Rumour Rumors of cat player in big trouble

[bigfarter]

You do realise that if she was "really drunk" so drunk she can't remember it, she would be incapable of giving consent?

I don't think he does, given his version of events is nothing like the actual reported version. Just a dumb prick making something up in his own head and posting to feel smart.

 

[WillHayward]

Talk about not getting to the point.
What happened?

Some bird was all over a Geelong player because he plays AFL.
She was really drunk. He banged her. She woke up and doesn't remember it and is now crying no consent.

Am I warm?

Must be more to it ?

I mean I don't have a lot of faith in Cops and OPP but I have some faith they aren't that stupid?

But it does seem like she told her boyfriend a story that wasn't quite true and he was the one who followed up with cop complaint...

 

[WillHayward]

It is not a fallacy, there is a range of research pointing to this, some of it is linked in my original post, I can find a bunch more if you want. Is there any evidence to say the opposite?

The fallacy is that women commonly make false r*pe accusations. It's another claim no different to the myriad of misogynistic myths that contribute to a culture where r*pe is effectively "decriminalised" - i.e. extremely difficult to prosecute. You know, out too late, wearing the wrong thing, drank too much...not too long ago it was believed that intimate partner r*pe wasn't even possible.

Still now, some figures have it as low as a 1% chance that a victim will see their abuser convicted. Think about that.

Again, I'm talking more broadly here. We don't have enough information to know what happened here. One thing I do know is, reading the responses on here, we have a long, long way to go.

I know it's fashionable and usually helpful to make decisions based on data.

But sex assault is really an area where data should be ignored. Using data to guide a conclusion is a bad idea.

The only proper approach is to look at each individual case on its own merits and block out any pre conceived notions by looking at general "data".

 

[takethepowerback]

I know it's fashionable and usually helpful to make decisions based on data.

But sex assault is really an area where data should be ignored. Using data to guide a conclusion is a bad idea.

The only proper approach is to look at each individual case on its own merits and block out any pre conceived notions by looking at general "data".

If you read my posts, no conclusion has been drawn. People are hypothesising on very, very limited information, with many taking about false accusations. Seeing as we don't know, it is valuable to look at research and statistics. The facts are it's not very common, if we to had to straight up guess like some are in here - it's unlikely. But no I haven't drawn a conclusion or stated guilt or innocence.

 

[takethepowerback]

Must be more to it ?

I mean I don't have a lot of faith in Cops and OPP but I have some faith they aren't that stupid?

But it does seem like she told her boyfriend a story that wasn't quite true and he was the one who followed up with cop complaint...

You've just spoken about looking at a case on its own merits, and then quoted Macca180's post which is just a completely made up story, read the articles, we don't know what exactly happened - but we know for sure that's not the story.

 

[callmeX]

You do realise that if she was "really drunk" so drunk she can't remember it, she would be incapable of giving consent?

Or driving to dans, their home, her home

 

[callmeX]

How old is the alleged victim?

Old enough to work in the establishment

 

[takethepowerback]

Or driving to dans, their home, her home

Well not really, people drive drunk. Some get caught, some don't. I've known of people who've driven home blackout, after the fact. She did say the drive home that'd normally take 10 minutes took 53 minutes instead.. her friend also called the police saying she was driving while intoxicated.

Not saying it's 100% the case, but defintiely possible.

 

[Patronus]

Well not really, people drive drunk. Some get caught, some don't. I've known of people who've driven home blackout, after the fact. She did say the drive home that'd normally take 10 minutes took 53 minutes instead.. her friend also called the police saying she was driving while intoxicated.

Not saying it's 100% the case, but defintiely possible.

See the ringing the cops on her is the bit I am not understanding.

You were so worried about her driving drunk that you rang the cops on her but did not take her keys from her and just let her drive off?

Or was the made up assault when he apparently tried to get her keys but was stopped so he had no other choice but to ring the police. The friends relationship with her just seems to be super weird or convenient.

 

[Soggy2112]

See the ringing the cops on her is the bit I am not understanding.

You were so worried about her driving drunk that you rang the cops on her but did not take her keys from her and just let her drive off?

Or was the made up assault when he apparently tried to get her keys but was stopped so he had no other choice but to ring the police. The friends relationship with her just seems to be super weird or convenient.

It sounds like there was lots of alcohol involved and this was happening in the early hours of the morning.

Lots of weird shit happens when that’s the case, I’m sure we’ve all got stories. Just because his version of events sounds odd doesn’t mean it’s not necessarily true.

