Can't we all just get along?

[PhantomWolf]

Not complain, but reject the person verbally and/or phisically.
The law specifically says it is not true if the victim is coerced, underage, disabled, drugged, etc.
And I agree with the law.

Florida Law says:

"Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender."

Please show where it says:

"Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender only because of the victim being coerced, underage, disabled, drugged, etc, otherwise it is consent."

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'm not going to do your research for you. Go look it up.[..]

My research????

I have already posted enough evidence:

Consent
In any allegation of rape, the absence of consent to sexual intercourse on the part of the victim is critical. Consent need not be express, and may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties, but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent.

Duress, in which the victim may be subject to or threatened by overwhelming force or violence, and which may result in absence of objection to intercourse, leads to the presumption of lack of consent. Duress may be actual or threatened force or violence against the victim or somebody else close to the victim. Even blackmail may constitute duress. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in its landmark 1998 judgment used a definition of rape which did not use the word consent. It defined rape as: "a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive."[7]

Valid consent is also lacking if the victim lacks an actual capacity to give consent, as in the case of a victim with a mental impairment or developmental disability.

Consent can always be withdrawn before the actual sexual intercourse takes place, so that any further sexual activity after the withdrawal of consent constitutes rape.

The law would invalidate consent in the case of sexual intercourse with a person below the age at which they can legally consent to such relations. (See age of consent.) Such cases are sometimes called statutory rape or "unlawful sexual intercourse", regardless of whether it was consensual or not.

In times gone by and in many countries still today marriage is said to constitute at least an implied consent to sexual intercourse. However, marriage in many countries today is no longer a defence to rape or assault. In some jurisdictions, a person cannot be found guilty of the rape of a spouse, either on the basis of "implied consent" or (in the case of former British colonies) because of a statutory requirement that the intercourse must have been "unlawful" (which is legal nomenclature for outside of wedlock).[8] However, in many of those jurisdictions it is still possible to bring prosecutions for what is effectively rape by characterizing it as an assault.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

If you do not agree with what there is written in Wikipedia, please, please, post the law, not the name of a trial nobody know about

ADD:
Looked at the trial here: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/2/2004/2004-ohio-3917.pdf.
Are we talking about a car accident in this thread?
I will report you for being off-topic and brach of rule 12.
Joking!!

 

[Matteo Martini]

Florida Law says:



Please show where it says:

Cart-and-horse inversion.
It is you who are saying that the guy is a rapist, I just claim that there is no evidence.

Please, provide a link to the law that says that giving consent means act in an intimate way with the partner, and that lack of intimate way of behaviour means lack of consent

 

[Matteo Martini]

Wikipedia is the law?

So, you do not agree with that there is written in Wikipedia?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Cart-and-horse inversion.
It is you who are saying that the guy is a rapist, I just claim that there is no evidence.

Please, provide a link to the law that says that giving consent means act in an intimate way with the partner, and that lack of intimate way of behaviour means lack of consent

Balony. The Law specifically says that lack of resistance or objection is NOT CONSENT! You are the one disagreeing with this. If according to the law that saying No, and not saying anything are both a lack of consent then by elimination consent much can only be positive actions or speech. If you can't get this you have serious need of help. You have failed to show any law or evidence at all that failure to resist or object counts as consent, but you keep claiming it does. Why don't you provide case law that shows that in a situation where the victim failed to object or resist when not under duress that the courts declares that was equal to consent. I bet you can't find anything even close to it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So, you do not agree with that there is written in Wikipedia?

I agree with what is written in Wiki. I don't agree with your interpretation of what is written in Wiki.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Balony. The Law specifically says that lack of resistance or objection is NOT CONSENT! [..]

Wrong.
The law states that lack of resistance and objection do not, by itself, mean consent.
"but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent." (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape).
As there are cases in which there can be rape even with lack of resistance and objection, such as:
- victim underage;
- victim disabled;
- victim under drugs;
- victim under duress;
..

This is what the Wikipedia states.

 

[gumboot]

My research????

I have already posted enough evidence:

No you haven't. You've quoted an article in Wikipedia which you clearly don't even understand.

If you do not agree with what there is written in Wikipedia, please, please, post the law, not the name of a trial nobody know about

The first trial I cited is very well known.

Looked at the trial here: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/2/2004/2004-ohio-3917.pdf.
Are we talking about a car accident in this thread?
I will report you for being off-topic and brach of rule 12.
Joking!!

No, that's not the case. A clue is the fact that the defendant in these two cases does not have the same surname. A minor clue, admittedly, but one I am sure even you could have detected, had you engaged your brain for even a fraction of a second.

 

[gumboot]

Wrong.
The law states that lack of resistance and objection do not, by itself, mean consent.
As there are cases in which there can be rape even with lack of resistance and objection, such as:
- victim underage;
- victim disabled;
- victim under drugs;
- victim under duress;
..

This is what the law states.
I have already posted a link to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not the law.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Wikipedia is not the law.

Wikipedia is generally considered as a good source of information.
If you do not agree with Wikipedia, please post evidence that says otherwise.
Do not post the name of a trial only, post the passages that disprove either wikipedia or what I say.
This is not my homework, it is yours, as it is something that it is supposed to back your claim, not mine.
If you have no time to do it, do not expect me to do it.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No you haven't. You've quoted an article in Wikipedia which you clearly don't even understand.

but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

The first trial I cited is very well known.

