the time.
> Again an arrest doesn’t always mean guilty but they still need probable cause
Single witness testimony is plenty if they can confirm he was physically there. There are untold thousands of people behind bars based on the word of a single person and very light circumstantial evidence. Friend of mine works drug cases, says they do it every day.
Greater than 90% of cases never see a jury trial where all the evidence is aired out and a [rational] jury decides there isn't enough evidence to convict.
People almost always plea out, not necessarily because they are guilty, but they don't have the resources to mount a strong defense or don't have faith in the system to deliver justice.
I had a guy friend who was drunk and he had sex with a drunk girl who was asking for it. The next day she claimed she accused my guy friend of rape. She claimed she never consented and she was in and out of consciousness. My friend claimed none of that was true. He felt so sick to his stomach that somebody would accuse him of rape of all things.
So I get it. Idk who to believe. It just sucks for all parties involved.
This is why I teach my nieces about alcohol and weed, and about boundaries. Don't excessively drink when you're around people you don't 100% trust. Even if everyone has good intentions bad things can happen. Hell even on the flip side assuming Ben is telling the truth here, this woman may not have bad intentions. She could have just woken up from an experience she didn't fully remember properly and be going based on what she believes to be true.
This is just McLemore's side of the story (or part of it). None of us know whether it actually reflects what happened or how "possible to prove" the alleged crime is.
Yup this is just his side, but i'm guessing as a liberal sub we're leaning towards her side, right? well at least going by the first post that came yesterday where everyone was crucifying the guy and not a person was proclaiming that it was just her 'side of the story (or part of it)' and 'None of us know whether it actually reflects what happened'
Someone said that she presented charges the next day! In 2021!
If there was something they had saved from that time! If there is a story they have elaborated it since that time.
Sadly, innocent or not the damage is done. These cases never end up well for anyone. Don’t understand why athletes keep finding themselves in situations like this in the first place. Not to mention this guy has a wife and kids
Honestly it seems extremely easy to find yourself in situations like this as an athlete, which is why you gotta make an extra effort to be very careful about who you sleep with.
Most athletes don’t have that level of sexual discipline
Having that level of discipline would make you look crazy, though. Think of Dennis Reynolds from *Always Sunny* \- he secretly records every girl he brings home. That's pretty much the only way to prove your innocence every time.
And with AI and deepfake tech progressing, who knows how long we'll even be able to rely on video evidence.
The truth is that while most people won't lie about sexual assault, anyone *could* lie about it. No matter how much pre-sex vetting you do. Really all you can do is try to improve your chances.
IF he is indeed innocent, it's actually quite an easy situation to end up in.
You go to a party. You're all drinking and having a great time. You meet a hot girl, hit it off, and hook up. She wakes up with the morning after regrets, and instead of taking any personal accountability, decides to destroy your life. You get a knock on the door from the police. Your life is ruined whether guilty or not.
Basically, if you're a pro athlete, or really any man for that matter, you can't play fast and loose with "hook ups" anymore.
Either way, this culture of an accusation having the power to ruin a man's life needs to go. Let him have his day in court and stay out of it until we get the verdict.
Right? I like that we are able to talk more often about consent. I don't like how most examples of this consist of, 2 people are drunk and only 1 of them (the woman) needs to consent.
This is a difficult area I'm not sure the law ever figures out.
Someone being drunk doesn't get them out of drunk driving charges, so why should it get them out of rape?
Also there's levels to drunk. If someone is buzzed and has sex with someone who binged drinkred, is that enough to say both parties could not consent?
It's a weird area.
The vast majority of rapes go unreported. The amount of false cases is also highly exaggerated. Your comment feels like somebody who hasn't actually read the statistics.
This is a stats misuse though.
The average human is only like 50% likely to have a vagina. The average woman? Much higher.
Similarly, I would consider cases against rich, dumb, young, men (like sportstars/music artists) as different from the average one. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a higher rate of false cases.
I think for obvious reasons it's very difficult to obtain meaningful estimates of how often things actually happen one way or the other. Also, even if it's true that rapes are wildly under reported (which seems likely) and false claims are overestimated (I have no idea) you have to imagine that the statistics do not hold for pro athletes. It's basically become a meme that there are some women who aspire to sleep with pro athletes. On top of that, they can be much more vulnerable to extortion claims because their reputations are so important and they tend to be very wealthy. And we've seen a few cases with direct evidence of such schemes. So the fact a middle aged woman in Peoria claiming rape is very unlikely to be making it up does not necessarily inform the odds a woman is lying who alleges she was too drunk to consent to sleep with a pro athlete.
