It’s not “causing” them to do it. Moreover, in this case, it’s certainly not even arguably “unintentionally” causing them to do it.

What happened was he got out of the car, indicated he was having second thoughts, she encouraged him to do it, and he then did it right after. On those facts, that is sufficient evidence that she was the “but for” cause of his death, that but for her encouraging him, after he was expressing doubts, he would not have…

So are you arguing she should get more jail time? The solution isn’t that white people should get more jail time, its that poc should get less. 

Negligence isn’t the question. The question is whether it’s criminal negligence based on any statute under the laws of the state of Massachusetts. This is the actual text of the involuntary manslaughter statute:

If I consent to being driven in a car, that does not mean I consent to being killed by a careless driver. It’s irrelevant what sex acts they did or did not consent to, if someone died, something went horribly wrong and someone should be held responsible. Negligent homicide at the very least

Back in the first season of The Fall, Gillian Anderson’s character points this out to another cop: how much more difficult it is to strangle somebody, how much strength and time it takes, than the general population thinks. She has him grab her wrist hard for as long as he can, and when he has to let go points out…

I wrote the same thing before seeing your comment.

I’m not a doctor either, but I do have experience in choking people out for “recreational” purposes. It’s a pretty well known fact that one loses consciousness long before involuntary function will cease. How this isn’t properly communicated by the prosecution has always dumbfounded me.

Obviously, it is not that I do not understand the argument. And morally, of course she’s responsible. I also don’t have any trouble saying that she should be criminally culpable in some way that would have amounted to a “harsh” penalty and even prison time. But the statute she was convicted of requires that she cause…

Yup. Sounds like the mainstreaming of BDSM in pop culture just created yet another excuse to discount domestic violence victims. New language, same story.

The only real legal question of whether she was the “proximate cause” of his death, which is essentially asking the philosophical question of whether it is fair to hold her responsible for his death, given that it was his action that directly caused his death.

I’m sorry but this defense is bullshit. If your “rough sex” is so rough you KILLED SOMEONE, you are so bad at sex that you pose a danger to all future partners and should be locked up anyway. Despite what Hollywood movies would have you believe, it is actually very difficult to kill another able-bodied adult human…

Back in the day when I was active in the local BDSM community, if a woman got abused in an encounter with a guy who thought because she was kinky he could do whatever the fuck he wanted, there was no way the cops would do anything about it. It was “She knew what she was getting into. She’s into that weird stuff, so…

Which in turn really highlights the utter abdication of responsibility on our society’s part by accepting these kinds of bullshit arguments.

“You know, kids are into kinky shit these days.” This perception of generational difference, the sense of “kids these days,” becomes a blinder to the actual facts.

Yes. This question always kills me. Like, yeah, when you tip 20% on a really expensive meal or drink you’re probably “overpaying” for the effort it takes to serve it to you. But you’re also overpaying for the meal or drink in the first place, and you know it, so why draw the line at that? Just pony up the standard tip…

I think they were referring to the price a similar bottle might cost at a liquor store which would not include the markup the restaurant gives it. He is probably in the right ballpark. I know that when I pay $6 for a beer at a restaurant I could get a 6 pack of that same beer for $10. 

I would assume the guy pouring the $250 drink has to have nice clothes and haircut and not fuck it up, at all, while the guy doing the $10 drink can be wearing a dirty tshirt and as long as most of it winds up in the glass he’s good.

Yeah... the expensive shit exists as a flex, nothing more. That $250 shot exists to let somebody, really anybody in earshot, know that you’re perfectly fine literally pissing away a couple ounces of liquid.

If you can afford the $250 drink, you can afford the tip. But buy the bottle instead. If a single pour costs $250, the bottle probably costs $500 - 1000 and you will get 12 large pours instead of 1 small one.