- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Allegedly, Madison Brooks had sex the day before incident that caused that caused injuries
Posted on 3/14/24 at 6:59 am to Chad504boy
Posted on 3/14/24 at 6:59 am to Chad504boy
I'm 100% convinced you are a chick.
0
Posted on 3/14/24 at 7:01 am to mahdragonz
quote:
This is like some horrible insight into the weird Victorian mindset of men who think women should not sleep around.
And your post is like some horrible insight into the weird Victorian mindset of those who think women aren't responsible for their actions.
Sleep around all you want, but there are consequences.
People will think you are trash and that's the reality.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 7:45 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
There's no denying she was really drunk, but that doesn't mean she didn't want to have sex with them (and i'm not saying she did or didn't here), and we can't ask her anythign about that night anymore unfortunately.
One of the issues I have with the way this has been characterized lately is that it is very easy to oversimplify.
Based on what we’ve seen to-date, I think she probably did intend to go home with the juvenile defendant. I have no idea whether she was too drunk to consent to sex with that defendant (because we’ve only seen videos that have been curated by the defense) but I will admit it certainly seems like that was probably her intent when she left the bar.
I think a lot of people latch onto that and start drawing parallels to other date rape/regret cases with very blurry lines. But there’s a lot more going on. The reported 0.319% BAC is absurdly high. That’s not just “drunk”; it’s completely wasted on the verge of legitimate alcohol poisoning. I don’t know if her BAC was rising or falling (I’m sure this will be argued to some extent at trial) but she very well may have gone from “drunk” to “complete shitshow” in a short period of time. We don’t really know (yet).
And again - I think this makes a lot of people think “so if she’s able to consent when she leaves the bar but then gets drunker, that’s rape!?!” But this is also an oversimplification.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that two things are true:
1. She intended to go home with the juvenile defendant and was ready to consent to sex with him.
2. Her BAC was rising and she was completely wasted after getting in the truck.
Does that mean she was ready to consent to sex with both the juvenile defendant and Kaivon Washington, in the back seat of a truck, on the side of the road, while Carver and Washington’s uncle (a grown man) sat in the front seat taking videos? Because that’s a lot different than simply going home and having sex with the juvenile defendant.
We know there are other videos from inside the truck, and we know the defense chose not to leak them. So it stands to reason that they are, at a minimum, less favorable for the defense than the videos we’ve seen. To me it all comes down to whether the prosecution can show that she’s completely out of it in those videos. We will probably never see that evidence as I’m sure the audience will be limited for obvious reasons, but that’s a huge key in all of this IMHO.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 8:13 am to lostinbr
quote:
To me it all comes down to whether the prosecution can show that she’s completely out of it in those videos
The story doesn't end there.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 8:15 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
The story doesn't end there.
What else is there?
If the jury doesn't think either of these occurred (beyond a reasonable doubt):
quote:
(1) When the victim is incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act by reason of a stupor or abnormal condition of mind produced by an intoxicating agent or any cause and the offender knew or should have known of the victim's incapacity.
(2) When the victim, through unsoundness of mind, is temporarily or permanently incapable of understanding the nature of the act and the offender knew or should have known of the victim's incapacity.
Then there is no 3rd degree rape.
If there is no 3rd degree rape, then 1st degree rape is off the table, too.
All that would be left is Casen's video voyeurism charge.
This post was edited on 3/14/24 at 8:16 am
Posted on 3/14/24 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then there is no 3rd degree rape.
If there is no 3rd degree rape, then 1st degree rape is off the table, too.
All that would be left is Casen's video voyeurism charge.
That's a good point.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 9:31 am to PGAOLDBawNeVaBroke
quote:
The day before guy is prob like FML
Yeah I'm sure he doesn't want to get dragged into this whole mess. I wonder if he's a white dude.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 10:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What else is there?
What transpired after the "video." There are data beyond the video that substantiates her condition.
Data is a heckuva thing to contend with isn't it?
Posted on 3/14/24 at 10:09 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
There are data beyond the video that substantiates her condition.
Are you referencing the blood/alcohol level? Or more video(s)?
Posted on 3/14/24 at 10:55 am to SirWinston
It's not so much the sex, it's who she was hanging out with and having the sex with. None of this happens if she's dating 2 frat boys
Humor?
Humor?