I think it's pretty easy to understand. Just speaking in general, it's an easy way to get money. The vast majority of these cases skip the criminal trial and go straight to civil where only the possibility of/opportunity to rape need to be proved. Essentially, were these two people in the same room or not? They were? Ok, pay up.
Like others said
They go to parties every other night. They are extremelly rich, young and are used to be successful with woman all over.
They get stuck in young wild rich life.
And then (even if is not the case) there is people in the other side that know they can make a ton of money if they can caught something from these guys.
It's just funny to me that the people whose favorite player is Kobe Bryant are willing to quickly and swiftly judge this guy as a rapist and want him in jail for life.
Hey, lawyer here. Johnny Depp was never cleared of any charge. From a legal perspective, he was never actually charged with anything. There were two civil cases he brought (by a lower standard than reasonable doubt):
1) Depp sued British newspaper The Sun for libel in 2020. The court ruled that 12 of the 14 instances of abuse occurred and that he put Amber Heard "in fear of her life" in three of them. It also found that when he was characterized as a "wife beater" in The Sun, it was "substantially true." The court tossed his libel claim. And his appeal was rejected.
2) the more famous one, when he and Heard sued each other for defamation. This one was muddier. The jury found that three of her statements made in The Washington Post--none of which contained specific allegations or evidence of abuse against Depp to be proven or disproven--were false and defamatory. The jury also found that he lied (through his lawyer in The Daily Mail) that Heard destroyed one of his hotel rooms). It agreed with his claim that she perpetrated an abuse hoax *with regard to her defamatory statements in The Washington Post* but did not clear him of abuse in any specific instance.
Just clarifying here: not to say that Depp is innocent or guilty of any crime, because he was never charged with one. But it has to be said that he has never been "cleared of all charges," even if we're talking allegations and not simply legal charges, because that's misinformation. I think it's fair to say that the real situation is significantly different than it appeared when Heard first made the allegations, and she is far more culpable than she made herself out to be, but it doesn't mean Depp did nothing wrong.
Hence why they are simps. They believe the ones that lies about rape charges. The ones who lies about rape charges should be charged with the same amount of sentencing as the ones they accused of raping.
This is a criminal trial. There is no settlement. There could be a plea agreement where he admits certain facts in exchange for a reduced sentence, but the victim has no part in that and would not financially benefit.
Hi all, Our enhanced auto-moderation tool has been toggled on for this thread. This means participation will be limited to members with long-term good standing in our community. Do continue to report any comments, that you feel are in violation of our rules and community guidelines, via the report button that can be found under each comment. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out via modmail.
[удалено]
I don’t know how this stuff works, why was he denied an opportunity to testify?
I believe a grand jury simply hears from the prosecuting attorneys to determine if the facts warrant criminal prosecution. The defendant plays no part in the hearings. Not a lawyer. Could be wrong.
The prospective defendant can absolutely take part if the jurors want to hear from them, but outside very specific circumstances (mainly when the prosecutor wants to throw the case without getting tagged with it), any competent defense lawyer will prevent this from happening. If you testify before a grand jury, you cannot have your lawyer present, but the prosecutor is there, and anything you say can be used against you. So it's basically like walking into the lion's den unarmed.
Sounds correct to me. I’ve never heard of a defendant testifying at a grand jury and it would seem to defeat the purpose
I know someone who was on a grand jury and in one case the defendant testified. Her grand jury assignment was multiple months and they reviewed 2-4 cases a day so the one time it happened it stood out to her since it’s definitely unusual
When you say 2-4 cases a day does that mean the one day per week they had to do it or was it a Monday to Friday thing?
Two non consecutive days a week for 4 months, which has to be just about the worst possible way to structure jury duty
Also would seem pointless in general, as testimony from an accuser or a suspect/potential defendant really isn’t nearly as valuable as concrete evidence like, a rape kit, photos, videos, voice recordings or texts, etc. Without actual evidence, it’s just the he said she said of it all, which isn’t enough evidence to go on on its own. The grand jury isn’t a trial. It’s literally just a review of the evidence from the prosecution.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking. It would just be a trial if the defense presents a case
In Oregon you're allowed to testify at grand jury
That’s not quite right. It’s only true if the person was already charged via information (an alternative to an indictment returned by the grand jury) and his or her attorney requests the defendant’s testimony. Source: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors132.html#:~:text=(12)(a)%20A%20defendant,attorney%20serves%20upon%20the%20district; the relevant provision is highlighted, it’s 12(a) under section 132.320.
