Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Panzerkamfwagen" data-source="post: 66436444" data-attributes="member: 376848"><p>And here's where I fisk <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967" target="_blank">the bill</a>:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And...how do they determine that?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If a partner initiates, and the other partner does not say, "No," can't that be interpreted as consent? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good grief. Isn't that awkward? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because silence is not communication? </p><p></p><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wow. That's even more of a mood killer.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But, it shouldn't be an indicator of lack of consent before the law, either. </p><p></p><p>Of course a prior relationship could provide doubt about a rape claim, but how dare we give the defendant an advantage.</p><p></p><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Blah, blah, blah. Legalese transition...</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>If you're responsible enough to drink, you're responsible enough for the consequences. So far, this is the only part of the law that isn't actually stupid.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And...who defines a "reasonable" step? Is it a signed and notarized ten page contract and power of attorney?</p><p></p><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, what happens if you have a "He said, she said" type of situation? What happens if both parties have the same version of events except for the consent and the lack of consent. If both parties have equal credibility, then who gets the benefit of the doubt? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>More sweet legalese transition...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Gee. Roofies are bad. Who'da thunk it? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Gee. Isn't using roofies part of the definition of rape? </p><p></p><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Gee. That could also be part of the definition of rape.</p><p></p><p>Can't colleges expel people for rape?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Don't people have the right to face their accuser as part of due process and to cross examine the accuser and any witnesses as part of due process? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, they can expel people for being sexual predators, but they can't actually tell anyone they expelled a person for being a sexual predator?</p><p></p><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In a case like this, shouldn't they, you know, call the police to report a crime? </p><p></p><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hey. Guess what. That's a crime. Call the police to investigate. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Shouldn't that be the responsibility of people who conduct such interviews. You know, the police?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hey. Sounds like a job for the police.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This, I could perhaps understand.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Shouldn't this be step (1) since sexual assault is, you know, a crime?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a good step, but, should be left to the police.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Whiz quiz for everyone! </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So...who determines whether or not something is egregious? </p><p></p><p>Hopefully not the people who came up with a law about handling crimes that leaves actually contacting the people who fight crime until step 7.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hopefully they tell them it's a crime and that the should report it to the police.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Gee. Because anonymous tips haven't gone horribly wrong. </p><p></p><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Panzerkamfwagen, post: 66436444, member: 376848"] And here's where I fisk [url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967]the bill[/url]: And...how do they determine that? If a partner initiates, and the other partner does not say, "No," can't that be interpreted as consent? Good grief. Isn't that awkward? Because silence is not communication? :doh: Wow. That's even more of a mood killer. But, it shouldn't be an indicator of lack of consent before the law, either. Of course a prior relationship could provide doubt about a rape claim, but how dare we give the defendant an advantage. :doh: Blah, blah, blah. Legalese transition... If you're responsible enough to drink, you're responsible enough for the consequences. So far, this is the only part of the law that isn't actually stupid. And...who defines a "reasonable" step? Is it a signed and notarized ten page contract and power of attorney? :doh: So, what happens if you have a "He said, she said" type of situation? What happens if both parties have the same version of events except for the consent and the lack of consent. If both parties have equal credibility, then who gets the benefit of the doubt? More sweet legalese transition... Gee. Roofies are bad. Who'da thunk it? Gee. Isn't using roofies part of the definition of rape? :doh: Gee. That could also be part of the definition of rape. Can't colleges expel people for rape? Don't people have the right to face their accuser as part of due process and to cross examine the accuser and any witnesses as part of due process? So, they can expel people for being sexual predators, but they can't actually tell anyone they expelled a person for being a sexual predator? :doh: In a case like this, shouldn't they, you know, call the police to report a crime? :doh: Hey. Guess what. That's a crime. Call the police to investigate. Shouldn't that be the responsibility of people who conduct such interviews. You know, the police? Hey. Sounds like a job for the police. This, I could perhaps understand. Shouldn't this be step (1) since sexual assault is, you know, a crime? This is a good step, but, should be left to the police. Whiz quiz for everyone! So...who determines whether or not something is egregious? Hopefully not the people who came up with a law about handling crimes that leaves actually contacting the people who fight crime until step 7. Hopefully they tell them it's a crime and that the should report it to the police. Gee. Because anonymous tips haven't gone horribly wrong. :doh: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney...
Top
Bottom