Granderson in trouble

[fromolwyoming]

Nobody wants to accept consequences for their actions these days, on either side. Should he have groped her? No. Should they have gotten into bed with him? No.
I'm not trying to take responsibility away from Granderson, just saying that all parties have at least some accountability here.

A bad decision is sliding down the banister only to slam your junk into the knob on the end.

Sexual assault? That's NOT on the victim, ever. Consent is a thing, that needs to be done by BOTH parties. If the woman didn't give consent, and even more, didn't want it, that's on the sexual assaulter. NOT the victim. That kind of backwards thinking was tossed out 60 years ago.

 

[Pokes fan 24-7]

Nobody wants to accept consequences for their actions these days, on either side. Should he have groped her? No. Should they have gotten into bed with him? No.
I'm not trying to take responsibility away from Granderson, just saying that all parties have at least some accountability here.

A man can only take responsibility for his own actions. The women did not commit a crime. Carl allegedly did. If you believe in personal responsibility I don't see how you can make the argument that the women putting themselves in a vulnerable situation somehow takes part of the blame off him. You say he needs to take responsibility for his actions but they should also. I don't get it. Only one party allegedly committed a crime.

 

[TSpoke]

Nobody wants to accept consequences for their actions these days, on either side. Should he have groped her? No. Should they have gotten into bed with him? No.
I'm not trying to take responsibility away from Granderson, just saying that all parties have at least some accountability here.

A bad decision is sliding down the banister only to slam your junk into the knob on the end.

Sexual assault? That's NOT on the victim, ever. Consent is a thing, that needs to be done by BOTH parties. If the woman didn't give consent, and even more, didn't want it, that's on the sexual assaulter. NOT the victim. That kind of backwards thinking was tossed out 60 years ago.

Unfortunately, I don't think it has been completely tossed out.

 

[LanderPoke]

OK, so at what point would the "victim" bear the blame (or a portion of it) for sending the wrong message? Because it's never the woman's fault, ever. Apparently getting into the guy's bed is not a message she wants something. Would she have to get in the bed with just her underwear? naked? Seriously

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

A man can only take responsibility for his own actions. The women did not commit a crime. Carl allegedly did. If you believe in personal responsibility I don't see how you can make the argument that the women putting themselves in a vulnerable situation somehow takes part of the blame off him. You say he needs to take responsibility for his actions but they should also. I don't get it. Only one party allegedly committed a crime.

Yup! This guy!

Is being drunk and sleeping in a bed with a guy you don't want to be touching you a terrible idea? ABSOLUTELY! Is it illegal? Nope!

Is groping a girl you aren't sure wants to be groped or not a terrible idea? ABSOLUTELY! Is it illegal? YES!

 

[LanderPoke]

Is a contract required before flirting, kissing, hitting on, etc.? That's the way things are trending. It's very confusing now. Seriously! I'm sure glad my wife didn't accuse me of rape or sexual assault before I kissed her the first time. I didn't ask permission. It would seriously suck to date now

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

Is a contract required before flirting, kissing, hitting on, etc.? That's the way things are trending. It's very confusing now. Seriously! I'm sure glad my wife didn't accuse me of rape or sexual assault before I kissed her the first time. I didn't ask permission. It would seriously suck to date now

Asking before doing should make it far LESS confusing.

It's for sure different than it used to be, but there are plenty of ways to ask that don't kill the mood. Hell, it's usually a better experience for both parties if you're patient enough to wait until she initiates anyway. Game on!

Making a move with someone you know well and have a good relationship with is a lot different than a stranger, co-worker, or underling too. Most of these situations aren't coming from relationships or dating. They're coming from hook-up attempts or work scenarios.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

I would hope that everyone could agree that Granderson's alleged conduct is morally reprehensible (although it appears that there are a few on here that do not believe so). That said, there is a difference between illegality and immorality. I will say that, based solely on what the paper has released, I do believe Granderson's alleged conduct was illegal (certainly misdemeanor sexual battery) but it might not meet the threshold of 3rd Degree Felony Sexual Assault and there is a real possibility that this case isn't bound over to district court. There certainly could be additional alleged criminal facts that the paper has not mentioned.

Granderson was charged with 3rd degree felony sexual assault. Here are the relevant statutes:
6-2-304. Sexual assault in the third degree.
(a) An actor commits sexual assault in the third degree if, under circumstances not constituting sexual assault in the first or second degree:
(iii) The actor subjects a victim to sexual contact under any of the circumstances of W.S. 6-2-302(a)(i) through (iv) or 6-2-303(a)(i) through (vii) without inflicting sexual intrusion on the victim and without causing serious bodily injury to the victim.

