Not making light of what the proclaimed victim has possibly experienced. My question is, has there ever been a case that ended in conviction of a man being too intoxicated to consent to sex? I know I have certainly agreed to sex (as a much younger man) when I was "lit" when I never should have.
Interesting question! I can't say I've heard of it. I would assume the law is (supposed to be) applied evenly regardless of gender. I'm not sure it actually works that way. There are certainly studies that would indicate sentencing discrepancies based on gender, race, etc.
You got this Wrong(ish) The judge decides if the defendant can travel but the Defense is who requests travel. Here is what you got right. The DA can decide or not decide to object. In this case he did not. Here is another thing you got right. The DA presses charges However! No DA anywhere presses charges if the Grand Jury does not pass down an Indictment. Seems like we agree on this. I'm done.
Too intoxicated to not consent is different than "being lit". The charges are saying the person was incapable. To the point if a man has said it, no idea. I was just replying about the distinction.
The first bullet point is what I said isn't it? The judge decides, not the DA, as you original implied. I never said a DA doesn't have the option to object to a travel request. You did state it was a fact the DA didn't object because Ben was being straightforward, which to my knowledge hasn't been proven. Do you have proof of said fact? You then said to me: "you are wrong on the premise that the DA pressed charges", now you are saying "The DA presses charges". So which is it? I wasn't trying to attack you personally, I was just trying to correct inaccurate statements made in case others might read them and believe they were true.
"The slang lit has a long history. Its earliest meaning is “intoxicated,” and that shows up in English as far back as the 1910s"
I wasn't trying to suggest that Ben's statement was false or misleading. I have no idea whether it was or not. I was commenting on the writing - although it is within the realm of possibility that Ben has the skills (both written English language and also crisis management/PR) to write that, it seems far more likely that someone who does that for a living wrote it. barfo
With respect to grand juries and pressing charges, I'd say this: The DA decides whether s/he wants to press charges based on whatever evidence has been collected The DA asks the grand jury to indict If the grand jury does, then the DA can proceed with trying the case If the grand jury returns 'no true bill', then the DA has to drop it (or maybe try to charge some different crimes) After the indictment, the DA can still drop the case at any point (if he finds out the defendant is innocent, or if he gets a sufficient bribe) I spent several months on a grand jury once. It's crazy the trouble people get into. barfo