 

[captain bloodsport]

Or driving to dans, their home, her home

People drive drunk or on drugs every day. Doesn't mean you can still consent properly.

 

[randyzany]

Reiterating what I posted on the Geelong board:

I'll give player xyz the benefit of the doubt in this incident. He's a reasonably handsome young chap so it's beyond me why he felt the need to resort to paying sex workers to get his rocks off. Not to mention the fact that he is sort of a minor celebrity because of his pro athlete status and therefore there would be plenty of groupies who would be willing to have sex with footballers like him for free, even ugly ones. lol. But I suspect it was more about the thrill and perhaps indulging in sex acts that straight edge women would never entertain.

Rest assured genuine rapists (99.9999%) can't help themselves but be recidivists and commit the crime again (a la Weinstein) because it's more about getting off the power they have over the victim than the actual sex.

So if he really is a rapist there are bound to be other female victims coming forward about his criminal predilections in the next few years.

If none come forward there's a good chance that all he is guilty of is bad judgment and stupidity. Hopefully he has learnt his lesson and never ever put himself in this foolhardy position again. If he wants to experiment and fool around with sex workers do it in the confines of a legal brothel where the chances of another sex worker trying to extort and blackmail him are next to nil.

 

[randyzany]

My bad I thought this case was more or less legally resolved and his name is being flung around all over the Geelong forum so I assumed it was okay to use it.

 

[ShereKhan]

However, just because her testimony was not reliable enough to gain a conviction, does not automatically mean she made the whole thing up.

I have no issue with people saying the case wasn’t strong enough to get a conviction.

I have a big issue with people saying she’s a liar and made it all up. That kind of narrative is incredibly toxic, as there is a real possibility she is a rape victim.

I’ve got no idea of the guilt or innocence of either party in this incident… nobody except three people do. And without cold hard undisputed evidence I’m not believing anything I read about this case on social media, BF or anywhere else for that matter .. and that goes for both ‘sides’.

Interestingly Victorian data shows that cases of rape reported to police result in a conviction in just 4% of cases. Obviously 96% of actual rapes are not ‘made up’. Some are … most are not.

Only about 50-60% of all cases that result in criminal charges being laid end up in court. Again, 40-50% of those charged are not innocent … some are .. some are not.

The main reasons for not getting to court are outlined here:

• Evidentiary Challenges: Rape cases often lack physical evidence or witnesses, making it difficult to meet the legal standards required for a conviction.
• Victim-Blaming and Trauma: Survivors frequently face invasive questioning and societal stigma, which can deter them from pursuing legal action and affect the outcomes of cases.
• Legal Complexities: Issues such as consent and intoxication can complicate legal proceedings, leading to case dismissals or acquittals.

If indisputable facts come out that prove extortion was involved and a rape almost certainly did not occur, then I hope this woman is charged, as I have sons and my heart breaks for these guys if all they were guilty of is engaging in consensual sexual activity late at night in a carpark. Imagine all guys were facing rape charges if that was the ‘crime’.

We will probably never know what actually happened … but id suggest the facts say that without actual evidence we shouldn’t believe BF or social media … for both ‘sides’.

 

[ShereKhan]

Talk about not getting to the point.
What happened?

Some bird was all over a Geelong player because he plays AFL.
She was really drunk. He banged her. She woke up and doesn't remember it and is now crying no consent.

Am I warm?

Wow .. this sort of post is really pretty concerning.

 

[Soggy2112]

I’ve got no idea of the guilt or innocence of either party in this incident… nobody except three people do. And without cold hard undisputed evidence I’m not believing anything I read about this case on social media, BF or anywhere else for that matter .. and that goes for both ‘sides’.

Interestingly Victorian data shows that cases of rape reported to police result in a conviction in just 4% of cases. Obviously 96% of actual rapes are not ‘made up’. Some are … most are not.

Only about 50-60% of all cases that result in criminal charges being laid end up in court. Again, 40-50% of those charged are not innocent … some are .. some are not.

The main reasons for not getting to court are outlined here:

• Evidentiary Challenges: Rape cases often lack physical evidence or witnesses, making it difficult to meet the legal standards required for a conviction.
• Victim-Blaming and Trauma: Survivors frequently face invasive questioning and societal stigma, which can deter them from pursuing legal action and affect the outcomes of cases.
• Legal Complexities: Issues such as consent and intoxication can complicate legal proceedings, leading to case dismissals or acquittals.

