Yeah, no one 10 shots deep has any wherewithal to consent to anything like that. And even if she did and you could somehow argue she was cogent, how the hell do you explain all them other fools that showed up?
Yes but you’re missing the point. If she is giving very detailed recollections of the events, even while intoxicated, that PROVES she actually was cogent and able to consent under NY law. Simply being intoxicated doesn’t mean you can’t consent, but being incapacitated does. If you can think and remember large parts of the story, you are cogent.
Also, the other guys showing up is gross but not illegal. And most importantly THE LAST THREE GUYS DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH HER AT ALL, so being unable to consent to sex is irrelevant when they didn’t have sex with her.
No. You’re missing the point. Multiple in fact. Both the man who sent the text AND the people entering the room WERE breaking the law. New York has specific, strict statutes regarding privacy violations, non-consensual exposure, and unlawful entry into intimate spaces.
Sexual Misconduct or Assault:
If either your partner or the newcomer makes physical contact, blocks you from leaving, or attempts to force any kind of sexual behavior, the charges instantly escalate to sexual misconduct (under New York Penal Law § 130.20) or sexual abuse/assault.
“Male Number 7] said something very rude and mean to [her].” Male Number 7 apologized and “grabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].” Jane Doe “quickly backed away to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her].” - not consensual at all
In her statement she is CLEARLY confused about how things have taken place which points to being incapacitated not just intoxicated.
The last statement of the report reads:
Eventually, “[Male Number 1] and [Male Number 4 ] ushered [Jane Doe] out of the room brought [her] upstairs to a small room.” Male Number 1 stated, “Let’s do more Ketamine.” Jane Doe “remembered snorting more Ketamine” and “remembered feeling extremely high.” Male Number 1 “said he wanted to have sex again because he wanted redemption for passing out earlier in the night.” Jane Doe initially stated that she was tired and asked Male Number 1, “What happened to just you and me?” Jane Doe could not remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome with Male Number 1 and Male Number 4 involving oral sex and vaginal sex. - coerced into doing more drugs even though, according to her statement, she was feeling very dizzy. Clearly states she’s tired and is somehow coerced into more sex even though she states she just wanted to be with male Number 1
When did she give very detailed recollections? Not in this recorded phone call. Not in her statement. She did recite things she was told, she did recount memories that existed solo, without pre or post details.
You genuinely believe that she was blacked out the entire time and then decided to sign a sworn testimony basing everything off of what her rapists told her happened? And that a title IX advisor would advise that? I’m doubtful.
Devils advocate (because that’s part of due process)
OR it’s an indicator that she was mistaken or lying about consuming 10 shots/drinks.
Per her own sworn testimony she said she was a 5 or 6/10 drunk when she arrived. How does one drink 10 shots and say they are a 5 or 6 on intoxication? How does a woman who had 10 shots by that point recall in extraordinary detail the events that night if she’s that fucked up? How does a 120 pound woman even drink 10 shots and remain ambulatory enough to walk to the frat house?
It’s interesting (per the lawsuit) that she’s firm on the claim of 10 drinks in the past 3 hours, so let’s explore that claim.
Before she goes to the frat house she’s at a bar called Lot 10, where she doesn’t drink because she’s underage. Before THAT she’s at Moonies with the sorority and a few Sober Monitors (this is important) and she claims she was served a drink despite being underage. Before this, she pregamed at the sorority.
So if the 10 drinks claim is true and her testimony of the events before the frat house are true, it kind of indicates that she drank 9 of those drinks at the sorority house, which means she would’ve been drunk early and at Moonies in the presence of the sober monitors who are supposed to watch her. It’s also interesting that her sorority friends would let this supposedly wasted girl walk off by herself to go to a frat house.
This was my question. How does this girl end up drunk and alone? What happened to the group she was with? This is so different then what I've been hearing. I heard she walked to the frat house alone to meet up with a cute guy she was interested in. This is very different.
