Groups across Nova Scotia call for 'drunks can consent' judge to be removed

[White_Unifier]

Groups across Nova Scotia call for 'drunks can consent' judge to be removed - Nova Scotia - CBC News

I'm in two minds about this one. Why couldn't a drunk person consent? How do we define the point beyond which a person is to drunk to consent?

Heck, this is coming from someone who sees benefits to making fornication a fineable offense: unless you can clearly define these parameters, then the accused should be presumed innocent of having crossed them. Unless there is more to the story, then I say the judge was right in his decision.

 

[Danbones]

while i suspect it was a rape
"suspect" is not proved
looks like the judge decided the lack of evidence re "consent" was evidence

 

[White_Unifier]

while i suspect it was a rape
"suspect" is not proved
looks like the judge decided the lack of evidence was evidence

That's one reason I favour making fornication a fine-able offense. If there is no way of knowing whether she could have consented or not, then in all fairness we can't find him guilty even if he might be guilty. It's the principle of the presumption of innocence at work here. If fornication was a fine-able offense though, then simply admitting to being a willing and knowing participant in an act of fornication would get him at least a fine as a deterrent. She would not be affected since there would be no way of proving she was a willing participant.

If we can prove rape, so much the better, but never should political activism override the presumption of innocence. yes rape is difficult to prove, it's just the nature of rape unfortunately. But do we lower the standard of proof just to increase convictions? I think the better solution is to just introduce another offense that's easier to prove while still maintaining a rigorous standard of proof.

 

[Cannuck]

I'm responsible for my actions when I'm drunk.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

That's one reason I favour making fornication a fine-able offense. If there is no way of knowing whether she could have consented or not, then in all fairness we can't find him guilty even if he might be guilty. It's the principle of the presumption of innocence at work here. If fornication was a fine-able offense though, then simply admitting to being a willing and knowing participant in an act of fornication would get him at least a fine as a deterrent. She would not be affected since there would be no way of proving she was a willing participant.

If we can prove rape, so much the better, but never should political activism override the presumption of innocence. yes rape is difficult to prove, it's just the nature of rape unfortunately. But do we lower the standard of proof just to increase convictions? I think the better solution is to just introduce another offense that's easier to prove while still maintaining a rigorous standard of proof.

So. . . in order to clarify the microscopic percentage of sex acts where consent is questionable, you want to criminalize the free choice of adults as to when and with whom they knock boots?

Do you swat flies with a five-gallon can of gasoline and a match, too?

 

[Durry]

knock boots??? Must be an Indian nookie eh!!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

knock boots??? Must be an Indian nookie eh!!

You got no idea, son. But keep trying, I'm pretty sure some nice lady'll take pity on you eventually.

 

[Remington1]

She was drunk, she was willing to pay to get home safely, so called a cab! Which say a lot, for people with a brain. This is a rapist and a fuc#head who got off because of a judge who has no respect for the law or common sense. This rapist will now move somewhere else free to continue raping.

Canada is one of the listed countries for highest rapes in the world. This is not surprising considering we have judges saying to a rape victim, "Why didn't you close your legs"? before letting the rapist free, it never occurred to him that a punch in the face will make one listen and now this NS one justifying his ruling by calling the rape victim a 'drunk' and stating the rapist was 'probably guilty" but he could not prove it!!, WTF was that, isn't he the judge, does he not trust his own belief!! We have a fu#ked up system, and I feel bad for our poor Canadian women, no wonder they don't report attacks.

 

[White_Unifier]

She was drunk, she was willing to pay to get home safely, so called a cab! Which say a lot, for people with a brain. This is a rapist and a fuc#head who got off because of a judge who has no respect for the law or common sense. This rapist will now move somewhere else free to continue raping.

Canada is one of the listed countries for highest rapes in the world. This is not surprising considering we have judges saying to a rape victim, "Why didn't you close your legs"? before letting the rapist free, it never occurred to him that a punch in the face will make one listen and now this NS one justifying his ruling by calling the rape victim a 'drunk' and stating the rapist was 'probably guilty" but he could not prove it!!, WTF was that, isn't he the judge, does he not trust his own belief!! We have a fu#ked up system, and I feel bad for our poor Canadian women, no wonder they don't report attacks.

That's what we call guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the judge believes that the accused is guilty but has a reasonable doubt that his belief could be wrong, he has no choice but to let the accused go free. It protects the accused from false charges. It's not perfect, but it significantly reduces the probability of an innocent going to jail.

So. . . in order to clarify the microscopic percentage of sex acts where consent is questionable, you want to criminalize the free choice of adults as to when and with whom they knock boots?

Do you swat flies with a five-gallon can of gasoline and a match, too?

