High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The truth is coming out.
POPTOPIC: It was Evan Rachel Wood's idea to have REAL sex in Manson video.
https://poptopic.com.au/news/it-was-...-manson-video/

As for the police if they had found any evidence where are the charges?

So your idea of a defence against a sexual assault allegation is random testimony to some web site that the victim was really really high, essentially unable to consent to the sexual act?

You didn't think this through did you?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

So your idea of a defence against a sexual assault allegation is random testimony to some web site that the victim was really really high, essentially unable to consent to the sexual act?

You didn't think this through did you?

and it took him 2 weeks to finally find the "evidence"

[Ped]

Plus 2 weeks ago it was "this didn't happen." Now it's "it did happen, but she instigated it."

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

and it took him 2 weeks to finally find the "evidence"

“Colonel Kurtz” wasn’t easy to locate.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

So your idea of a defence against a sexual assault allegation is random testimony to some web site that the victim was really really high, essentially unable to consent to the sexual act?

If I understand what dissentowner's intending here, he is suggesting that ERW is not the victim but the ... aggressor?

The above actually got me thinking about culpability under the influence. Let me preface this by saying I am not specifically weighing in on the ERW situation; I am not, but I find the legal aspect of the 'under the influence, can't consent' thing interesting in how the law in this country appears to be of two minds about it.

On one hand, driving under the influence is considered being reckless and you can be charged, and being too drunk to know that what you were doing -- driving drunk -- was wrong is not a defense. On the other, in 2020 an Ontario court ruling allowed people accused of sexual assault or other crimes to argue they were so intoxicated they didn't know what they were doing.

This inconsistency is really perplexing, and knowing we have a few lawyers on the forum, is there anyone who can ELI5 how we've decided that people can be both culpable and not culpable under the influence depending on what exactly the activity is?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If I understand what dissentowner's intending here, he is suggesting that ERW is not the victim but the ... aggressor?

The above actually got me thinking about culpability under the influence. Let me preface this by saying I am not specifically weighing in on the ERW situation; I am not, but I find the legal aspect of the 'under the influence, can't consent' thing interesting in how the law in this country appears to be of two minds about it.

On one hand, driving under the influence is considered being reckless and you can be charged, and being too drunk to know that what you were doing -- driving drunk -- was wrong is not a defense. On the other, in 2020 an Ontario court ruling allowed people accused of sexual assault or other crimes to argue they were so intoxicated they didn't know what they were doing.

This inconsistency is really perplexing, and knowing we have a few lawyers on the forum, is there anyone who can ELI5 how we've decided that people people can be both culpable and not culpable under the influence depending on what exactly the activity is?

I think the difference is being manipulated by external forces while under the influence versus your own decision to drive while intoxicated. Actions between two drunk people though, I don’t know how that would go.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If I understand what dissentowner's intending here, he is suggesting that ERW is not the victim but the ... aggressor?

The above actually got me thinking about culpability under the influence. Let me preface this by saying I am not specifically weighing in on the ERW situation; I am not, but I find the legal aspect of the 'under the influence, can't consent' thing interesting in how the law in this country appears to be of two minds about it.

On one hand, driving under the influence is considered being reckless and you can be charged, and being too drunk to know that what you were doing -- driving drunk -- was wrong is not a defense. On the other, in 2020 an Ontario court ruling allowed people accused of sexual assault or other crimes to argue they were so intoxicated they didn't know what they were doing.

This inconsistency is really perplexing, and knowing we have a few lawyers on the forum, is there anyone who can ELI5 how we've decided that people people can be both culpable and not culpable under the influence depending on what exactly the activity is?

This is exactly the example I always think of. I think the only difference is, did the accused force or coerce the victim who was too intoxicated etc. In that situation I think it's obviously an issue. What if two intoxicated people both enthusiastically consent to something they wouldn't do sober, I don't think either party is guilty of anything in that situation. Obviously it's never that clear cut, is one party way more intoxicated, is one sober, etc etc. I haven't followed this case super closely, so I can't really comment on this situation, obviously there are lot of elements to this case.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If I understand what dissentowner's intending here, he is suggesting that ERW is not the victim but the ... aggressor?

The above actually got me thinking about culpability under the influence. Let me preface this by saying I am not specifically weighing in on the ERW situation; I am not, but I find the legal aspect of the 'under the influence, can't consent' thing interesting in how the law in this country appears to be of two minds about it.

On one hand, driving under the influence is considered being reckless and you can be charged, and being too drunk to know that what you were doing -- driving drunk -- was wrong is not a defense. On the other, in 2020 an Ontario court ruling allowed people accused of sexual assault or other crimes to argue they were so intoxicated they didn't know what they were doing.

This inconsistency is really perplexing, and knowing we have a few lawyers on the forum, is there anyone who can ELI5 how we've decided that people people can be both culpable and not culpable under the influence depending on what exactly the activity is?

Could be a lot of things going on here, honestly. I shared an office with a few lawyers who handled a lot of complex assault cases.

If a person has a few drinks and then later regrets having sex, that's not an assault. The other extreme, is if their so drunk they pass out, and can no longer consent, that's a clear assault. There's obviously, grey areas in between.

Criminal law also requires a Mens Rea for the accused. The accused has to know or ought to have known that the person was incapable of making a decision. So, if a person is black out drunk, but would reasonably perceived as acting somewhat normally, then potentially no assault. If you knowledge that, or reasonably out to, that even though the person is acting normally something else may be up, it could still be assault. For example, roofies.

For the accused, being blackout drunk if it's involuntary (Ex an adverse reaction to medication you didn't intend to happen) or for certain specific intent crimes. Murder is a specific intent crime, as it has requires intent towards a specific outcome. Assault is not.

