[–] parrygrin 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) 3.4 years ago
So I looked up SB 967. It definitely fucks with evidentiary standards in a horrifying way.
Is there any case law wherein somebody claimed they were too drunk to consent but that argument didn't hold up or was defeated somehow?
[–] Anonymous_User_69 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) 3.4 years ago
It's not drunk driving if you can't give your consent to drive.
[–] Lobotomy 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) 3.4 years ago
This is why you don't California even once.
[–] sakuramboo 4 points 29 points 33 points (+33|-4) 3.4 years ago
sigh
unzips
[–] RicardoCabesa 0 points 32 points 32 points (+32|-0) 3.4 years ago
Obviously the male photographer is raping both of these innocent ladies.
[–] 9666641? 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) 3.4 years ago
what if it's an innocent Muslim refugee who is being exploited by the women?
[–] raw 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) 3.4 years ago
The key word is 'straight white' male.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 22 points 22 points (+22|-0) 3.4 years ago
[–] parrygrin 0 points 14 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago
So I looked up SB 967. It definitely fucks with evidentiary standards in a horrifying way.
Is there any case law wherein somebody claimed they were too drunk to consent but that argument didn't hold up or was defeated somehow?
[–] Anonymous_User_69 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
It's not drunk driving if you can't give your consent to drive.
[–] Lobotomy 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago
This is why you don't California even once.