If indisputable facts come out that prove extortion was involved and a rape almost certainly did not occur, then I hope this woman is charged, as I have sons and my heart breaks for these guys if all they were guilty of is engaging in consensual sexual activity late at night in a carpark. Imagine all guys were facing rape charges if that was the ‘crime’.

We will probably never know what actually happened … but id suggest the facts say that without actual evidence we shouldn’t believe BF or social media … for both ‘sides’.

100%

As I said earlier, the system is broken. I think part of the problem is that in most instances, the prosecution has to prove that there was not consent, rather than the defence has to prove that their was. I understand why this is the case, because innocent until proven guilty. However, that logic is backwards really when we think about what consent actually is.

Consent should be informed, enthusiastic, and without coercion. There should be zero doubt that consent was provided and under what circumstances.

When you see some of the arguments that are generally used in defence of accused rapists, it leaves you with the question of how did that person possibly come to the conclusion that they had informed, enthusiastic consent without coercion, if that’s their defence.

 

[Philhawk]

For people happy to pile on here without any proof or evidence, look up the cautionary tale of Kyren Lacy and take pause.

 

[I wanna pash Nash]

Talk about not getting to the point.
What happened?

Some bird was all over a Geelong player because he plays AFL.
She was really drunk. He banged her. She woke up and doesn't remember it and is now crying no consent.

Am I warm?

If the other party was in a cognitively sound state you have just described rape. If the person was too drunk to remember if they gave consent then there is no consent.

Why is this so hard for people?

 

[Big_Birdy]

If the other party was in a cognitively sound state you have just described rape. If the person was too drunk to remember if they gave consent, then they didn't have capacity to give consent then and there is no consent.

Why is this so hard for people?

Just tidied your point up slightly.

 

[I wanna pash Nash]

Just tidied your point up slightly.

Thank you, that is worded much better.

 

[jim boy]

If the person was too drunk to remember if they gave consent then there is no consent.

Why is this so hard for people?

Because that is not the law? At least from my generally ignorant POV from limited research.

Consent of an intoxicated person is based upon whether the person to whom the consent was given was reasonable in believing that the consent was real. See https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s36a.html

Disclaimer: I have no idea of the facts of this case or whether the above is applicable or relevant.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Because that is not the law? At least from my generally ignorant POV from limited research.

Consent of an intoxicated person is based upon whether the person who the consent was given was reasonable in believing that the consent was real. See https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s36a.html

Disclaimer: I have no idea of the facts of this case or whether the above is applicable or relevant.

Reasonably believes will be an objective standard (stand to be corrected though if there is someone with caselaw to dispute that).

So not the subjective belief of the alleged offender. But the belief of a reasonable person in the accused position.

If the victim is so drunk they can't remember, and even possibly using 36A(1) in the provision you have linked and the consideration of 'all the circumstances', the victim would be acting in a manner that a reasonable person in the offenders position could see was intoxicated and therefore unable to give consent. Therefore they could not reasonably believe they gave consent.

The above doesn't consider any defences and whether they can apply.

Also stand to be correct on any of the above.

Very controversial area of the law.

 

[jim boy]

If the victim is so drunk they can't remember,

That is not something that any reasonable person would be able to decide in the moment, unless they had a time machine, go into the future, find out whether the person has any recollection, and then zoom back. Other cues would have to be used. Ie slurring of words, loss of co-ordination etc.

 

[Big_Birdy]

That is not something that any reasonable person would be able to decide in the moment, unless they had a time machine, go into the future, find out whether the person has any recollection, and then zoom back. Other cues would have to be used. Ie slurring of words, loss of co-ordination etc.

If the victim is believed by the bench or jury when they say they were so drunk they can't remember, then the bolded will almost certainly be assumed. Inferences can be drawn as the how the victim would have appeared considering the circumstances. It isn't the lack of memory that is the issue. Its the cause of it.

The offender can claim despite their level of intoxication that the victim appeared sober and gave consent. May just be difficult to get the bench or jury to believe it.

 

[jim boy]

Incide

If the victim is believed by the bench or jury when they say they were so drunk they can't remember, then the bolded will almost certainly be assumed

Why would they - are you a judge? From https://www.alcoholhelp.com/alcohol/blacking-out/. From "Depending on how much alcohol the person drank and how impaired other brain functions are, a person in the midst of a blackout could appear incredibly drunk – or barely intoxicated at all."

And you're also introducing a lot of Ifs - if there are no witness statements, if there is no medical reports, If there is no corroborating evidence.

Do you still support that the assertion that if a person cannot remember giving consent that they MUST have not given consent regardless of anything else? That is the only thing I am challenging.