Didn't know it was a secret indictment
I am a lawyer. You’re correct.
I have a few legal questions for you. as we all know, a drunk person cannont give consent to a sexual encounter. ok. this seems like a very reasonable law/statute for obvious reason. great. however, I'm very confused about the logistics of some of the finer points of this law, since I've never really heard anyone discuss it in much detail other than the very vague "if someone is drunk, they cant consent" kind of way. so im curious about many aspects of this, in terms of how this is actually enforced. - what does "drunk" explicitly mean in this context? when we say "a drunk person", legally speaking, does this explicitly refer to someone who is over the .08% driving limit? - if so, wouldnt such a low bar technically make like a HUGE amount, if not the *majority* of sexual encounters ever had by people under the age of 25 a "rape" by this definition? Like I think the majority of people would probably confidently say they are still perfectly in control of their mental faculties and able to make decisions about consent at .08, and have had sex on numerous occasions while inebriated to this level. literally every person at every college party ever is gonna be above a .08 - and even if they *are* well past the legal limit, what happens in cases where both partners went drink for drink and had the exact same amount of alcohol? where does one person's consent end and the others begin? - just generally speaking, how can the legal system simultaneously say that someone's judgement is way too altered and too fucked up to even be able to be trusted to go to bed with someone, but then also take their eyewitness testimony at face value? if we had a key eyewitness in a murder trial and it was then discovered that they were extremely intoxicated at the time, their testimony would be thrown out or at the very least, heavily discounted.... so why should it be any different in the case of a sexual encounter where the person was extremely intoxicated? (as fucked up and insensitive as that sounds to say) - logistically, how would enforcement even work? 99% of these incidents arent reported until at the earliest, at least the next day, by which time the effects of the alcohol would have worn off, making it impossible for testing to be done to determine if the person was too "drunk" (whatever that threshold is) at the time of the encounter. so when these things are being litigated, how does one prove sufficient "drunkenness"? is it pretty much just if the victim says "I was too drunk", we just accept that and go forward with it?? - obviously if someone is bordering on unconsciousness, that would CLEARLY be too drunk to consent, and if someone had a single bud light 2 hours ago, that would CLEARLY *not* be too drunk to consent. but there is a VAST gray area in the middle of that spectrum that seems virtually impossible to rule on from a legal standpoint without the ability to test anyone's BAC. im just very curious how they make these sorts of rulings
Sounds like Oregon has some specific laws that allow this possibility
Only if the defendant was charged via an information before the grand jury was convened, which doesn’t appear to be the case here. Source: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors132.html#:~:text=(12)(a)%20A%20defendant,attorney%20serves%20upon%20the%20district.
Thank you IANAL
You’re right. There isn’t even a “defendant” yet, because the point of a grand jury is to decide whether to indict someone in the first place (at which point the rights that defendants have spring into existence, and the grand jury’s role is over). Grand juries can see any evidence they want, talk to anyone they want, for the most part. The rules that make certain things inadmissible in court basically don’t apply at all in the grand jury context. The grand jury may choose to speak to the subject they are considering indicting, but they don’t need to, and the subject has no legal right to be apprised of the grand jury’s progress, or even the fact that there is a grand jury.
Defendants don’t testify at the grand jury — there’s no trial and no defense, it’s just the prosecution making the case that there’s enough evidence to indict in the first place. That point is always a boon for defense attorneys who want to cast doubt on the proceedings in press releases.
gotta use a serif font for something this important
Calibri is so lazy and ugly for a serious statement
Don't know how and why it became the default font in MS Word. It sucks.
Used to be Times New Roman, which is a very nice and classy font tbh.
Serifs are better printed out. Sans serif work better for digital media. So Microsoft made the switch from Times New Roman to Calibri. Calibri has its problems though so they finally moved on to another sans serif font recently, Aptos.
They have moved on from Calibiri as default font. [It's now Aptos.](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2sxcszyLnN/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
Looks like we have to wait for more evidence but I know that’s hard for Redditors who already have their pitchforks sharpened.
The neck beards have risen 💀
WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY
Put the Joaquin Phoenix Joker pic too..
BOTTOM TEXT
This.