Given how difficult physical fornication itself is to prove, few would need to worry about it unless they're reported to the police. Then it's up to them to not have sex in a public park, in a house that's advertising sex, or with someone who could report him for sexual assault.

 

[Locutus]

'Clearly a drunk can consent'

Ezra Levant
‏Verified account @ezralevant
Ezra Levant
Retweeted Metro Halifax
I don't think a mob should kill this serial rapist. But if they did, I hope the same judge would acquit them too.



Metro Halifax‏Verified account @metrohalifax
Police urge calm after heated exchange between acquitted taxi driver, passengers on Halifax bus

Bassam Al-Rawi in Halifax provincial court this February

Police urge calm after heated exchange between acquitted taxi driver, passengers on Halifax bus | Metro Halifax

'Clearly a drunk can consent,' Halifax judge says in acquitting taxi driver charged with sexual assault | Metro Halifax

maybe he'll just die in a car fire while driving the judge to a dive bar.

 

[Danbones]

I'm responsible for my actions when I'm drunk.

nope, you are only partially responsible: the actual law says:
the person who served you is
and so is the licensee who employs that person

here, if you aren't pailed at the moment, read how you might wreck everyone else's day by exercising your right to be a lush
http://www.servingitright.com/alcohol_and_law_appendix_2.html


now if this guy was julien assange...

 

[Cannuck]

You really should try to stop posting stupid shyte.

 

[Danbones]

that should read:
"you should always try to stop the posting of stupid shyte"
and I do
every time you post

 

[White_Unifier]

Re: 'Clearly a drunk can consent'

Ezra Levant
‏Verified account @ezralevant
Ezra Levant
Retweeted Metro Halifax
I don't think a mob should kill this serial rapist. But if they did, I hope the same judge would acquit them too.



Metro Halifax‏Verified account @metrohalifax
Police urge calm after heated exchange between acquitted taxi driver, passengers on Halifax bus

Bassam Al-Rawi in Halifax provincial court this February

Police urge calm after heated exchange between acquitted taxi driver, passengers on Halifax bus | Metro Halifax

'Clearly a drunk can consent,' Halifax judge says in acquitting taxi driver charged with sexual assault | Metro Halifax

maybe he'll just die in a car fire while driving the judge to a dive bar.

?I didn?t do it!?: Protecting yourself against false sexual assault accusations | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin

Because false accusations never occur.

However probably he is guilty of sexual assault, any rational person can accept that drunkenness does not prevent a person from consenting and that however the improbability that she consented, we must accept that she could have consented for any number of reasons.

 

[Danbones]

why do i suspect that there will be the beating of a taxi driver in the news sometime in the next couple of months
and mysteriously, unlike the lady in the cab, no charges will be laid

 

[White_Unifier]

why do i suspect that there will be the beating of a taxi driver in the news sometime in the next couple of months
and mysteriously, unlike the lady in the cab, no charges will be laid

Because the court of public opinion has found him guilty?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Given how difficult physical fornication itself is to prove, few would need to worry about it unless they're reported to the police. Then it's up to them to not have sex in a public park, in a house that's advertising sex, or with someone who could report him for sexual assault.

That's true. The police, bless their hearts, have never, EVER gone window-peeking, or entered a dwelling without a properly executed warrant, or gone on an enforcement binge.

And of course, every time an unmarried woman gets pregnant, they could bring her in and sweat her for who the father is. Hell, you could lock up half of Quebec! And just think of all the angry parents who could make sure the boy that stuffed it up their daughters got criminal records. This idea's sounding better and better!

What other ordinary, normal human activities would you like to criminalize?

 

[Danbones]

Because the court of public opinion has found him guilty?

they have eyes and ears the court doesn't always have and are not constrained by sobriety

 

[White_Unifier]

That's true. The police, bless their hearts, have never, EVER gone window-peeking, or entered a dwelling without a properly executed warrant, or gone on an enforcement binge.

And of course, every time an unmarried woman gets pregnant, they could bring her in and sweat her for who the father is. Hell, you could lock up half of Quebec! And just think of all the angry parents who could make sure the boy that stuffed it up their daughters got criminal records. This idea's sounding better and better!

What other ordinary, normal human activities would you like to criminalize?

Actually, pregnancy alone would not constitute proof of fornication. She just has to claim to have been sexually assaulted.

Plus we could also write the law so as to allow the judge to wave the fine for those who can't pay it, and prohibit police from spying for the purpose of catching people in the act. Meaning that it either has to be reported or the police happen to come across it by happenstance. With such restrictions in place, it would have to be quite blatant to say the least.

the person would pretty much need to be doing it out in an open park or have his partner report him.

 

[Cannuck]

that should read..

No it shouldn't