[Newsbot]

Title: Supreme Court says no consent in unconscious sex case
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: andyt
Date: 2011-05-27 09:23:27
Canadian

[andyt]

Crazy. She consented and only charged him two months later after he was going for custody of their daughter. Women it seems, can do no wrong in cases like this.

[EyeBrock]

I dunno, I think if you cut through the crap on this, it's a good decision.

Personally speaking, all the chicks I've shagged have always been awake. Consent is never in question when awake.

Shagging unconscious chicks just doesn't seem right or much fun. You obviously have had different experiences andy eh?

[andyt]

Never been into choking. But she seems to have been and consented to being choked unconscious. She had sex with this guy after the supposed "rape." and only filed charges two months later, after he went for custody of the kid. If he had pegged her, and when she awoke she freaked out about it, went to the cops then and didn't continue to have sex with him, then yes, I would say she was raped. But she seems to have decided after the fact, just to get at him. Crazy.

[EyeBrock]

Consent to choking isn't consent to sex. Forget the drama of custody etc. This case is concerned with the criminal offences. The SCC judges look at the offences in question and see if the offences have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tricky this law stuff eh? Not really.

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Consent to choking isn't consent to sex. Forget the drama of custody etc. This case is concerned with the criminal offences. The SCC judges look at the offences in question and see if the offences have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tricky this law stuff eh? Not really.

No, I'm sure to Mr Black and White everything is simple.

Not so much for the judges:

$1:

Justice Morris Fish, writing for the dissenters, noted the woman consented to the sexual activity leading up to her unconsciousness and the unconsciousness itself.
"It is undisputed that K.D.'s consent was freely and voluntarily given — in advance and while the conduct was still in progress. Immediately afterward, K.D. had intercourse with J.A., again consensually."

I guess this will put a kybosh into the sex lives of women who like to be choked into unconsciousness. A guy would have to be nuts to do it - I guess that's a redundant statement.

[Choban]

I tend to agree with Andy on this one, she was perfectly consentual before and after the alleged act, it's her word against his and she continued her relationship with him, not living in fear or abused or anything, she only took the matter to the police after the custody became an issue, seems spitefull to me regardless of the laws involved.

[sandorski]

This seems a bad decision.

[EyeBrock]

andyt andyt:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Consent to choking isn't consent to sex. Forget the drama of custody etc. This case is concerned with the criminal offences. The SCC judges look at the offences in question and see if the offences have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tricky this law stuff eh? Not really.

No, I'm sure to Mr Black and White everything is simple.

Not so much for the judges:

$1:

Justice Morris Fish, writing for the dissenters, noted the woman consented to the sexual activity leading up to her unconsciousness and the unconsciousness itself.
"It is undisputed that K.D.'s consent was freely and voluntarily given — in advance and while the conduct was still in progress. Immediately afterward, K.D. had intercourse with J.A., again consensually."

I guess this will put a kybosh into the sex lives of women who like to be choked into unconsciousness. A guy would have to be nuts to do it - I guess that's a redundant statement.

Did you read the complete judgement andy, or is this your usual media clipping law based education?

[andyt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

andyt andyt:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Consent to choking isn't consent to sex. Forget the drama of custody etc. This case is concerned with the criminal offences. The SCC judges look at the offences in question and see if the offences have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tricky this law stuff eh? Not really.

No, I'm sure to Mr Black and White everything is simple.

Not so much for the judges:

$1:

Justice Morris Fish, writing for the dissenters, noted the woman consented to the sexual activity leading up to her unconsciousness and the unconsciousness itself.
"It is undisputed that K.D.'s consent was freely and voluntarily given — in advance and while the conduct was still in progress. Immediately afterward, K.D. had intercourse with J.A., again consensually."

I guess this will put a kybosh into the sex lives of women who like to be choked into unconsciousness. A guy would have to be nuts to do it - I guess that's a redundant statement.

Did you read the complete judgement andy, or is this your usual media clipping law based education?

I read the article. What did you read to form your opinion?

[EyeBrock]

The judgement. I'm not sure if it's on the SCC website yet but it's about 300 pages in total.

[EyeBrock]

I just checked and the summation is on there, that's about 15 pages. The full case and judgement is quite interesting.

Investigated many sexual assaults andy? Or is your vast legal knowledge based on yahoo news?

But then , I'm Mr Black and White eh?

[fifeboy]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I dunno, I think if you cut through the crap on this, it's a good decision.

Personally speaking, all the chicks I've shagged have always been awake. Consent is never in question when awake.

Shagging unconscious chicks just doesn't seem right or much fun.

Well said Brock.

[fifeboy]

sandorski sandorski:

This seems a bad decision.

I am no lawyer but it seems that the real nuts and bolts of this case revolves around if an unconscious person can give consent to sex or not. If that is the case than I agree with the decision.

[Brenda]

$1:

I guess this will put a kybosh into the sex lives of women who like to be choked into unconsciousness. A guy would have to be nuts to do it - I guess that's a redundant statement.

Nah, it only means you cannot put a dildo into some ones butt hole when you choked them into unconsciousness. Better wait till they are awake again.

$1:

I tend to agree with Andy on this one, she was perfectly consentual before and after the alleged act, it's her word against his and she continued her relationship with him, not living in fear or abused or anything, she only took the matter to the police after the custody became an issue, seems spitefull to me regardless of the laws involved.

I agree with Andy on this one too (but only from what I have read here), this shouldn't have gone to the police or court at all.