I don’t think nonplussed means what you think it means.

::nods::

But when better to start enforcing this rule - which, it should be noted, is a good rule! - then when it matters most, and when the conduct being punished is most indefensible?

Astros fan who attended the game here. Yanks fans definitely booed the shit out of Gardner, A-Rod, and Ellsbury in the later innings, but on the whole they were pretty pleasant. I got my share of shit talked to me, but once they got their acerbic initial comments out of the way, people were pretty reasonable, and at…

Oh man. So much wrong here.

I don’t know if this is actual cricket terminology or not.

(Be sure to watch the whole video, if only to marvel at YES play-by-play man Michael Kay being a shameless homer and cudgeling Gomez with a replay of a completely harmless slide from earlier in the game.)

If the fact that the alleged victim was not coerced into going to Kane’s apartment is not in dispute, why does it matter if it was an off-duty cop doing the driving? He didn’t know that Kane was going to (allegedly) rape the victim later.

So then, do you feel that most of the time when a women is “all over” a guy early in the night in public and then claims rape in private, she is lying?

I didn’t say most juries would credit the alleged victim. I said a jury could.

Yeah, I mean, that is the problem with prosecuting rape cases in a “beyond a reasonable doubt” system. The non-prosecutions that some advocates view as emblematic of “rape culture” I tend to view as an acknowledgement of the difficulty of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence relies so much on the…

Just because evidence is probative does not mean that the jury is required to rely on it or credit it in making its determination. The jury could hear testimony on this point and conclude that it did not change their view of whether or not there was consent.

That’s not even close to an accurate summary.

If the jury finds the alleged victim’s explanation that she never gave consent credible, and think the witnesses’ testimony has no bearing on whether she actually consented to the sexual act, then they convict, no? All she has to say is “yes, i was ‘all over’ him earlier in the night, but i never consented to sex, at…

Also, the credibility of the accused and the alleged victim. Juries make decisions based solely on the credibility of the witnesses all the time.

Physical evidence, witnesses that spoke with the alleged victim immediately after the incident, other forms of corroboration. I get your point, but I don’t think this type of evidence is necessarily a silver bullet. Just something that the jury should probably consider.

I know that rape shield laws in every U.S. jurisdiction generally prohibit the introduction of evidence of an alleged victim’s prior sexual interactions (though the most common formulation has an exception for prior sexual conduct with the defendant, for better or worse), but I admit I am ignorant of case/statutory…

Don’t disagree with any of that. In fact, I made specific mention of bite/scratch marks.

UNPOPULAR OPINION ALERT. I disagree with this statement:

“Alright alright alright” is from Dazed and Confused, not True Detective.