We can make a poll in the streets of America of how many people know about that trial..

No, that's not the case. A clue is the fact that the defendant in these two cases does not have the same surname. A minor clue, admittedly, but one I am sure even you could have detected, had you engaged your brain for even a fraction of a second.

I have no time to look for a clue in a trial that has apparently little do to with rape.
If you have the law, post it.
If you do not, keep quiet.
Simple as that.

 

[tyr_13]

Wikipedia is generally considered as a good source of information.
If you do not agree with Wikipedia, please post evidence that says otherwise.Do not post the name of a trial only, post the passages that disprove either wikipedia or what I say.
This is not my homework, it is yours, as it is something that it is supposed to back your claim, not mine.
If you have no time to do it, do not expect me to do it.

Highlight mine. Say, information from Findlaw, and other sources, like they already have?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Highlight mine. Say, information from Findlaw, and other sources, like they already have?

??
Where?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wrong.
The law states that lack of resistance and objection do not, by itself, mean consent.
v(link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape).
As there are cases in which there can be rape even with lack of resistance and objection, such as:
- victim underage;
- victim disabled;
- victim under drugs;
- victim under duress;
..

This is what the Wikipedia states.

And Wiki is not the law, and wiki doesn't say that the examples of situations where consent is invalidated are every situation that aplies. Nor does wiki say that if there is no objection or resistance without any of those things it is concent.

Florida Law states : "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

It doesn't get any simpler than that. What can't you understand about this. Failure to object or resist does not in any way shape or form mean that consent has been given. To obtain consent you need more than that. As you keep saying in your quote:

"the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent."

That sentance means for it to be considered valid consent you need something else besides the the absence of objection because the absence of objection is not enough by itself to be considered consent valid.

Read the sentence and learn what it means!

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
"the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent."

That sentance means for it to be considered valid consent you need something else besides the the absence of objection because the absence of objection is not enough by itself to be considered consent valid.

Read the sentence and learn what it means!

It means that you need other things, besides the absence of objection, such as:
- the person has not to be under drugs;
- the person has to be an adult;
- the person has not to be under coercion;
- the person has not to be disabled.
- ..

Fiona is adult, was not under drugs, was not under coercion, is not disabled, ..
Got it?

 

[PhantomWolf]

It means that you need other things, besides the absence of objection, such as:
- the person has not to be under drugs;
- the person has to be an adult;
- the person has not to be under coercion;
- the person has not to be disabled.
- ..

Fiona is adult, was not under drugs, was not under coercion, is not disabled, ..
Got it?

You know given that your location is given as Japan I'd almost be willing to right this off as your inability to comprehend English, but your posts don't seem to indicate this as a problem, so honestly the only thing I can believe now is that you either refuse to get it because you don't want to look foolish for being wrong for so long, or genuinely can't and never will get it, or you are simply trolling.

All the things you listed above are things that need to be absent for consent to be valid, but just because they are absent, doesn't mean that the absence of objection is in fact consent. Consent is only consent when it is positively given at some time, be it at the time or previously, it can't be assumed.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You know given that your location is given as Japan I'd almost be willing to right this off as your inability to comprehend English, but your posts don't seem to indicate this as a problem, so honestly the only thing I can believe now is that you either refuse to get it because you don't want to look foolish for being wrong for so long, or genuinely can't and never will get it, or you are simply trolling.

All the things you listed above are things that need to be absent for consent to be valid, but just because they are absent, doesn't mean that the absence of objection is in fact consent.

I guess I have listed all the cases that, according to Wikipedia, make lack of resistance/objection not resulting in consent.
If you feel there are other cases in which lack of resistance/objection do not result in having consensual sex, please, feel free to list them here, with proper links.

Consent is only consent when it is positively given at some time, [..]

How?

 

[gumboot]

Wikipedia is generally considered as a good source of information.

That's nice, but Wikipedia is not the law. You claimed to have cited the law, and you did not. So you are a liar. Will you retract your lie?

do you understand that different jurisdictions treat rape differently? Do you understand that quoting an encyclopedia article giving a general overview of rape, and then claiming it is a valid legal document that applies in all jurisdictions is patently ridiculous?

How stupid do you think we are?

 

[Lonewulf]

Matteo Martini; you are aware of the Freeze Response, I assume. You are aware that lack of resistance does not automatically qualify as lack of response.

Yet you continue to insist that Fiona was not raped. You continue to cite a Wikipedia article that does not seem to agree with you.

So, let me put it to you this way: Can you provide any actual examples of laws that explicitly states that not saying "no" automatically constitutes consent? Or, what would it take to convince you that Fiona was raped?

 

[Matteo Martini]

That's nice, but Wikipedia is not the law. You claimed to have cited the law, and you did not. So you are a liar. Will you retract your lie?

do you understand that different jurisdictions treat rape differently? Do you understand that quoting an encyclopedia article giving a general overview of rape, and then claiming it is a valid legal document that applies in all jurisdictions is patently ridiculous?

How stupid do you think we are?

First you attacked me saying that I was wrong.
Then, I quoted Wikipedia, and you said that I do not understand Wikipedia.
Then, I showed you that I did understand Wikipedia and you said that Wikipedia is not the law, and you quoted two title of trials.
I have asked you to quote me in which passages the two trials disprove me and/or Wikipedia, and you did not.
Now, you are saying that different jurisdictions treat rape differently.
And.. then?