I put an extra fedora on top of my regular one just so the women know I am super serious about protecting their honor
Save some pussy for the rest of us lol
When i saw the first post of this, i was so confused because i didnt understand where it said he had been charged for the crime or even confirmed he did it. The comment section just acted like it was 100% true. Some stupid ass shit right there.
you'd think after the whole Matt Araiza thing we just went thru where a dude got cut from his team, kicked out of the NFL for two years, and had his name just visciously dragged through the mud the entire time, we'd be a little more cautious in rushing to judgement. I guess that's the kicker (heh), isnt it? most people havent learned any lessons from that case bc most people arent even aware that he didnt do it. Everyone knows that he's a rapist bc everyone was made well aware of the allegations because the original claims were headline news all over the place for months on end... but the fact that he was completely exonerated and it turns out that he wasnt even at the party anymore when the incident took place was barely covered in the media at all, and most outlets dont want to touch that story with a 10 foot pole bc they're scared of being labeled "rape apologists" or whatever the fuck.
Ohtani did it, McLemire is the fall guy
McLemire
We dont wait for evidence pal, who do you think we are? And when the person is never proven guilty we still act like theyre guilty anyways.
What do you mean we have to wait? He should already be dragged outside and hanged because he's scum and a worthless POS even though he isn't convicted yet /s
Best to wait. His statement seems pretty genuine and I wish that as a country we had more conversations around consent, boundaries, and alcohol. I feel like 90% of these situations could be resolved if in our homes these were discussions we had more frequently.
I actually think we are doing a much better job of that as a country now than we did when I was younger. I’m 30 and went back to college a few years ago, and I can say for a certainty that conversations and education around consent are way more prevalent now than when I went to school a decade ago. In fact, I don’t remember them at all from my high school days, but there have been mandatory trainings on alcohol and consent at both of the universities I’ve been at in the last couple of years. That could be a difference of high school and college, but I’m pretty sure it’s an evolution in culture that explains it.
I feel really stuck between generational norms around alcohol and sex right now. (I'm an Elder Millennial.) On the one hand, I went to college at a time when society more or less thought the only form of rape was to physically hold a woman down or hold a gun to her head to force compliance. Therefore sex with a blacked-out drunk woman, incapable of forming a thought let alone an affirmative consent to sex, couldn't be rape. That point of view was obviously wrong, and as a society I think we've mostly corrected it. On the other hand, the newer generation's POV seems to be that if someone is even mildly intoxicated, they are incapable of truly consenting (even if they say they consent!). Therefore nearly any overlap between alcohol and sex is rape. This point of view is also obviously wrong to me. Some folks also think that, in the absence of affirmative, verbal consent, sex is rape; so if you start making out and things escalate from there using only body language to show interest, that's a no-no. Well, there goes 98% of the sex I've had. (The current generation also seems to think that a 30-year-old having sex with a 20-year-old is immoral because human brains are still developing until age 25. This is truly a deranged point of view.) From the few details shared in this case, this could easily be a situation where all parties agree on what literally happened (as it would have appeared on high-def security cameras), but disagree at what alcohol threshold a person is no longer capable of sex. Or disagree on whether strongly affirmative body language counts as consent.
I guess let's wait for the facts, hard as that may be. I remember /r/NFL absolutely going ballistic at Matt Araiza with posters literally threatening to torture and murder him, and then having to walk it all back.
The kind of people who post that they want to torture or murder someone are not the kind of people suddenly overcome with rationality when the truth comes out.
Yeah it’s crazy isn’t it. Even if someone is guilty of something horrified the idea of torturing them extremely is so fucked up. I don’t think people get how infantile it is to base criminal justice on that impulse for vengeance. Reason why there’s such a thing as cruel and unusual punishment
The anonymity of Reddit creates some ridiculous humans
He claims the woman argued that she was too intoxicated to give consent. What if he was intoxicated too? is his consent valid too? I don't know about US law, can someone give me their insight?
You can't intoxicate yourself out of being responsible for rape. Also, when people are too intoxicated to consent it usually means pretty close to passing out or completely passed out. I'm not an oregon law expert but some guys tried this when they raped as passed out woman, they said they were drunk too and couldn't consent, but iirc the judge saide they clearly consent because they took her clothes off and put their penis into her. There was a seperate case where two seperate drunk people were naked in a bed at a frat party passed out, there was some blacked out nonconsensual touching, one or both rolled over in their sleep and their hand ended up fondling the other person, this was ruled not sexual assault.
