Uh, this is kinda bullshit.

GuyAboveIsStupid · 8時間前

What happens if two gay dudes get drunk and have sex? Are they both charged with rape?

zxcsd · 7時間前

What if two lesbians had drunk sex? who's the rapist then?

WickedIsGood · 8時間前

Most unrealistic part is how Jake was charged the next day. Our justice system is slow as fuck.

vickipaperclips · 8時間前

So does this mean that as a woman, I'm no longer accountable for anything I do once I'm drunk? Because there are definitely some illegal things I wanted to try. Also, DUI's? I guess those don't exist either then, since we're on the "blame it on the alcohol" train here.

Edit: just for the people taking this a little too serious, I'm using sarcasm to show that I think this is a stupid way of thinking. I thought it was obvious, but apparently some people don't find it so.

Charlemagne2014 · 2時間前

Let's say this goes to trial and is thrown out, no harm done right?

Well, no.

The guy will be kicked out of college because, as numerous cases have shown, universities are more concerned about showing force against this than providing any sort of due diligence in prosecuting. You only need a preponderance of evidence (literally hearsay and conjecture) and the school will kick him out less they are accused of protecting rapists.

Meanwhile, the guys name will appear in the newspaper as someone arrested of rape. His mugshot will appear on the internet. When a potential employer (or gf, or family member, or friend) looks him up online they will see the charges. The company isnt going to take a chance in hiring him so he wont be able to get a decent job. People will think that he is guilty and only got off on some technicality.

Basically, his life is ruined. The "victim" in the case legally will never have her name released. It is the perfect situation to destroy someone. Can you think of any other instance where you can accuse someone of a crime with NO evidence and then that person's life is destroyed simply because of the accusation? And, added to that, there are no repercussions for the accuser--heck the accuser is still treated as a victim even when it comes out they lied.

Cakemiddleton · 9時間前

So according to this ad men can still think clearly enough to be charged with a crime when drunk but women are plainly too stupid to know better

CreedDidNothingWrong · 10時間前

So that's how it's gonna be, eh, ladies? Fine. We'll just start fucking each other. Supreme Court says it's legal. Let's get weird fellas.

NinjaKlaus · 9時間前

The blurry part says Coastal Carolina University, I cannot find any mentions of this poster actually being real though. It's possible they took a lot of flak for it and pulled it though, or I just can't google.

This is clearly a two way street, I think if I were the Jake, I'd issue a request for charges against her as well.

projectbluue · 8時間前

Setting back womens rights about 50 years.

ponyass · 10時間前

Men can be raped to, Jake couldn't consent, Josie should be charged with rape as well.

Hey-its-that-asshole · 9時間前

He can't consent either. They're both wrong.

But it's his fault, because he wears blue shirts.

Edit: lots of comments off mine, want to clarify a few things: no means no, bad touch is bad. Mix alcohol in, shit gets real complicated. Damn well need a written consent form with witnesses from a time prior to alcohol consumption to be safe if someone, male or female, cries rape. I'm just poking fun at the situation but the truth is, that's some scary shit.

give_me_a_user_name · 8時間前

Actually there was a court case where both parties were drunk, later on the woman said it was rape because she couldn't give consent. The end decision was that they couldn't give consent to each other so the rape charge was thrown out.

BreakfastJunkie · 9時間前

I got married when I was 19. My ex-wife/now on going 8 years girlfriend is two years older than me. We got drunk and had sex when I was underage.

Did I rape her or did she rape me?

splurgeon · 10時間前

What's the organization that put this ad out? It's in the bottom right but too blurry to tell what it says.

Leftycrow · 6時間前

This isn't an accurate statement of the law, at least not in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with (I'm a military prosecutor by trade). However, this is consistent with what I've seen from many victim advocacy groups. Frankly misinformation like this does more harm than good from a prosecutor's standpoint, because any smart defense counsel will ask the victim if this is what she was taught. If so, they can then argue that she only "cried rape" because her miseducation about the subject caused her to believe she was sexually assaulted, when in reality, she made a decision that she now regrets.

Just being "drunk" has no legal significance for either the victim or the accused. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to sexual assault. Therefore a court can only view the accused's actions through the eyes of how a reasonable, sober person would act. The law states that a person who is "substantially incapacitated" cannot consent to sex and that the accused knew or should have known about that condition. Basically that means that a victim has to be so drunk that they lose the capacity to consent, i.e., really, really drunk, and the offender knew it.

The choice of whether to charge this case in civilian jurisdictions belongs to the prosecutor and in military jurisdictions it belongs to the commander (who almost always follows the recommendations of his prosecutor). Hopefully the prosecutor takes all of the facts into account before charging someone in this type of case.

TLDR - The system works as well as it reasonably can, but this poster is a misstatement of the law.

SIGRemedy · 8時間前

It actually has more to do with who can and who cannot be charged with rape. According to the FBI, who recently brought their rules for rape cases in line with the majority of states... "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." Link

So the issue isn't so much SJW or anything, but that the actual legal definition of rape is define as the act of penetrating someone. Obviously, if both the male and female in a sexual act are too drunk to consent, only one of them is even equipped to rape the other.

Whether that is fair or not is another story, but that's the law behind it.

iDirtyDianaX · 7時間前

There's a difference between a little drunk and slurring/stumbling/passed out. This is bullshit. In this case, why is HE able to consent, then? He's drinking, too. Bad PSA.

OrionSouthernStar · 6時間前

This is satire, right? Please tell me this is just a joke.

Comics
/r/comics	/r/webcomics
/r/comicbookart	/r/f7u12
Image macros	Screenshots/text
/r/lolcats	/r/screenshots
/r/AdviceAnimals	/r/desktops
/r/Demotivational	/r/facepalm
/r/memes	/r/images
Wallpaper	Animals
/r/wallpaper	/r/aww
/r/wallpapers	/r/cats
	/r/foxes
	/r/dogpictures
	/r/sloths
Photography	Low-moderated pics
/r/photography	/r/AnythingGoesPics
/r/photocritique	/r/images
/r/itookapicture	/r/misc
/r/windowshots
/r/PictureChallenge
GIFs	New subreddits
/r/reactiongifs	/r/NationalPhotoSubs
/r/gifs	/r/thewholecar
/r/HighQualityGifs
Misc	Curated
/r/picrequests	/r/pic
/r/ProgressPics	The SFWPorn Network
/r/crossview	The Imaginary Network

pics

Spoiler code

Posting Rules

Links

調停者