The alcohol driving limits probably do not apply to consensual sex alcohol limits. How do you consider a person too drunk to decide consensual sex? The one drink idea is not valid unless you have a link. What type of drink as wine, beer, hard stuff is not captured by the phrase one drink.
Bubu
- Thread starter Cyclone07
- Start date
- Status
The alcohol driving limits probably do not apply to consensual sex alcohol limits. How do you consider a person too drunk to decide consensual sex? The one drink idea is not valid unless you have a link. What type of drink as wine, beer, hard stuff is not captured by the phrase one drink.
Are we sure the three parties or some of the parties were drunk at the time of the initial consensual sex or did more drinking occur later?
How do you read what I said and come up with that? The point is people who drink too much should bear some responsibility for what they do afterward, even if they claim they don't remember it. Or can I assume you're against personal responsibility?
To take this to the logical conclusion: if she had been killed it would have been her fault because she drank.
So what should one who drinks to the point that they get taken advantage of do? Nothing? If that's the case, then what about the "personal responsibility" of the person that takes advantage of someone that is drunk? Why should they not have to take any personal responsibility for using someone's altered mental state against them? Or do you only believe in personal responsibility when it's convenient?
Same here.
This thread reminds me the lamb chop theme song that never ends just replace song with thread:
This is the thread that never ends,
It just goes on and on my friends,
Some people started posting in it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue posting in it forever just because
Last edited:
Of course it wouldn't be her fault if she were killed. But if she goes to the bars, gets smashed, and goes home with somebody she doesn't know and something terrible happened, her irresponsible drinking and bad decision sure put her in a dangerous situation, and that part is on her. In the current case she texted somebody she had known for years, drank with them and went home with them. Bottom line is we have a situation where she said she was too drunk to remember what happened, and he said she did know what she was doing and the sex was consensual, and maybe her actions gave BuBu that strong impression. After all they had had relations before, and correct me if that isn't right, but I thought that had been established in the investigation. The question I continue to ask that none of her supporters seem willing to answer is why are you so unwilling to believe BuBu, who has never been in any other trouble and been an honor student at both Ames High and ISU? Instead you're quick to support someone who has lied under oath and fabricated evidence. The other question the Leath supporters seem unwilling to answer is why did Leath and JP go so public, making at least several statements to the media to the effect that it would be dishonorable to play a guy like BuBu, and that what he did was worse than other athletes that had been allowed to return to teams? What purpose did that serve other than to make a bad situation even worse for BuBu and really embarrass themselves by sounding childish and vindictive. Please no more personal comments about me, just some answers to those two questions that makes some kind of sense.
Absolutely not, both should be responsible for what happens if they drink too much. But the girl says she doesn't know what happened, BuBu said she consented, and how do we know she wasn't a very willing participant. These he said she said situations are tough enough, but in this case, she's claiming not to know what she did, at least the morning after. Her actions may have clearly indicated to BuBu that she did know what she wanted to do, none of us know for sure what happened. But the fact she was willing to lie under oath and fabricate evidence swings the pendulum to BuBu's favor imo, especially since there is nothing in BuBu's history before or after but staying out of trouble and being an honor student.
This is nothing compared to the interest the trial will likely generate, maybe even at a national level.
Sorry, my phone space bar is right by the period button after an update and I keep hitting it.
The law and ISU policy isn't that it is illegal to sleep with a drunk person it is illegal to sleep with someone who did not provide consent or is unable to because they are incapacitated or too young. I posted earlier the guide for prosecutors to determine if it was "drunk sex" or incapacitation. One of the factors to determine if they had the capacity to consent was "did they send texts or use their cell phone" which would demonstrate they could function. Alcohol induced poor judgment is not the same as incapacitated.
You can read right? You type lots of words but rarely seem to read them or what others are saying.
Would you please use punctuation you non-stop rambles are not easy to read.
To answer your first question:
1-I think Bubu has omitted the full story. I think he is being "truthy". I cringed as I sat and watched him in post-game celebration in k.c. Because based upon my belief I believe the victim erred hugely and needed not perjure herself as I think cruise was going to jail and bubu was at great risk of being found guilty.
2-I don't know why he was allowed to return. I don't care- he was. I also know he got an education and was allowed to retain his scholarship his only "damage" was he didn't play basketball(which isn't much different than were he not suspended). Playing ncaa sports is NOT a protected status it is gravy. Remember student-athlete? Bubu was NOT forced to stay at isu. If he wanted to play he could have transferred this is a two-way street and I am sure Greg would have been glad to have him. Let me repeat: basketball is not a right.
I've cooked entire meals and not remembered it happening. This is a terrible measure of sobriety.
That is one of the factors to determine incapacitation. I get the feeling you are unfamiliar with the what the law actually says.
Last edited:
Unable to walk is also a standard to determine incapacitation. If one cannot walk and can coherently text they would weigh both I would presume with the other evidence of her intoxication though I have heard from no one that she could not walk.
- Status