- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 2/23/23 at 10:27 pm to TeddyPadillac
Posted on 2/23/23 at 10:27 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
It’s the stupidity of the law that only a woman can be raped, and there’s no wiggle room in the law. If you’re a woman, you’re over .08, you engage in sex, then you were raped.
That not stoopid
0
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:02 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
If you’re a woman, you’re over .08, you engage in sex, then you were raped.
Easy, Teddy. That’s not the law.
If you have sex with a drunk, consenting woman, you are fine UNLESS she is so drunk that she can’t understand the act AND you know or should know it.
I posted five or six actual cases earlier that say just this.
Drunk sex isn’t rape. Stupefied sex is unless perhaps you are also stupefied, in which case the chances of you being capable of sex are hovering right around zero.
The third degree rape statute is a pretty well crafted law. It says what common sense tells you. No one zonked out of their mind can consent to sex.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:09 pm to AndyCBR
quote:
We've gone almost 4 pages without Judge and Hodson chiming in. It's a fricking festivus miracle...
How dare I come here and give you the actual law.
But, in fairness, perhaps my contribution pales in comparison to yours. So by all means, give me your hot take. I’ll wait.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:35 pm to whoa
From about 20 pages back.
quote:
If I understand your point, they would not be guilty of a crime if they too were drunk? IOW, they may have been incapable of discerning that she was incapable of consenting? So that would make it no crime?
To me, how would your scenario be fundamentally different from a teenager on drugs playing in a street daring someone to run them over. And you being inebriated get in your truck and oblige. I don't think it'll pass muster to claim 'I was too drunk to know they were on drugs.' A crime was still committed. "No sober, no crime" is not a defense IMO.
Posted on 2/23/23 at 11:45 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
many in here are making assumptions for her.
No one is assuming she was incapable of getting out of the way of a oncoming vehicle in the middle of Burbank. Tragically, that was demonstrated.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 1:38 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
If you have sex with a drunk, consenting woman, you are fine UNLESS she is so drunk that she can’t understand the act AND you know or should know it.
If she did in fact call the driver a fig for not wanting to engage, wouldn’t that mean she understood the act?
Also, does the law state a specific BAC for consent? I don’t believe it does. The Reggie’s video & the car videos don’t show her as blackout drunk as her BAC would have one believe.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 4:28 am to whoa
quote:
If she did in fact call the driver a fig for not wanting to engage, wouldn’t that mean she understood the act?
It’s evidence a jury could consider.
—She’s speaking
—She’s directly addressing sexual matters
—The content implies she wants to have sex
It would go both to consent and capacity to consent.
Or, maybe, she was just very drunk and talking out of her head.
You can argue most facts both ways. That’s why we have juries.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 4:30 am to whoa
quote:
Also, does the law state a specific BAC for consent?
It does not. You can be very drunk and consent if you are capable of understanding the act.
Also remember that if someone is very drunk, maybe even too drunk to consent, but doesn’t appear so to a reasonable person, it is not third degree rape.
This law was written very well to avoid a lot of the things the cooyons here are worried about.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 4:52 am to JudgeHolden
A thought experiment......
If Madison, with the same blood alcohol level, drove a car drunk and killed some kids, is she responsible for her actions?
What if, with the same blood alcohol level, she fired a gun in a crowded room and killed some kids, is she responsible for her actions?
If Madison, with the same blood alcohol level, drove a car drunk and killed some kids, is she responsible for her actions?
What if, with the same blood alcohol level, she fired a gun in a crowded room and killed some kids, is she responsible for her actions?
Posted on 2/24/23 at 5:17 am to SneezyBeltranIsHere
quote:
If Madison, with the same blood alcohol level, drove a car drunk and killed some kids, is she responsible for her actions?
Yes. But there is a statutory standard for that, and it is .20.
Different law, different standard.
quote:
What if, with the same blood alcohol level, she fired a gun in a crowded room and killed some kids, is she responsible for her actions?
I think yes. I’d have to look at the statute again, but I think that’s negligent homicide with no intoxication defense under 14:5.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 5:19 am
Posted on 2/24/23 at 5:29 am to Elleshoe
quote:
I haven’t seen the video of that happening can you link it?
