As I already posted above you are incorrect on the S&M argument.
I believe the âif he dies, he diesâ rule applies.
8 Likes
Nope. At least not according to the actual lawyer that in that video. He specifically addresses the issue of consent beforehand (not in the context of S&M, but that shouldnât make a difference based on what he said).
I suppose in an S&M relationship where there isnât true consent, thatâs a different story. But thatâs not what Iâm talking about.
I thought zikzak was kidding. Maybe my sarcasm meter is picking up false positives. I think theyâre just less likely to prosecute if the person doesnât want to press charges, but do so sometimes anyway.
1 Like
LOL, youâre probably right. Admittedly, my sarcasm detector sucks.
He must be speaking of a specific state, or mistaken, because itâs not correct for the majority of states. This is why there is a huge lobbying effort right now by the National coalition for Sexual Freedom.
Here is the state of the current law.
As a lawbro sympathizer, the District Attorney can file charges. However, Rock not testifying makes it more difficult to prove the case because you have to prove Smith didnât have Rockâs permission and that it wasnât a bit. Thatâs a question that victims that testify are always asked. Remember that half of the internet initially thought it was fake. If it wasnât for the confession, a trial wouldnât even get to the jury. The confession may not even be admissible because it was issued by a PR flack and not Smith.
I donât think this says what you think it says. It sounds to me like what they are saying is that some shitty judges are interpreting the laws poorly. And it is arguing for stronger protections than those that already exist. Here are some relevant parts
Obviously you can construct a BDSM scenario where there was prior consent that turns into something prosecutable. That doesnât mean that the general principle of consent to being hit (or whatever) is thrown away. It sounds like some judges are just doing that because they are biased and see BDSM as immoral or whatnot. A judge can just say âit canât be consent because no reasonable person would consent to thatâ because they think BDSM is icky or whatever. Yes, that happens, and I agree that is probably wrong a lot of the time.
I donât dispute that it is possible for judges to make bad rulings like that.
So clearly, what you are saying is wrong in some states. Is it wrong in the rest of the states, or just not specifically addressed?
As far as the court cases, it sounds like what they are arguing is that the judges arenât actually following the law and that they are using justifications like
So, Iâll accept that current laws may not protect BDSM enough from idiot judges. But the protections do exist.
It would be one thing for Rock not to testify or cooperate or say that he is fine and doesnât want Smith punished. On the other hand, for him to lie to the police or perjure himself and say he consented prior to the incident would be a dumb move on his part and not something that I think he would be likely to do.
What a victim tells the cops is worthless to prosecutors due to the rule against hearsay. Telling the cops everything then not testifying is standard.
Wait, wat? How does hearsay apply to Rock saying (hypothetcally) âI told Will Smith yesterday that he could slap me after I made fun of Jada.â
It does say what I think it says. I am not some rookie on this stuff. 
The American legal institute has recently approved new penal code language as they recognize consent is poorly and improperly defined and applied in US law.
Anyway enough of a derail itt. I only brought this up to show people mistakenly think consent prevents criminal charges.
If Rock later testified that he didnât consent, Smithâs attorney could use that statement because there is an exception to hearsay known as a prior inconsistent statement. Rock telling the cops Smith hitting him was fine pretty much permanently torpedoes any case.
Thatâs exactly what I said. The issue of consent is already there. It may not be codified in strong enough terms to thwart fundamentalist, backwards judges, but Iâm pretty sure that the fact that it is there will prevent most cases from even being prosecuted. And there is nothing you have posted that suggested otherwise.
This is correct except in the case where you have the incident and confession on tape and a worldwide audience of witnesses.
Most of those things arenât present, which is why victim cooperation is generally essential. This is one of those times where it shouldnât really make a difference.
Yeah for sure they can. They might be less likely to do so with a victim who wonât testify though. Thatâs the part where rock comes in. But the DA presses charges not civilians.
excise slap content to lollaw thread please
1 Like
1 Like
Correct. The state can havs an interest in pressing charges. Im pretty sure Rock doesnt have to do dick if the DA determines there was a detrimental effect on the state itself
Will Smith resigned from the Academy.