In the current case, it would also depend on the facts. There's a lot of evidence to support EVW's claim that she was coerced into doing drugs and acts she didn't want to do. That's complicated, as it's not really a specific act of assault, necessarily, but an abusive relationship culminating in a loss of free will. This is why you often see these cases proceed from different angles: assault, confinement, etc...

If this random crew member is to be believed, and she did, in fact, rip a bunch of lines and then coerce Manson into a sexual act, that's likely not assault.

Someone with more of a background in crim law might be better off to comment on the implications of this new case. I have a hard time believing that voluntarily getting black out drunk is an accepted defence for non-specific intent crimes in Canada.

[Wormius]

If someone is raging drunk and tries to initiate sex, it would seem that the onus would still be on the non-intoxicated person to just refuse.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Wormius

If someone is raging drunk and tries to initiate sex, it would seem that the onus would still be on the non-intoxicated person to just refuse.

Depends on a lot things:

1. How raging drunk are they.
2. Was there intoxication voluntary.
3. Does their behaviour exhibit anything that speaks to their ability to comprehend. This is not the same as would they have made a different decision sober.

But yes, people who are sober and pick up drunk people are creepy. I remember guys at university who would only have a few drinks themselves but continue to buy women drinks, as it increased their chances of picking up. In fact, anyone who goes out with the purpose of picking up is pretty creepy.

[afc wimbledon]

The rule of thumb I teach to my foster sons is you dont sleep with drunk girl ever, make out with her if you want but hands stay over the clothing, get her number, if she's into you you can sleep with her on the next date (and in the long run girls let their friends know who is and who isnt a ###### and you will get way more offers being a gent about these things)

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

So your idea of a defence against a sexual assault allegation is random testimony to some web site that the victim was really really high, essentially unable to consent to the sexual act?

You didn't think this through did you?

By the crew that actually directed and filmed the video. Did you even read the article? I bet you piled on Johnny Depp too when Heard made her allegations. If someone made a sexual assault allegation against you and you had witnesses that could provide you with a defense and we all called you a pos sexual abuser would you be ok with that? If we all shamed you and publically tried to ruin your life you would be ok with that too right? Even if you didn't do it it doesn't matter, you're guilty anyhow. That is your logic. His other ex gf's and his ex wife have said they have never seen that side of him. Why is that if he is like that? Here is the best part about people who think like you, of he wins his defamation case (and he almost certainly will) and they have no evidence these things took place except for a jilted ex trying to boost her career and a couple nobody groupies looking for a payout will you say you were wrong or will you just say that despite them not being able to prove it he obviously did it anyhow? I am betting on the latter. Why this pisses me off so much is it belittles women who are actual sexual abuse victims. Wood is a nutjob and her stories keep getting more and more unreal. He made her cook him breakfast after she had an abortion? Sure he did. The guy doesn't even eat breakfast, he sleeps all day. Like does that not sound a little unhinged?

[Bs&Cs]

Did you... Read any of the other things posted on that website? Because I wouldn't believe a word of it if it didn't come from somewhere else. Anonymous crew member isn't gonna cut it when the article is sandwiched between one about Hunter Biden's niece potentially being his daughter and another one about Neil Young being on Pfizer's payroll.

And Amber Heard potentially being the abusive one was out there pretty much from the beginning of that saga, not to mention Depp's exes and female co-workers defended him- very publically. Funny how that's not happening here.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bs&Cs

Did you... Read any of the other things posted on that website? Because I wouldn't believe a word of it if it didn't come from somewhere else. Anonymous crew member isn't gonna cut it when the article is sandwiched between one about Hunter Biden's niece potentially being his daughter and another one about Neil Young being on Pfizer's payroll.

And Amber Heard potentially being the abusive one was out there pretty much from the beginning of that saga, not to mention Depp's exes and female co-workers defended him- very publically. Funny how that's not happening here.

Manson's exes and co workers are defending him, not sure what you are going on about. If Manson committed these acts do you seriously think he would file a suit in court? Without witnesses? Watch how this plays out.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

She says he sexually raped her during a video that multiple people who were on set have stated is simply not true.

Originally Posted by dissentowner

By the crew that actually directed and filmed the video. Did you even read the article?

Aside from the fact that Poptopic posts a ton of outright lies and has no problem posting slander of other folks, didn’t you say you already had this information? And you never shared it? Show us the other statements by the crew.

I mean the poptopic article quotes one anonymous person who reached out to an Australian gossip site known for trash, of all places. I’m sure you’ve got links for all the other stuff. Please share!

[dissentowner]

https://loudwire.com/marilyn-manson-...e-allegations/

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Aside from the fact that Poptopic posts a ton of outright lies and has no problem posting slander of other folks, didn’t you say you already had this information? And you never shared it? Show us the other statements by the crew.

I mean the poptopic article quotes one anonymous person who reached out to an Australian gossip site known for trash, of all places. I’m sure you’ve got links for all the other stuff. Please share!

Manson's lawyer made a statement they have multiple witnesses they will call on to disprove the video allegations. It will all come out in court. That won't matter though to those of you who decide someone is guilty the minute an allegation is given.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Manson's lawyer made a statement they have multiple witnesses they will call on to disprove the video allegations. It will all come out in court. That won't matter though to those of you who decide someone is guilty the minute an allegation is given.

You appear to have decided he is innocent.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I bet you piled on Johnny Depp too when Heard made her allegations.

This is also interesting considering a judge ruled 12 of the 14 of Heard’s accusations had been proven to a civil standard.

Guess court doesn’t sway you either.

[Wormius]

Manson’s ex’s were defending him? His ex’s have their own survivor’s support group. He also has as many staff that have made, non-anonymous, statements that corroborate Wood’s side of the story, compared to the one person who couldn’t get anybody to listen to them except for the entertainment-version of the Western Standard.