<p>I attended a talk by a prominent crime novelist, former CSI worker, who said, folks, this isn’t TV. You know, on SVU, where they ask the kid in the store to look up whose name was on a card and he just turns to a pile and pulls it out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Affirmative consent is the law for the entire state of California, not just for CA public universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is incorrect. In the state of California, it’s automatically rape. The video would be a smoking gun-- it shows the NZ woman evincing nothing that resembles consent.</p>
<p>@dstark, yes, I was astounded that Columbia did not react to accusations by three separate women. At the very least, the guy needed a stern warning about his behavior, and a class, also. (This is where I think a range of available penalties comes in handy.)</p>
<p>SWDY…</p>
<p>Here is the video…</p>
<p><a href=“kathartie: A powerful New Zealand anti-rape campaign....”>http://kathartie.■■■■■■■■■■/post/18543784513/a-powerful-new-zealand-anti-rape-campaign</a></p>
<p>In your opinion, Was this woman too drunk to consent?</p>
<p>About ignoring laws…</p>
<p>People ignore laws…but we could use different examples…</p>
<p>People drive too fast…they speed…and once in awhile…they get caught. They get tickets.</p>
<p>PG - Based on my experience on the inside of a university, I think it’s almost certain that UVa and the police know a lot about the case already but are sitting on the information. They won’t release anything until they have completed their investigation. Even then UVa will handle their students with kid gloves and if Jackie’s story ends up being mostly untrue they probably bury the details in some file cabinet.</p>
<p>The RS article accused UVa of grossly mishandling Jackie’s case. However, universities have a hard time defending themselves in the press against their own students. From their standpoint, one of the few positive things about a lawsuit against them is that it allows them to get their side out without being subject to further litigation.</p>
<p>I think the best advice to give a man going off to college is: Do not date students attending your college. Date town women. Date students attending another college. </p>
<p>Am I right that in those situations, the college complaint system does not apply? Any charges leveled would have to go through the real system with it’s due process protections.</p>
<p>Essentially, such women have nullified the law that drunk women cannot consent, You were fine, imo, til you hit that point. One’s mistake and one’s acknowledgement do not nullify the principle that there should be consent. Sounds like you’re saying that if people respond with their own choices, there is no law. ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So why didn’t you say that before when I asked you? I was depending on you to tell me about the criminal laws in the various states. Fine, it’s automatically rape in the state of CA. Like I said, we have a criminal justice system. Let’s report all rapes to it, get a rape kit done ASAP when evidence is fresh, and then let the justice system sort it out.</p>
<p>Why is that so hard?</p>
<p>PS: Note to self: No having sex in the state of CA.</p>
<p>For those who say that some law or college regulation says drunk people can’t consent, which states, or which colleges not named Occidental, have such laws or regulations?</p>
<p>Consolation. :)</p>
<p>If we are trying to get to the truth, why is evidence suppressed? </p>
<p>A guy talks about a video he can’t present, let him present it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did, but apparently you didn’t read it, although you quoted it. Look back at your message #2416. Look at the first sentence of the second paragraph you quoted. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apoliges, CF, for not reading it closely then. The main message in my response obviously remains unchanged. Let the criminal laws - as written and as interpreted per case law - decide what is rape and what isn’t.</p>
<p>I am still not having sex when in the state of CA. Way too risky.</p>
<p>Oh wait though. The CA law doesn’t apply to non-college students. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“California adopts 'yes means yes' law”>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/usanow/2014/08/28/california-bill-yes-means-yes-sex-assault/14765665/</a></p>
<p>Even those that helped pass the Yes means Yes law in CA didn’t subject themselves to the law (contrary to what you have been saying, CF, you should get your facts straight). They only decided to moderate the behavior of college kids, and not all adults.</p>
<p>Figures. No one is dumb enough to think Yes means Yes makes sense for adults. They just want college kids to not have sex, period. Funny thing is that it doesn’t apply to non-college kids who are the same age as college kids, even though 1) the non-college kids are more numerous than college kids, and 2) the non-college kids are at risk of rape more than college kids. Goes to show what kind of idiocy may be achieved through good advocacy and proper creation of public hysteria, especially among the suburban middle class affluent group that raises their kids in an antispetic environment and can afford to pay for college.</p>
<p>Anyway, so the NZ case would NOT be automatically rape per CA laws.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was in the 70s and people openly ignored these laws, much more than they do now. The hostesses were walking around handing out small 4 ounce glass of wine to everyone there, even all the 7th and 8th graders attending. I cannot remember how many I had, but it was a lot, as it was endless. My Dad still laughs about it because when I got home knew something was wrong. </p>
<p>It is not crass to point out when someone first got drunk and why. I wonder if,in your view, it is also crass point out it all happened in the reception room of the synagogue?</p>
<p>And to make it more clear for you, the bar mitzvahs are the only ceremonies and receptions where us young people were freely served wine. Never had that at a b-day party, ever. Easy to understand why I became a fan of them.</p>
<p>You need to take a chill pill. People’s lives are what they are; it is not crass for them to point what they did and why.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It always amazing me why people think their life is representative of someone’s else’s life. Never understood that way of living. See first paragraph of post. OK, that was not what you do in your life, so what? That is not what others do. </p>
<p>Oh wait, the California law does apply to non-students. Here it is for you again, with my bold to direct you right to the part about positive cooperation:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269”>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SWDY, Did you see the video? </p>
<p>CF, the law doesn’t apply to all Californians. It applies to college students only. Read the full law instead of just quoting one small part. Seriously. Of course, in the context (college students for colleges that accept state money) what you quoted above is correct. But if you disagree, quote the part of the law that says that it applies to all Californians.</p>
<p>I’m reading the full law! It’s the [California</a> Penal Code, Sections 261-269](<a href=“http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269]California”>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269). That’s the law for everyone in the state of California.</p>
<p>Here’s a page from a law firm, explaining the law: <a href=“Penal Code § 261 PC - "Rape" - California Laws & Penalties”>Penal Code § 261 PC - "Rape" - California Laws & Penalties;
<p>Yes means yes gives a little clarity to the participants before they get into it. Yes means yes can be used to prevent a few situations. </p>
<p>If there is a problem…We are still going to end up with a he said she said in most cases. The guy is going to get in trouble when witnesses say she was out of it. Maybe. Otherwise, how does yes means yes crucify the guy?</p>
<p>She said, “Yes”. </p>
<p>“No. I didn’t”. </p>
<p>Ok…where are we? </p>
<p>Are guys going to get crucified based on those two quotes? </p>
<p>CF,
I was trying to be coy about my S, because I try to limit information I post about my kids on public message boards without their consent, but I will say that my S does not go to college in CA at all, so the Yes means Yes law is not relevant to him. Anyway, he has reached an age where I will not be advising him at all about his sex life anymore, unless he asks me.</p>