6-2-302. Sexual assault in the first degree.
(a) Any actor who inflicts sexual intrusion on a victim commits a sexual assault in the first degree if:
(iii) The victim is physically helpless, and the actor knows or reasonably should know that the victim is physically helpless and that the victim has not consented; or

6-2-303. Sexual assault in the second degree.
(a) Any actor who inflicts sexual intrusion on a victim commits sexual assault in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting sexual assault in the first degree:
(ii) The actor causes submission of the victim by any means that would prevent resistance by a victim of ordinary resolution;
(iii) The actor administers, or knows that someone else administered to the victim, without the prior knowledge or consent of the victim, any substance which substantially impairs the victim's power to appraise or control his conduct;

From a recent Wyoming Law Review:
"The (felony) statutes fail to address the common sexual assault scenarios addressed earlier, specifically, those involving alcohol and lack of consent. For example, there are no provisions that adequately cover sexual assault scenarios where the survivor freezes or just verbally resists...

The Wyoming Statutes only offer two options for how prosecutors charge cases of alcohol-facilitated sexual assaults. One charging option is for an assault that involves the survivor's involuntary intoxication. As previously mentioned, alcohol is associated with approximately half of all sexual assaults. Alcohol is recognized as a weapon perpetrators use to incapacitate the survivor and to discredit the survivor should he or she choose to report the assault to law enforcement. The current Wyoming statutory language does not allow for successful prosecution of scenarios where the survivor voluntarily ingests alcohol or recreational drugs. This lack of prosecution due to the victim's conduct further fosters victim-blaming and rape myths that focus on the victim's actions prior to the assault.

The other option, covers situations where the survivor is “physically helpless.” This subsection could theoretically be used for someone impaired after voluntarily ingesting substances, such as alcohol or controlled substances. However, this definition only protects someone who has passed out or becomes unconscious from alcohol consumption. It does not cover the typical scenario where alcohol has simply impaired the mobility and cognitive functions of the survivor. If the survivor can communicate that he or she does not consent to sexual acts, or physically resists in any manner, the assault should not be prosecuted under this subsection." 17 Wyoming Law Review 35.


§ 6-2-313. Sexual battery
a) Except under circumstances constituting a violation of W.S. 6-2-302 through 6-2-304, 6-2-314 through 6-2-317 or 6-2-502, an actor who unlawfully subjects another person to any sexual contact is guilty of sexual battery.
(b) Sexual battery is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both.

 

[LanderPoke]

I would hope that everyone could agree that Granderson's alleged conduct is morally reprehensible (although it appears that there are a few on here that do not believe so).

I don't think anyone thinks that. People think it's a two-way street. BUT unfortunately for men we have the higher responsibility. And it's impossible to punish poor judgement/stupidity

 

[OrediggerPoke]

And it's impossible to punish poor judgement/stupidity

This makes no sense to me. Our criminal statutes specifically detail what is or isn't a crime. If the actions meet the definition of a crime, then there is punishment. If the actions do not meet the definition of a crime, then there is no legal punishment (could be team related or school related punishment but those don't apply here).

 

[LanderPoke]

And it's impossible to punish poor judgement/stupidity

This makes no sense to me. Our criminal statutes specifically detail what is or isn't a crime. If the actions meet the definition of a crime, then there is punishment. If the actions do not meet the definition of a crime, then there is no legal punishment (could be team related or school related punishment but those don't apply here).

exactly. I don't think we disagree. It's impossible to assess to what degree one's stupidity or negligence contributed to a crime being committed against them

 

[OrediggerPoke]

And it's impossible to punish poor judgement/stupidity

This makes no sense to me. Our criminal statutes specifically detail what is or isn't a crime. If the actions meet the definition of a crime, then there is punishment. If the actions do not meet the definition of a crime, then there is no legal punishment (could be team related or school related punishment but those don't apply here).

exactly. I don't think we disagree. It's impossible to assess to what degree one's stupidity or negligence contributed to a crime being committed against them

No we don't agree. There is no such thing as a victim's 'stupidity' or a victim's 'negligence.' An actor, based on their actions, either commits a crime or they don't and the law doesn't look at whether the victim somehow put themselves in a bad situation. CalPoke gave a good example earlier of the theory of a person walking down the street with a million dollars in their hand. The law does look at whether the alleged victim 'consented' but that has nothing to do with supposed negligence.

The comparative negligence theory that you are floating only applies in the civil law realm (i.e. money damage lawsuits) and usually merely as an offset to any damage award for states that recognize comparative negligence theories.

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

I don't think anyone thinks that. People think it's a two-way street. BUT unfortunately for men we have the higher responsibility. And it's impossible to punish poor judgement/stupidity

World #1: Woman makes poor decision, ends up in a vulnerable position. Man takes advantage of this vulnerable position for his own pleasure. Man gets legally punished for it, woman does not.

World #2: Woman makes poor decision, ends up in a vulnerable position. Man takes advantage of this vulnerable position for his own pleasure. Man gets a pat on the back for being a man, woman has to be ok with what happened because she made herself vulnerable.

I choose World #1.

Woman's "stupidity" didn't victimize anyone. There is no need for a legal punishment. (Her punishment, if you really want one for her, is BEING GROPED)

Man's "stupidity" victimized the woman. There is need for a punishment.

That's the diference I think you're missing. "Higher responsibility"? She's already suffered the consequences, the consequence was being a victim of a crime. The legal action against him is HIS consequence. There's the 2-way street. It's playing out the way it should.