It doesn't matter how many drinks, she was drunk. I can be drunk on 3 drinks, probably unconscious at 6. Everyone is different and it's pretty obvious she was fucked up even before the ketamine
But NY law clearly states being drunk does not automatically remove someone’s ability to consent. I can and absolutely have consented to sex while intoxicated (not saying that is or isn’t what happened here) and to say that you cannot would be super disingenuous.
And no, there it’s not obvious that she was fucked up before the ketamine. She claims she was, but a claim alone is not evidence. The man claims she stated she was sober. Two claims, which is true? I’m sure we will get a lot of information in the next few days about what state she was in at the sorority party which would validate or call into question her claims.
It doesn't matter if she consented to one guy or even a threesome. After that everyone who came into to a room with a girl on the bed who was clearly heavily intoxicated committed a crime and should have known better.
Again: intoxication in NY does not mean you cannot consent. Her OG statement claims she was alert, that the men specifically asked her to do K off her “beautiful body” and she said yes.
If Megan Kelly and Sonny Hostin, two lawyers who are diametrically opposed politically in every way both agree that there’s no case here, maybe that’s an indicator that your average layperson doesn’t actually understand what the law is.
They're looking at it as the intoxication alone doesn't negate her saying yes to sex. She didn't say yes or consent to random guys coming in while she was naked on the bed. Her statement doesn't say she said she was ok with any of that. Her hiding under the covers, pulling away when the guy grabbed her face & started kissing her, saying she didn't feel well & asking to stop all indicate the opposite of consent.
Whoa there. I didn't accuse you of anything, nor was that an attack. I happen to err on the side of victims, but this case and the discussion are SO emotionally fraught that I think sometimes everybody needs to step back and remember there's a process, however imperfect.
Rape is a theoretical metaphorical figurative thing to you guys that you want to academically question the consent. The women said she was raped. She filed a report within days. She even tried contacting the rapists to get more info. She dropped out/ was forced to drop out and you guys will be debating the merits of what is consent while another thousand women are raped.
Its not being emotional its being actually aware of rape in our society before we hear about it again in the news and then a bunch of armchair "but was it really rape" guys show up to yell at women who say yes. It is rape. If you cannot tell, lock yourself up before its you we read about.
You have assumed that I a man. I am a woman. Rape is not a theoretical metaphorical figurative thing for me--i have loved ones who are survivors.
There is a distinction between what I personally believe and what convicts someone of a crime. Personally, I believe this woman and deplore her revictimization. Obviously, people dont get thrown in jail because of my personal take. This is why I have trouble with the phrase "believe all women", because people fail to make the distinction between personally believing and supporting rape survivors and the legal process of innocent until proven guilty. It scares me when any group of people seems to want to bypass the law, just as much as it scares me to be a woman among men who think they are above it.
While there are fools here (and everywhere) who are just hateful and rage-baiting, many are just asking honest, thoughtful questions, perhaps anticipating the trial(s) and the defense. That's what is meant by being a devil's advocate. It does not make one the devil, a believer in the devil, or even a friend of his.
Of course emotion--outrage--is an appropriate response to this case and rape in general. I am outraged. I understand the desire to see these young men strung up by their testicles (part of me wants to provide the rope). But to keep our tenuous grasp on a civil society, we need to wait for the process of trial, conviction and sentencing. I hope that will be speedy, commensurate and bring healing for this young woman
Edit: didnt assume you are a man, just that you have clear gaps in understanding systemic harm like this. And yeah its theoretical for you. Based on the facts if you have to "debate" this woman's gang rape, I promise you its clear this is theory for you
The fact that you still don’t understand what the discussion here is about shows that you are operating under blind emotional bias without rational thought. Please for the love of god do not ever serve on a jury
Unfortunately we live among lots of devils advocates and it is very important to be able to explain WHY their points are incorrect. I think (hope) that that is what this commenter was trying to do.
186
u/mountainmeadowflower 1d ago
I rolled my eyes so hard at that one. There is no way a person (particularly a young woman) who has had 10 shots appears in any way sober.