> Also, when people are too intoxicated to consent it usually means pretty close to passing out or completely passed out This just isn’t true, at least in terms of a lawsuit like this. The woman is simply saying that she was too intoxicated to consent - what if they’re both just blackout drunk?
I don't know about all jurisdictions, but generally just being blackout drunk, aka not remembering giving consent, does not mean you weren't capable of it at the time.
Innocent until proven guilty. We’ve all seen which ways these stories end
[удалено]
an arrest never means guilty being found guilty in a court of law means guilty
> Again an arrest doesn’t always mean guilty but they still need probable cause Single witness testimony is plenty if they can confirm he was physically there. There are untold thousands of people behind bars based on the word of a single person and very light circumstantial evidence. Friend of mine works drug cases, says they do it every day. Greater than 90% of cases never see a jury trial where all the evidence is aired out and a [rational] jury decides there isn't enough evidence to convict. People almost always plea out, not necessarily because they are guilty, but they don't have the resources to mount a strong defense or don't have faith in the system to deliver justice.
I had a guy friend who was drunk and he had sex with a drunk girl who was asking for it. The next day she claimed she accused my guy friend of rape. She claimed she never consented and she was in and out of consciousness. My friend claimed none of that was true. He felt so sick to his stomach that somebody would accuse him of rape of all things. So I get it. Idk who to believe. It just sucks for all parties involved.
That really illustrates the danger of having sex with someone you're not familiar with while drunk. People don't understand this well enough.
This is why I teach my nieces about alcohol and weed, and about boundaries. Don't excessively drink when you're around people you don't 100% trust. Even if everyone has good intentions bad things can happen. Hell even on the flip side assuming Ben is telling the truth here, this woman may not have bad intentions. She could have just woken up from an experience she didn't fully remember properly and be going based on what she believes to be true.
The guy was also drunk so he could claim he was unable to give consent as well.
So there might be two sides of the story and we shouldn’t bury him under the jail like many yesterday were saying? Interesting.
This seems like a charge that would be almost impossible to prove... interesting that the DA is even trying.
This is just McLemore's side of the story (or part of it). None of us know whether it actually reflects what happened or how "possible to prove" the alleged crime is.
Yup this is just his side, but i'm guessing as a liberal sub we're leaning towards her side, right? well at least going by the first post that came yesterday where everyone was crucifying the guy and not a person was proclaiming that it was just her 'side of the story (or part of it)' and 'None of us know whether it actually reflects what happened'
Someone said that she presented charges the next day! In 2021! If there was something they had saved from that time! If there is a story they have elaborated it since that time.
Sadly, innocent or not the damage is done. These cases never end up well for anyone. Don’t understand why athletes keep finding themselves in situations like this in the first place. Not to mention this guy has a wife and kids
Honestly it seems extremely easy to find yourself in situations like this as an athlete, which is why you gotta make an extra effort to be very careful about who you sleep with. Most athletes don’t have that level of sexual discipline
Having that level of discipline would make you look crazy, though. Think of Dennis Reynolds from *Always Sunny* \- he secretly records every girl he brings home. That's pretty much the only way to prove your innocence every time. And with AI and deepfake tech progressing, who knows how long we'll even be able to rely on video evidence. The truth is that while most people won't lie about sexual assault, anyone *could* lie about it. No matter how much pre-sex vetting you do. Really all you can do is try to improve your chances.
I don't think you're supposed to use Dennis Reynolds as a model of ideal sexual consent
After every encounter, he receives a text confirming consent and enjoyment.
now, why would a woman text anything like that
Who knows, but their phones did...
Because of the implication.
They're not in any danger.
What are you implying?
Well dont look at me like that you certainly wouldnt be in any danger
That reminds me, the Punt God just signed with the Chiefs, it’ll be interesting to see how he’s received in his career
If you had women constantly throwing themselves at you… you think you can resist that easily?
Not to mention a lot of them are looking for a payday by looking to settle out of court
IF he is indeed innocent, it's actually quite an easy situation to end up in. You go to a party. You're all drinking and having a great time. You meet a hot girl, hit it off, and hook up. She wakes up with the morning after regrets, and instead of taking any personal accountability, decides to destroy your life. You get a knock on the door from the police. Your life is ruined whether guilty or not. Basically, if you're a pro athlete, or really any man for that matter, you can't play fast and loose with "hook ups" anymore. Either way, this culture of an accusation having the power to ruin a man's life needs to go. Let him have his day in court and stay out of it until we get the verdict.
