I will happily be shopping at Lady Grey!

Fair enough. The victim said the DA told her this and I choose to believe her.

It is crazy to want a sexual assault victim to be able to have her day in court? Because that is all I am talking about here.

Are you now the arbiter of who gets to comment and opine how? Did I say the press said this? Anywhere?

No, I do not. I want to see these offenders brought to trial and treated fairly within the confines and to the full extent of the law. Not given 3 months probation for rape because athlete or a free “too drunk” pass for sexual assault.

That does not mean I have to like it. Which I do not. By the way, which pesky law are you referring to? The ones prohibiting sexual assault that the Philly DA is trying to dance around? The one prohibiting the use of intoxication as a defense.

No, I am not a lawyer, although you did not know that until now. I saw his post. And it in no way contradicts what I have been saying.

Not in Pennsylvania law, which specifically prohibits intoxication as a defense or to negate intent. Fortunately Ron Swanson posted the exact law here. If we are going to talk about Rule of Law, then the law must be known and in PA, drunk is not an acceptable defense or excuse.

“That’s not at all true. At all. While “being drunk” is not a de facto defense, it is taken into account with history and patterns to determine if the actual issue is about substance abuse or about an actually criminal mindset.”

True everywhere except Pennsylvania which specifically prohibits an intoxication defense. As Ron Swanson helpfully posted here yesterday, intoxication defense is not allowed except to reduce murder charges.

I do understand how the criminal justice system works. And how it does not work for sexual assault victims.Having “patience” is how rapists are allowed to walk free.The problem is that when it comes to this kind of sexual assault the process does not play itself out. In fact, play is the exact right word because in…

Nope, sorry. Breast licking is not a thing that has unclear intent.

Actually, it does not. And, what other purpose besides prurient is there to licking a woman’s breasts unless one is an infant looking for food? Licking! Her breasts! Not touching or brushing up. Licking! Seriously.

I have what the victim said. And the silence from the DA. And the simple fact that these kinds of sexual assaults are not vigorously prosecuted and end to get swept under the rug. And, if you read the comments, including yours, you are more than willing to disbelieve the victim than to distrust a system (prosecuting…

We also have her original allegations of sexual assault, which were never denied. The real truth here is that a lot of people are rushing to demand precise facts just like every other time sexual assault gets a free pass. Well, let the cowardly DA speak up and provide said “facts.”

So again doubting the victim in favor of the DA and the accused? Sounds sadly about right. Answer these - was the accused politically connected? Delegates tend to be politically connected? Did the city weigh in to prevent bad PR? Why would someone in the DA’s office cite an illegal defense (intoxication) to the…

The DA said it was because he was too drunk to know what he was doing, thus accepting the intoxication excuse - in clear violation of Pennsylvania law prohibiting intoxication as a defense. The DA said this.

I see your point.

Because men*. After literally millennia of being able to do whatever they wanted to women, it is turning out to be rather difficult to break the habit for some.

Thanks for the good info, but that flies in the face of the law that specifically prohibits an intoxication defense for this type of crime which someone posted here.