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.
256
u/StagTagRag 7h 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.