Patrick Kane subject of police investigation [Mod Warning in OP]

[Insomniac99]

From what my Criminal Law professor told me, if you CHOOSE to get drunk, it all goes out the window. You can't say "Oh, I was drunk, I couldn't consent" if you chose to get drunk.

And yet it happens all the time

 

[Sens Rule]

In the cup parade, didn't Kane say something along the lines of, "look out for me this summer"?

At the time I thought he was making fun of himself for his immaturity in his younger years. Now it looks like he is an immature ****.

That Cup Parade quote could become as memorable as Iverson's "Practice" quote. But for an awful reason and not a funny one.

 

[HanSolo]

very vague title

Its not vague at all. That's the current status of what's going on with Kane.

 

[Mass]

From what my Criminal Law professor told me, if you CHOOSE to get drunk, it all goes out the window. You can't say "Oh, I was drunk, I couldn't consent" if you chose to get drunk.

I sure hope your criminal law professor is incorrect here. Sheesh.

 

[Crosbyfan]

From what my Criminal Law professor told me, if you CHOOSE to get drunk, it all goes out the window. You can't say "Oh, I was drunk, I couldn't consent" if you chose to get drunk.

That would only be if you gave "drunken consent" though, correct? If passed out this would not apply, one would hope.

 

[WiscoBlues]

From what my Criminal Law professor told me, if you CHOOSE to get drunk, it all goes out the window. You can't say "Oh, I was drunk, I couldn't consent" if you chose to get drunk.

your criminal law professor shouldn't be a criminal law professor

 

[Leafs87]

Kane at it again

 

[FishMonger]

The amendment hasn't been challenged yet. There has yet to be another case similar to Daviault. In fact, the laws on automatism and temporary insanity have actually been expanded since this case came down.

Huh. I would have thought it would have gone the other way, but that's just me.

Either way, not relevant to Kane's case, which happened in the US, but still an interesting read.

Lawyers come up with such interesting defenses sometimes.


Maybe Kane can use the Twinkie Defense, if he's charged?

 

[HanSolo]

you're criminal law professor shouldn't be a criminal law professor

Sounds to me like this "professor" was just stating opinion, or this guy misheard him.

 

[kingsholygrail]

That would only be if you gave "drunken consent" though, correct? If passed out this would not apply, one would hope.

Passed out is unconscious and therefore helpless.

It gets dicey when you get into "blackout" territory.

 

[Stand Witness]

That would only be if you gave "drunken consent" though, correct? If passed out this would not apply, one would hope.

You would assume. It still leads the question if 'drunken consent' should stand as real consent or not be consent at all though.

 

[Beerz]

I don't understand what you're saying here. Claiming that the accusations are false because she just wants to get his money, or the general dismissal of the situation is rape apologizing.

A lot of stuff has been written here... you could have been more specific as to what you were talking about.

Claiming the accusations are false is over the top. Reserving the right that the possibility exists is not.

 

[Quagmier]

Without an actual confession, I don't know how they could prove a complete made up story.

Well, they would probably have to do it the way other crimes are investigated and prosecuted, with a body of evidence that makes it evident beyond a reasonable doubt that the person fabricated the allegation.

...is what i would argue in theory. In practice, I agree with your sentiment and think that without a confession, the crime has not been established.

 

[hatterson]

The simple fact of you being drunk doesn't mean a crime was committed against you tho simply because you feel you would't have made the choice to have sex had you been sober.

That is what he is saying.

I think you are missing the one key thing that actually makes this argument work which is the consenting to something while drunk isn't always considered consenting. He isn't saying that he/she is too drunk to even talk because then it is quite obvious what the answer is but the message to a lot of high school and college students now a days is that you can't consent while being drunk.

It is rape to have sex with someone who is incapable of consenting be it from age, drunkeness, being high, being unconscious, etc. What the person "wants" is irrelevant.

The perpetrator has the responsibility to ensure they the person they are having sex with is capable of consenting under the law.

In some jurisdictions, the barrier to consent is extremely low, perhaps unfairly so. But that isn't some kind of double standard in regards to drunk driving and rape.

 

[Invictus12]

Any evidence of the bolded? IMO the wrong decision was made at the point of not having another way home (or bringing your car) before you started drinking. Again, you seem to be missing the point that consent is an essential element of the thing in Q in some cases (e.g., contracts, consensual sex) but not in other cases (e.g., drunk driving, theft).

I won't post about this again bc it's OT IMO.

Well, if your inquiry is to driving and driving only, are you serious? While I agree with your general point that you should plan ahead... For hypothetical reasons, lets say you did and even brought money for a cab ride home. You get drunk to a point where you borrow a friends car... How many points you think you'd score in front of a judge after you get arrested in this case???

When it comes to rape, (and I hope your inquiry was targeted at that) then you have a point. As someone pointed out, it's rape if your intoxicated and someone simply forces themselves on you. By all means, thats rape and you won't see me arguing otherwise. However, if you give consent beforehand and the law can still find you as the victim in the aftermath, (I mean this from a point where a person just claims he or she was raped simply because they were too intoxicated when the consent was given) if that's actually possible, yeah, there's a serious double standard here.

I'm not missing the point, you are. Your going into wording here as oppose to the actual principle of the law. In which cases you're recognized to be able to make a decision and in which case you are not despite being under the same influence...

 

[hatterson]

Threads right near it's limit. Please continue here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1938133