Bells,
The appearance of Consent is what the Defense has to show.
Don't you get it yet?
There is no conceivable appearance of consent.
I'll put it simply for you.
As soon as she said no, any appearance of consent disappeared. As soon as she lost consciousness and as soon as she became so drunk that she was semi-conscious, any appearance of consent disappeared.
Mr Buck keeps concentrating on what went on
before she said no. Get that?
As I said to you, they could have had sex 5 minutes prior and were on a post coitious break. We know they were not from the man's own confession to the police and to her on the phone. But they could have had sex 5 minutes prior to her saying no. As soon as she said no and as soon as she became that inebriated and that semi-conscious, there was no appearance of consent, because even the law recognises that she was not able to give consent. The law also plainly recognises that there is no consent or even an appearance of consent
once she said no.
Buck keeps harping on about what went on in the living room, harping on about her terminology in that they had once been "bedfellows", then accuses her of having an abortion. All moot. Do you know why? Because under Colorado law, once a woman (or man for that matter) becomes that drunk and the other recognises they are that drunk (which he confessed to the police that she was beyond that drunk) and once the word "no" is said, there is no consent.
Without this caveat:
, no defendent could be charged with rape if they had simply had consensual sex before.
But the key word there is SUFFICIENT, so that definition doesn't mean a defense lawyer can't use the current or previous relationship as part of his explanation to the jury that in the case being tried that there was an appearance of consent.
They hadn't spoken for a year prior to that night.
You are so intent on defending Mr Buck and his ridiculous reasoning in this that you fail to actually understand what is put in front of you. I have spoken to great legal minds about this, presented them with everything I have shown here in this thread and every single one of them found it ridiculous that a Prosecutor refused to take on the case because they did not think they could convict with a clear confession.
The law states clearly that if a woman is incapacitated and not in her right mind (passed out drunk qualifies) and if a woman says no, then there is no consent. The law is also clear that any present or past sexual relationship does not imply consent.
There is no way for a defense to be able to create or argue for an appearance of consent because of his confession. Unless they can argue that "no" does not mean no. Unless they can argue that her telling him no again and apparently trying to push him off her does not mean no.
But again, the law in Colorado is quite clear on the matter.
Are they also that fucking dumb?
You mean their saying that after Mr Buck had come out and said that the case was unwinnable? My, are you
that naive? Prior to Mr Buck's refusal and then publicly demeaning the victim by accusing her of having buyer's remorse and then telling her the facts of the case, and it seems the police confession were pitiful, the detective in charge of the case had a very different view. As was quoted in the OP, here is what the detective actually wrote in his incident report:
“I advised (the suspect) that I would be requesting a felony summons for sexual assault,” Detective Michael Zeller
Also Arthur, the blog you just linked is so biased that he, like you and Buck, is willing to overlook a confession. In fact, in the blog piece you posted, he is so biased towards Buck, that like Buck and you, he does not mention that the suspect confessed to police at all. You want an idea of his bias, he says it himself:
Try harder next time.
As that article I posted shows a LARGE percent of rape charges turn out to be FALSE, so a wise male does not spend the night with a woman who appears to be sending those kind of conflicting messages. (note, that article had nothing to do with the Weld County case, which you would have thought was obvious from how I used it)
He confessed.
You, like Buck, completely overlooks that the guy confessed to the police. He confessed to having sex with her after she said no and while she was too inebriated to actually consent.
So what conflicting message was she sending out while she was unconscious Arthur? I mean, lets say you go out with a woman and she faints in your presence, do you drop your pants and start fucking her immediately because she'd kissed you passionately prior to her fainting? Yes? No?
After all, she gave the appearance of consent before, right? And she wasn't saying "no" when she was unconscious, so you must have consent, right?
Now, your mental retardation aside, the suspect said no in a confession. The suspect also confessed to knowing she was so drunk that she was barely conscious. Where is the conflicting message there? Did it become conflicting when she passed out after she said no? Are you using the argument that 'well, she didn't fight back or fight him off while she was unconscious, so she must be consenting...?' Is that the reasoning behind Buck's refusal to take on the case?
After all, we've proven, by law, that there was no appearance of consent once he entered that bedroom and found her semi-naked on her own bed because not only was she too drunk to then consent (by his own confession), but she also said no a few times (by his own confession).