The only scenario where the man is a victim in this case is if she DID consent, but made a false claim.

 

[LanderPoke]

I don't think anyone thinks that. People think it's a two-way street. BUT unfortunately for men we have the higher responsibility. And it's impossible to punish poor judgement/stupidity

World #1: Woman makes poor decision, ends up in a vulnerable position. Man takes advantage of this vulnerable position for his own pleasure. Man gets legally punished for it, woman does not.

World #2: Woman makes poor decision, ends up in a vulnerable position. Man takes advantage of this vulnerable position for his own pleasure. Man gets a pat on the back for being a man, woman has to be ok with what happened because she made herself vulnerable.

I choose World #1.

Woman's "stupidity" didn't victimize anyone. There is no need for a legal punishment. (Her punishment, if you really want one for her, is BEING GROPED)

Man's "stupidity" victimized the woman. There is need for a punishment.

That's the diference I think you're missing. "Higher responsibility"? She's already suffered the consequences, the consequence was being a victim of a crime. The legal action against him is HIS consequence. There's the 2-way street. It's playing out the way it should.


The only scenario where the man is a victim in this case is if she DID consent, but made a false claim.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't disagree with your scenario and I don't think anyone does and you are taking it to the extreme outside the context of this situation.

The interesting part of your response is the last sentence and specifically one word, consent.

Did she consent by sleeping in his bed? That's where it gets cloudy. Some would argue yes, others no. And it's not like Granderson raped them or help them against their will. Sounds like he tested the waters because likely in his mind consent was given by the girls getting in his bed. Pretty damn poor judgement by the girls, imo, and Granderson. When his advances were rebuffed he quit. Does this equal sexual assault when in the "attacker's" mind consent had been given?

Likely a lot more info is needed to make a correct judgement.

 

[Asmodeanreborn]

What's wrong with a kiss, boy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz1E303AwVQ

Honestly, I don't see how there's any confusion in regards to intent. You don't jam your hands down somebody's underwear before you kiss, make out, and then maybe start messing around on the outside of clothing. Anybody with a significant other, do you just go straight for penetration?

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't disagree with your scenario and I don't think anyone does and you are taking it to the extreme outside the context of this situation.

The interesting part of your response is the last sentence and specifically one word, consent.

Did she consent by sleeping in his bed? That's where it gets cloudy. Some would argue yes, others no. And it's not like Granderson raped them or help them against their will. Sounds like he tested the waters because likely in his mind consent was given by the girls getting in his bed. Pretty damn poor judgement by the girls, imo, and Granderson. When his advances were rebuffed he quit. Does this equal sexual assault when in the "attacker's" mind consent had been given?

Likely a lot more info is needed to make a correct judgement.

That is why we have juries (a trier of fact). If it makes it that far, the jury will be instructed as to what is 'consent' under the law and they will hear the evidence and make the determination.

Consent is not a question of actual subjective belief of the accused. In fact, that is largely irrelevant. Whether there was consent is a question of whether the alleged victim did voluntarily consent to the act by word or conduct. This is a 'reasonable person' standard. Would a reasonable person believe that the alleged victims' words or conduct expressed a desire of consent. Based on the purported facts of the Tribune article, the question would be did the act of the victims merely falling asleep in the same bed as the accused constitute consent? I believe that there would be many cases that would say no to that. There certainly could be more alleged facts that come out to support a defense of consent but those haven't come out yet.

Additionally, you are apparently giving rape its own very narrow definition. Rape today would probably be more commonly be defined as unwanted sexual contact without consent.

I believe this case is going to turn on whether the alleged facts can sustain a charge for felony third degree sexual assault. That is a real legal hurdle based on what the paper released. I would guess if the felony charges are not ultimately bound over to District Court that we would see Granderson subsequently charged with misdemeanor sexual battery.

 

['PokeForLife]

I think absolutely everyone here thinks that if the reports are true, Granderson did something bad, and has no excuse.
I think that the woman did not commit a crime, and that Granderson did according to the information we have now.
Never was it said by anyone that the woman should be punished for what happened to her.

There is risk/reward that has to be weighed in every decision -- should I get this surgery that will significantly improve my life but has a 1% chance of fatality? Should I go bungee jumping with a 1 in 500,000 chance of dying? Should I get into bed with a guy who is drunk?

Thought experiment -- who thinks that this would have happened if she had decided to call an Uber to take her home rather than getting into bed with him? (nobody twist what I am saying here... I know that we can extrapolate to her making a better decision than driving drunk, or that there is risk getting into an uber with a stranger driving, blah blah.) I'm just curious.

On a different note, do we know what happened earlier in the night? What were their conversations like? What kind of non-verbal communication happened between the two? Does none of that factor into consent?

 

[laxwyo]

Anybody with a significant other, do you just go straight for penetration?

Only if the kids are down for a quick nap

 

['PokeForLife]

Anybody with a significant other, do you just go straight for penetration?

Only if the kids are down for a quick nap

:rofl:

 

[Asmodeanreborn]

Anybody with a significant other, do you just go straight for penetration?

Only if the kids are down for a quick nap

And they say romance is dead! :lol: