0
57

[–] voatHatesTheFirst 0 points 57 points (+57|-0) ago  (edited ago)

How did this 'drunk consent isn't consent' bullshit ever even get started?

There is a mountain of precedence in the form of consent to breath test for DUI stops.

Nevermind the fact that if you were supposedly too out of your mind drunk to consent, then your testimony is obviously worthless in the first place. ie.. How are we to accept your version of events, when by your own admission you were drunk out of your mind. ie.. If you didn't know what you were doing, you obviously don't know what happened.

2
21

[–] White-Supremacist 2 points 21 points (+23|-2) ago 

Jews. Cultural marxism.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Subtenko ago 

There's all kinds of holes in this BS, so how do these cases keep popping up, unless the people who are legit victimized cant think of this stuff or the 'legal system' is doing double speak anyway regardless of this whole precedent...

This makes being a lawyer seems possibly...fun........ehh who am I kidding, its probably the exact opposite minus the payout

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Tsilent_Tsunami 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

zero tolerance in the schoolyard where getting beat up gets you in the same trouble as your attacker,

But wait a minute. So the outraged parent of the victim should be able to beat the living shit out of the principal, and the principal will also go to jail. Is that not the logic?

0
2

[–] cthulian_axioms 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

as in Ontario where Social Justice Tribunals are actually real now

I'm so glad that I am banned from Canada for life. (Technically I can apply for "criminal rehabilitation" and become admissible again, but that costs $2000 and I'm not giving those bobble-headed cucks a Goddamn dime.)

0
4

[–] lanre 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

You know what? I was always told that being drunk didn't excuse any of my actions. If I went and shot a dude while drunk, broke some shit, or mouthed off, the consequences were still gonna be there the next day. Taking advantage of drunk chicks is slimy, but so is slamming horny college kids for getting drunk together and fucking.

0
5

[–] cthulian_axioms 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Taking advantage of drunk chicks is slimy

And in a sane society, it's the kind of thing that gets a person beaten up and/or left in a ditch, according to the degree of creepitude. Not everything needs to be solved in the courts.

0
23

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

If I'm drunk I can't consent to driving so I can't be charged with drunk driving.

0
20

[–] Bigwhistle 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

How many college kids have had their lives ruined by lying, jilted coeds, and insane college administrators. This shit is off the rails.

0
17

[–] 0110001111 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

College logic: Trump is a fascist Nazi. Now excuse us whilst we use secret Title IX courts to ream students with no due process, neuter the state in not prosecuting campus crimes, raising tuition every year, and ban any dissenting groups in the campus. We also reserve the right to fine/kick you out of campus for no reason, without notice, with no refunds.

0
12

[–] Popsquat81 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

So, by that same logic, does drinking any alcohol negate any intent by the alleged perpetrator as well?

0
8

[–] ScreaminMime 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

...it ran “a fair and impartial judicial process”

Only the male was to blame. He had also been drinking, why wasn't the female kicked out too?

0
3

[–] Tsilent_Tsunami 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Why wasn't the female charged with rape? Guy literally couldn't consent.

0
6

[–] WD_Pelley 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Retroactively negating sexual consent if an accusing student has even a sip of alcohol

So a girl could have one teensy tiny sip of an appletini and still fuck up a guy's life because she regretted sleeping with him?

Roe’s first written statement emphasized that Nokes had coerced her into performing oral sex and digitally penetrated her without consent, while both were “under the influence.”

What the hell is "digitally penetrated?"

0
10

[–] L_Etranger 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Fingers are digits. He poked her box.

0
3

[–] 10651052? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Digitally penetrated = Hacked her box with a Trojan

0
2

[–] WD_Pelley 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Well whatever it means I'm using it from now on.

0
2

[–] FreeBreivik 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

He fingered her "I pee" but didn't manage to slip a Trojan in the backdoor.

0
0

[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago 

He penetrated her vagina with one of his digits. That is, he fingered her.

0
4

[–] newoldwave 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Since when the hell have universities become law enforcement agencies?

0
0

[–] ShinyVoater ago 

Since Obama's DoE put out that "Dear Colleague" letter.

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's especially ridiculous when you realise it means that both of them are rapists.

load more comments ▼ (11 remaining)