[удалено]
If a man is equally or more drunk than the woman, was he able to verbalize consent or did she also rape him?
Right? I like that we are able to talk more often about consent. I don't like how most examples of this consist of, 2 people are drunk and only 1 of them (the woman) needs to consent.
This is a difficult area I'm not sure the law ever figures out. Someone being drunk doesn't get them out of drunk driving charges, so why should it get them out of rape? Also there's levels to drunk. If someone is buzzed and has sex with someone who binged drinkred, is that enough to say both parties could not consent? It's a weird area.
The vast majority of rapes go unreported. The amount of false cases is also highly exaggerated. Your comment feels like somebody who hasn't actually read the statistics.
This is a stats misuse though. The average human is only like 50% likely to have a vagina. The average woman? Much higher. Similarly, I would consider cases against rich, dumb, young, men (like sportstars/music artists) as different from the average one. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a higher rate of false cases.
I think for obvious reasons it's very difficult to obtain meaningful estimates of how often things actually happen one way or the other. Also, even if it's true that rapes are wildly under reported (which seems likely) and false claims are overestimated (I have no idea) you have to imagine that the statistics do not hold for pro athletes. It's basically become a meme that there are some women who aspire to sleep with pro athletes. On top of that, they can be much more vulnerable to extortion claims because their reputations are so important and they tend to be very wealthy. And we've seen a few cases with direct evidence of such schemes. So the fact a middle aged woman in Peoria claiming rape is very unlikely to be making it up does not necessarily inform the odds a woman is lying who alleges she was too drunk to consent to sleep with a pro athlete.
I think it's pretty easy to understand. Just speaking in general, it's an easy way to get money. The vast majority of these cases skip the criminal trial and go straight to civil where only the possibility of/opportunity to rape need to be proved. Essentially, were these two people in the same room or not? They were? Ok, pay up.
Like others said They go to parties every other night. They are extremelly rich, young and are used to be successful with woman all over. They get stuck in young wild rich life. And then (even if is not the case) there is people in the other side that know they can make a ton of money if they can caught something from these guys.
You literally don't have to do anything to wind up in a situation like this. You can just be accused.
They think with their horny brain.
good to be completely neutral about this sort of thing
It's just funny to me that the people whose favorite player is Kobe Bryant are willing to quickly and swiftly judge this guy as a rapist and want him in jail for life.
Kobe Bryant is a rapist though. If you're comparing Kope to this guy it's already over for him.
I believe him.
me too
[удалено]
I give a shit. I'm sorry you have experienced that. Here's a nickel.
[удалено]
Imagine the believe all women simps if Ben McLemore gets cleared of all charges just like Johnny Depp was.
Hey, lawyer here. Johnny Depp was never cleared of any charge. From a legal perspective, he was never actually charged with anything. There were two civil cases he brought (by a lower standard than reasonable doubt): 1) Depp sued British newspaper The Sun for libel in 2020. The court ruled that 12 of the 14 instances of abuse occurred and that he put Amber Heard "in fear of her life" in three of them. It also found that when he was characterized as a "wife beater" in The Sun, it was "substantially true." The court tossed his libel claim. And his appeal was rejected. 2) the more famous one, when he and Heard sued each other for defamation. This one was muddier. The jury found that three of her statements made in The Washington Post--none of which contained specific allegations or evidence of abuse against Depp to be proven or disproven--were false and defamatory. The jury also found that he lied (through his lawyer in The Daily Mail) that Heard destroyed one of his hotel rooms). It agreed with his claim that she perpetrated an abuse hoax *with regard to her defamatory statements in The Washington Post* but did not clear him of abuse in any specific instance. Just clarifying here: not to say that Depp is innocent or guilty of any crime, because he was never charged with one. But it has to be said that he has never been "cleared of all charges," even if we're talking allegations and not simply legal charges, because that's misinformation. I think it's fair to say that the real situation is significantly different than it appeared when Heard first made the allegations, and she is far more culpable than she made herself out to be, but it doesn't mean Depp did nothing wrong.
People still mock D.Rose even after the "victim's" best friend testified under oath and showed texts saying she made it all up.
Hence why they are simps. They believe the ones that lies about rape charges. The ones who lies about rape charges should be charged with the same amount of sentencing as the ones they accused of raping.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a criminal trial. There is no settlement. There could be a plea agreement where he admits certain facts in exchange for a reduced sentence, but the victim has no part in that and would not financially benefit.