Ron Haley, lawyer for Washington, said this was on the video. It was not on the video released.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 5:56 am to JPLSU1981
Your essential argument is that she raped two of the four in the car.
There is no evidence to your argument other than “what if”.
I also agree innocent until proven guilty. These four haven’t been proven guilty in a court of law. However, the evidence that has been presented by their lawyers, their statements to police, and the facts as we all know them at this time, doesn’t look like these four are innocent.
Edited to add:
Some have said she called the driver a fig.
1. I have not seen a video of her saying that. Anyone who has asked for the link to the video, it is seemingly ignored.
2 Make the assumption that she did call driver fig. We heard clearly the driver say something along the lines of get out or get her out.
Since some who make the fig claim are also the same that make the what if claim, let’s say what if. What if she was upset about just being raped by two and asking driver if he some fig since he isn’t going to rape her too?
What if she is making the claim to the driver that he is a fig because the driver wants her out, and he is going to let two guys rape him too?
There is no evidence to your argument other than “what if”.
I also agree innocent until proven guilty. These four haven’t been proven guilty in a court of law. However, the evidence that has been presented by their lawyers, their statements to police, and the facts as we all know them at this time, doesn’t look like these four are innocent.
Edited to add:
Some have said she called the driver a fig.
1. I have not seen a video of her saying that. Anyone who has asked for the link to the video, it is seemingly ignored.
2 Make the assumption that she did call driver fig. We heard clearly the driver say something along the lines of get out or get her out.
Since some who make the fig claim are also the same that make the what if claim, let’s say what if. What if she was upset about just being raped by two and asking driver if he some fig since he isn’t going to rape her too?
What if she is making the claim to the driver that he is a fig because the driver wants her out, and he is going to let two guys rape him too?
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 6:13 am
Posted on 2/24/23 at 7:59 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
You can be very drunk and consent if you are capable of understanding the act.
So how will they determine if she could understand the act?
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:09 am to clip11
quote:
So how will they determine if she could understand the act?
Direct evidence:
—video from Reggie’s
—in car video
—any texts she sent
—testimony of anyone in the bar who observed her
—driver’s testimony (if he flips)
—observations of Uber driver (maybe)
—any texts from phones of the four during events
Circumstantial evidence
—circumstances of the encounter (anal sex in small back seat on side street)
—behavior after being dropped off
Scientific evidence
—BAC
—Medical evidence of sexual trauma
That’s what I got so far. There may be more.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 9:18 am
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:15 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
IMO people all worked up over the fact that she died, which has NOTHINIG to do with what happened in that car.
EXACTLY
I’ve been keeping up with this thread… I’ve noticed since time has passed the emotional replies are being passed over for logical objective posts.
Which is typical human behavior.
This post was edited on 2/24/23 at 8:19 am
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:17 am to R11
Nah, we're pretty worked up about the rape which at least two of the pieces of shite in the car knew was wrong.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 8:50 am to LNCHBOX
THIS
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:16 am to LNCHBOX
Kaivon stated the he knew she was intoxicated and if Kaivon and Casen could tell, Desmond could tell as well (or shouldhave been able to tell, I would guess he has a similar IQ and background as Kaivon). And since they knew she was wasted, they knew it would be more likely they could get easy sex. That's why alot of men purposely go after drunk women.
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:17 am to JudgeHolden
Did the grand jury see evidence that a trial jury will see?
Posted on 2/24/23 at 9:23 am to clip11
quote:
Did the grand jury see evidence that a trial jury will see?
Likely. It doesn’t have to be the same evidence.
There may be evidence shown to the grand jury that would meet an objection at trial. Or the prosecutor may have different evidence by the time of trial.
You can’t emphasize this enough. Trials are dynamic events. Things that seem crucial fade in importance when the bullets start to fly. Things you thought were outlier facts become central. You cannot predict how everything in a trial will go, which is why you have to be prepared to meet anything that comes on the fly. You sometimes have to make instant decisions under enormous time pressure.
Page 399 of 419
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News