Posted on 3/14/24 at 11:43 am to AlwysATgr
quote:
What transpired after the "video." There are data beyond the video that substantiates her condition.
I think what you’re getting at is that the accident and her BAC at that time are additional evidence of her intoxication.
I agree, but the prosecution is going to have to convince a jury that the defendants knew (or should have known) she was too drunk to consent. They have Carver’s/Washington’s statements which will certainly help but I think they probably need more than that.
If the only videos to be shown at trial were the ones that we’ve seen, I think it would probably be an uphill battle to get a BR jury to convict. That said, the video voyeurism charge tells me they have more. So that’s why I think a lot rides on those other videos.
Of course the electronic communications between the defendants after the fact are another unknown. It’s entirely possible that they made very incriminating comments in those communications - again, we won’t know until the trial.
ETA: To be clear, I absolutely think these guys took advantage of a drunk girl (whether she wanted to go home with one of the defendants or not) and I think what they did was reprehensible. I am fairly confident that at least one crime was committed. The question is whether the DA has enough evidence to actually get a conviction on first degree rape, specifically.
This post was edited on 3/14/24 at 11:52 am
Posted on 3/14/24 at 11:46 am to lostinbr
quote:
I agree, but the prosecution is going to have to convince a jury that the defendants knew (or should have known) she was too drunk to consent.
Wait, since when is this the standard? It has this always been the legal standard but it’s only Title IX kangaroo courts where a man always knows the level of intoxication?
Posted on 3/14/24 at 11:48 am to captainpodnuh
I said this on this very site and got flamed to death. But defense lawyers are mostly scumbags. If I was one I sure wouldn’t take up cases in which I knew the defendant was guilty and had done something truly awful like this
Posted on 3/14/24 at 11:58 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Wait, since when is this the standard? It has this always been the legal standard but it’s only Title IX kangaroo courts where a man always knows the level of intoxication?
I’m not really sure what you’re asking but I think some of this is blown out of proportion, at least when it comes to actual convictions.
Plenty of men have been dragged through the mud publicly because a woman accused them with no evidence, to be sure. But is there really an epidemic of men being convicted of rape for not knowing a woman’s exact blood alcohol content?
I think this is probably more rooted in perception than reality. If it were true then I’d think the prosecution would have a slam dunk case.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 2:59 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
"It" as in a ride home?
You know what I’m talking about. I meant “it” as in a guy’s dick
This post was edited on 3/14/24 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 3/14/24 at 3:29 pm to Commandeaux
Holy shite .... I had no idea.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 3:52 pm to BruslyTiger
quote:
I believe in legal terms , that is known as "hearsay".
Ive got an assault charge based off hearsay. DA no shite said " judge he admitted to being outside his car so WE CAN ASSUME he did it... now i have a guilty prayer for judgement that's impossible to get expunged without having anothe4 judge re open the case and change the verdict.
We have no justice system, just an illusion of one.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 3:55 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It won’t be when they trot this guy out to the stand, which presumably they are prepared to do given the motion.
She’s dead. She cannot say if she did or didn’t. If there is no DNA evidence that he did to me the testimony is moot. A mouth will say anything.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 4:10 pm to lostinbr
quote:
Plenty of men have been dragged through the mud publicly because a woman accused them with no evidence, to be sure. But is there really an epidemic of men being convicted of rape for not knowing a woman’s exact blood alcohol content?
You're pretty cavalier about men being dragged in to court to defend themselves against bullshite charges. In most cases, having to go to court is damn near as bad as a conviction. People's lives and reputations are wrecked because of that. Not to mention the mental and emotional toll of a prospective prison sentence.
You're way too casual in your dismissal.
Posted on 3/14/24 at 4:45 pm to justaniceguy
quote:
But defense lawyers are mostly scumbags. If I was one I sure wouldn’t take up cases in which I knew the defendant was guilty and had done something truly awful like this
People who can not compartmentalize emotion should not be crim defense attorneys. One of my closest friends is a criminal defense attorney and is also one of the best human beings I have ever known. He is extraordinarily kind-hearted but can flip a switch and defend the worst of the worst better than all but one other attorney in my area. It can be a difficult job but it is also one of the only jobs the founding fathers saw as vital enough to constitutionally protect in the Bill of Rights.
This post was edited on 3/14/24 at 4:53 pm
Page 35 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News