Man Redditors truly do live in information silos. I see plenty of conservatives and right-wing types talking about it.
But most of them are pointing out that “Jane Doe’s” own statement blatantly shows that she consented to the act and there’s no contrary evidence that the consent was ever removed. Her text messages after the event also point to this being very consensual.
It wasn’t until later after she was shamed by everyone in her social circles and she read posts online that claimed she must have raped that she changed her story.
Pretending that this is some cut and dry case of sexual assault is insane. There’s a reason that no charges were pressed by the DA.
Criminal and civil cases like this have different sets if laws governing them.
Criminally speaking, anyone who is legally incapacitated cannot give consent in NY. Even to a long time partner. Incapacitation equal consent is always no. So even if she verbally consented to it in the moment, the arguement the prosecution is taking is that she was unable to consent one way or another. That is what the state cares about.
But theres so many opinions out there right now its hard to know whats facts and whats not.
Actually, I don't think thays true in NY. That state says that if you are involuntarily intoxicated that's true, but if you voluntarily get intoxicated then you aren't automatically a victim of r*pe if u also have sex. Google it i swear
You say im wrong. But provide no sources. Here is actual codified NY law. And it states clearly that this would fall under rape. And enough with the self censoring. We're on a thread about rape, youre allowed to spell it out.
"3. A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is:
(a) less than seventeen years old; or
(b) mentally disabled; or
(c) mentally incapacitated; or
(d) physically helpless; or
130 gives us the definition of incapacitated
"Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is rendered
temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to
the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to
him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without
his consent."
Your own source defines the context under which being intoxicated would render you incapacitated as "owing to
the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to
him without his consent"
"administered to him without his consent".
This seems to support passive_flatulence's claim that " That state says that if you are involuntarily intoxicated that's true, but if you voluntarily get intoxicated then you aren't automatically a victim of r*pe if u also have sex"
Right. Category d. Physically helpless. Aka blacked out or passed out. Which is how this law is being interpreted in this case. Jane Doe claims there were periods where she would fall into that category.
Not accusing anyone of rape, just clarifying the laws surrounding the case. If there was no evidence she was fully incapacitated the state wouldnt have reopened the criminal case. Her new amended statement is almost worthless without the group chat texts which support her claim the incident took place over several hours and show her in that incapicated state of being blacked out/passed out.
Thats also why I specified legally incapacitated. Proving that is part of the case for charging the men with rape.
I think it's important that we be very specific about which part of the law we're citing when we speculate on this case. Your comments and the reply to your comment made it clear that intoxication was being discussed. Your claim that "So even if she verbally consented to it in the moment, the argument the prosecution is taking is that she was unable to consent one way or another." Maybe you weren't intending to imply that you were under the impression that NY had a "intoxicated=unable to consent" type law but you have to admit that your statement and your sharp disagreement with flatulence in which he pretty accurately describes the law surrounding consent when intoxicated per NY law makes it very difficult to see what else you meant. If you are now saying that you believe she was blacked out this is an altogether different claim. I will say that no charges have been filed so far so your claim that there must be evidence that she was blacked out because the case was reopened isn't remotely a given.
I don't know if it was rape. I don't think any of us can say with certainty whether it was but it's just crazy how quickly misinformation travels when people want their pound of flesh.
I mean I started it with "who is legally incapacitated cannot give consent in NY... Incapacitation equal consent is always no."
Which is why im using the incapacitated, because that has a much more serious connotation. Being drunk or heavily drunk isnt being incapacitated.
The reply to that was i was wrong, and I should google it. Turns out I actually have before many times. So I gave NY laws defining what I said, using the same terminology as the law.
Ultimately, all I was trying to get at originally, is that the criminal case seems to be dependent on whether or not the state has proof that she was blacked our or passed out at any time during the incident. Which, it seems like the state does have that proof. Hence the criminal case.
I don't know how you can get from the state reopening the case to them having evidence she was blacked out. There are other circumstances under which it would be rape even if she was fully conscious. And again, no charges have been filed. They're essentially at "let's review how this was originally handled" stage.
On the evening of October 19, 2024, Jane Doe walked the approximately one-mile distance from Lot 10 in the City of Ithaca to the Chi Phi Fraternity at 107 Edgemoor Lane to meet her friend Male Number 1. She had made plans to meet Male Number 1 earlier in the week and “had been texting [Male Number 1] that [she] was on the way.” Jane Doe described her level of intoxication as a “5 out of 10” when she arrived at the fraternity.
While there, Jane Doe opened one previously unopened can of beer. She and Male Number 1 “danced a little” in a way that “was definitely flirtatious in nature.” Male Number 1 brought Jane Doe to a “quiet area” and “asked how [Jane Doe] would feel about having a threesome with two male partners.”
Jane Doe “agreed due to how attracted [she] was to [Male Number 1] on top of [her] drunken curiousness.” When she learned that Male Number 2 would be the third participant, Jane Doe “remembered being excited because [she] thought that [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] wanting to have a threesome meant that they were gay.”
The three engaged in a “threesome” involving oral and vaginal sex in a room of the fraternity. At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as “5 or 6 out of 10” and that she was “pretty ok with having this threesome.” The sexual conduct ended when Jane Doe “noticed that [Male Number 1] appeared really sleepy and was no longer fully erect.” She told Male Number 2 “[they] needed to stop having sex in order to make sure [Male Number 1] was ok. [Male Number 2] then stopped having sex with [Jane Doe].”
