- 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: Deputies arrest 4 in LSU student Madison Brooks case
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:25 pm to DeltaTigerDelta
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:25 pm to DeltaTigerDelta
I hope they all get arse raped on death row
0
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:26 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:Also provided by the criminals brain trust
And the video that the judge saw
Without the criminals being complete idiots, you would know
She was drunk
They had sex
She followed them
That isn’t really a smoking gun at all. Their comments are the smoking gun. That’s my point. Without it this is a lot muddier
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:28 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:Umm, if two parties are both drunk, who “raped”who?
How is that relevant? You can’t claim you were drunk and that’s why you raped someone
It’s extrmely relevant in previous rape cases and it would have been in this one too without their comments
quote:
Under the law, if a person's ability to resist or consent to sexual acts is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition, and the other person is aware that this impairment affects their ability to resist or consent, then they can be charged for rape if they commit sex acts with the impaired party.
While this law covers individuals who know of the other person’s incapacitation but still commit sexual acts, it does not clearly address situations that involve two drunk parties who engage in sex acts. When it comes to rape cases that involve two drunk parties, it can be very difficult to determine whether both consented to the alleged sex acts. To make a ruling, the court will have to look at the specific details of the case to determine the level of consent each party was capable of while they were under the influence of alcohol.
This post was edited on 1/26/23 at 10:31 pm
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:28 pm to lsupride87
quote:
But that doesn’t at all. Because what was their BAC?
Doesn't matter. The double standard exists. And I believe it should.
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:28 pm to X123F45
quote:According to the law it doesn’t
The double standard exists.
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:29 pm to lsupride87
According to the way the law is enforced and prosecuted it does.
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:31 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Yes. Those guys were just out to get an easy peice of arse. They figured she was drunk, she probably would not know....maybe feel it in the morning but they would be long gone and back in Denham. They threw her out the car on the side of the road because after they got their rocks off....ditch her. Didn't count on her wandering out into the road.
I agree with you 100% -- but that's all hypothetical and will be very difficult to prove in court. Again, their statements about how drunk she was will be null and void because of their age -- their attorney will be quick to point out that they're in no position to determine how intoxicated a person is. Video shows that she was able to cross the street without signs of impairment in pursuit of them and willingly went with them. They didn't lure her or drag her from the bar to their vehicle. Hate to say it but it's not going to be easy to get a conviction.
This post was edited on 1/26/23 at 10:40 pm
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:31 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
How is that relevant? You can’t claim you were drunk and that’s why you raped someone
It truly baffles me how many people keep asking that question.
The criminal’s sobriety is not a factor. Only the victims.
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:32 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:This simply is incorrect
The criminal’s sobriety is not a factor.
quote:
Under the law, if a person's ability to resist or consent to sexual acts is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition, and the other person is aware that this impairment affects their ability to resist or consent, then they can be charged for rape if they commit sex acts with the impaired party.
Make it two gay guys to be simpler for y’all
Two gay men are hammered drunk and have sex. Both claim they don’t remember consent. Who raped who?
This post was edited on 1/26/23 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:34 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Umm, if two parties are both drunk, who “raped”who?
It’s biology. One party (two in this case) had to actively do something. The other party could have been completely unconscious to “participate.” Didn’t Ted Bundy have sex with some of his victims after he had already killed them? There is a reason some double standards exist.
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:35 pm to Rick9Plus
quote:A man can be shithouse drunk and still get an erection
It’s biology.
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:36 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Two gay men are hammered drunk and have sex. Both claim they don’t remember consent. Who raped who?
If anyone raped anyone, i’m gonna say the “pitcher?”
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:42 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Make it two gay guys to be simpler for y’all Two gay men are hammered drunk and have sex. Both claim they don’t remember consent. Who raped who?
Why are you arguing about hypothetical situations where we would have less evidence than we do?
No one cares. Why is this important?
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:43 pm to WaWaWeeWa
It just shows how fortunate law enforcement is that they talked. Without them talking this case would be extremely difficult. It still isn’t going to be easy as is
But I’m glad you walked back your “it doesn’t matter if they were drunk” argument
But I’m glad you walked back your “it doesn’t matter if they were drunk” argument
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:43 pm to Thundercracker
I agree.
Difficult to get a conviction in EBR. If this were different racially = different case.
Just about all of the blacks on the local news threads - and these are folks willing to give out their names and identities to make these comments - blame the victim here.
Given the demographics of EBR it'd be a race game trump card screw the man race pimp defense attorney who could easily manipulate the emotions of the jury to get the "W."
Computer forensics is likely to turn up the actual rape video as well. Family will be pressed to allow the perps to plea to some lesser charge. Simple rape and be in the sex registry ten years.
I'd want a black female prosecutor appointed on it since that's the juror least likely to vote to convict.
Difficult to get a conviction in EBR. If this were different racially = different case.
Just about all of the blacks on the local news threads - and these are folks willing to give out their names and identities to make these comments - blame the victim here.
Given the demographics of EBR it'd be a race game trump card screw the man race pimp defense attorney who could easily manipulate the emotions of the jury to get the "W."
Computer forensics is likely to turn up the actual rape video as well. Family will be pressed to allow the perps to plea to some lesser charge. Simple rape and be in the sex registry ten years.
I'd want a black female prosecutor appointed on it since that's the juror least likely to vote to convict.
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:46 pm to lsupride87
quote:
It just shows how fortunate law enforcement is that they talked. Without them talking this case would be extremely difficult. It still isn’t going to be easy as is
I just offered an explanation. They were very worried about being charged with her death. Especially the driver. He probably thought he could be responsible for her death.
quote:
But I’m glad you walked back your “it doesn’t matter if they were drunk” argument
That’s why you won’t shut up about a hypothetical situation. You just want to win an argument. No one cares about what would happen if they didn’t talk. And you have no proof what the verdict would be in that hypothetical situation.
This post was edited on 1/26/23 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:47 pm to lsupride87
quote:
§43. Third degree rape A. Third degree rape is a rape committed when the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without the lawful consent of a victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances: (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.
What you quote isn’t accurate. Above is the actual law.
LINK
It’s whether they knew or should have known. So if they had actual or constructive knowledge. Constructive knowledge is presumed knowledge. Meaning you would have known if you had been sober or more diligent, etc.
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:49 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:But she would also, in theory, be having sex with someone that was drunk. It goes both ways.
It’s whether they knew or should have known. So if they had actual or constructive knowledge. Constructive knowledge is presumed knowledge. Meaning you would have known if you had been sober or more diligent, etc.
There is nothing easy or straightforward about rape cases when both parties are drunk.
This post was edited on 1/26/23 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:51 pm to lsupride87
quote:
But she would also, in theory, be having sex with someone that was drunk. It goes both ways.
Yea totally
She forced 4 highschool athletes into their own car and raped two of them, one of whom just happened to be charged with rape twice previously. before running away.
Plausible story
ETA: I forgot the part where she forced them to get hard enough to penetrate her a-hole. Sorry
This post was edited on 1/26/23 at 10:54 pm
Posted on 1/26/23 at 10:52 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:
It’s whether they knew or should have known. So if they had actual or constructive knowledge. Constructive knowledge is presumed knowledge. Meaning you would have known if you had been sober or more diligent, etc.
Right. Means a 'reasonable person' would have known. That way you can't dance around what you actual knew (which we'll never know).
The arrest warrant had key questions and comments where the four knew she was drunk and not capable of legal consent.
Then they handed over the video showing Madison slurring her words and clearly 'drunk drunk.'
Page 185 of 419
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News