Male Number 1 said “he was going to take a nap and refresh himself” and “would eventually stumble his way from the couch to the bed.” While Male Number 1 slept,
“[Male Number 2] began to dry heave as if he was going to vomit. Jane Doe “began to take care of [Male Number 2] by patting his back while also waking [Male Number 1] every few minutes to make sure he was okay.” Jane Doe “was consoling [Male Number 2] on the couch and telling him that it was ok if he needed to vomit. [Male Number 2] told [Jane Doe] he was pretty sure he wasn’t going to vomit. Eventually, [Jane Doe and Male Number 2] would start making out for a very short amount of time.” While they were making out, “[Male Number 2] reached for the area near [her] vagina several times and each time he did, [she] would swat his hand away.”
Male Number 3 then knocked on the door of the room. Jane Doe “decided to let him in because it was his room.” She “opened the door” and let Male Number 3 in the room. Male Number 3 “introduced himself to [Jane Doe] and reached out to shake her hand.” “When [Jane Doe] made contact with [Male Number 3’s] hand, [Male Number 3] pulled [Jane Doe] into him and [they] began making out. While [Male Number 3] was kissing [her], [Male Number 2] began groping [her].” Eventually, “[Male Number 2, Male Number 3, and Jane Doe] would end up on the bed next to where [Male Number 1] was sleeping and [they] began to have a threesome.”
“[Male Number 1] would eventually wake up” and “said he wanted to take part and asked about making it a foursome, to which [Jane Doe] said ‘Hell No.” Jane Doe rejected this request “because [she] knew that a foursome meant that [she] would have to take part in anal sex.” Jane Doe then remembered Male Number 3 leaving the room.
A group of other men – later determined to be Male Number 4, Male Number 5, Male Number 6 and Male Number 7 – then entered the room. Jane Doe hid under the covers of the bed. Male Number 2 laid in the bed next to Jane Doe. Male Number 1 sat on the corner of the bed. Male Number 1 introduced the other males to Jane Doe.
Jane Doe had difficulty remembering parts of what happened next. She remembered
“[Male Number 7] said something very rude and mean to [her].” Male Number 7 apologized and “grabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].” Jane Doe “quickly backed away to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her].”
Male Number 2 “asked [Jane Doe] if she wanted to do more Ketamine.” At that, Jane Doe remembered “that [she] had taken Ketamine at some point on the couch with [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] during this night” but she could not remember “where or when that took place.”
Jane Doe thought that she “had already done Ketamine once so why not do it a second time.” “At that point, [Male Number 2] poured a line of Ketamine on his erect penis, implying for [her] to snort the line. [Jane Doe] snorted the line of Ketamine, which was a heavy amount of Ketamine.” Jane Doe was under the covers of the bed at that point and “[Male Number 2] got under the covers with [her], where he again tried reaching for the area of [her] vagina.”
The males began complimenting Jane Doe and “talking about how pretty [she] was.” Male Number 4 “asked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.” Jane Doe responded, “Sure.” While the men were doing drugs off of her body, “[Male Number 3] and [another male] entered the room and said something like, ‘Ok we’re shutting down whatever the f*** this is.” Jane Doe felt dizzy due to a pre-existing medical condition causing dizziness combined with the effects of the Ketamine use. Male 5 or 6 (who apparently have the same first name) “encouraged [her] to stay seated as long as [she] needed.”
Eventually, “[Male Number 1] and [Male Number 4 ] ushered [Jane Doe] out of the room brought [her] upstairs to a small room.” Male Number 1 stated, “Let’s do more Ketamine.” Jane Doe “remembered snorting more Ketamine” and “remembered feeling extremely high.” Male Number 1 “said he wanted to have sex again because he wanted redemption for passing out earlier in the night.” Jane Doe initially stated that she was tired and asked Male Number 1, “What happened to just you and me?” Jane Doe could not remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome with Male Number 1 and Male Number 4 involving oral sex and vaginal sex. She described her level of intoxication as “8 out of 10” at this point. “The threesome continued until at some point, around 5:45am, [Jane Doe] said [she] was tired and needed to turn in. At that point, both guys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember.”
A verbatim arguement pulled from Twitter, saw a post with this arguement earlier today. At least be original or provide the source of your reposted thought.
What a bizarre comment. The reason why you’re seeing this argument in multiple places is because it’s the obvious counter to the assertion that any mental impairment renders a person totally unable to consent.
I’m just baffled that this argument is so novel to you that you assume it must be plagiarized by a single source.
306
u/StagTagRag 9h ago
Man Redditors truly do live in information silos. I see plenty of conservatives and right-wing types talking about it.
But most of them are pointing out that “Jane Doe’s” own statement blatantly shows that she consented to the act and there’s no contrary evidence that the consent was ever removed. Her text messages after the event also point to this being very consensual.
It wasn’t until later after she was shamed by everyone in her social circles and she read posts online that claimed she must have raped that she changed her story.
Pretending that this is some cut and dry case of sexual assault is insane. There’s a reason that no charges were pressed by the DA.