Confessions on Sidechat | If you're black out drunk walking and a drunk driver runs you over, you are not going to jail for getting hit, they are going to jail for hitting you. In "we were BOTH too drunk to consent" cases, that's not true. You're either the walker or the driver

Sidechat

Download

Join communities on Sidechat Download

Confessions 22h

If you're black out drunk walking and a drunk driver runs you over, you are not going to jail for getting hit, they are going to jail for hitting you. In "we were BOTH too drunk to consent" cases, that's not true. You're either the walker or the driver

Anonymous 22h

Sorry that was for OP

Anonymous 22h

There are times when the woman is the driver. Most of the time, though, is it the man thrusting into the woman, and that makes him the driver. Sucks for you if the walker goes to the police even if you were both drunk, but at the end of the day it's illegal to drunk drive, it's not illegal to drunk walk

Deleted 22h

Comment Deleted

Anonymous 22h

Jane doe isn’t a drunk “walker”, she’s another drunk driver.

-2

Anonymous 22h

Ok?

-3

Anonymous

#1 22h

Can you read? What's confusing to you

Anonymous 22h

lol you aggressive who said I didn’t understand lol you assumed a response and created a whole dialogue around it 😂

Anonymous

#1 22h

"Ok?". That is a question.

Anonymous

OP 22h

Right but if two drunk drivers run into each other, they both go to jail Also, it is illegal to drunk walk. It’s called a public intoxication charge Bad metaphor

Anonymous

#3 22h

Public intoxication is only illegal in most states if paired with disruptive behavior. It is not illegal to simply walk around drunk. Even so, hitting someone with a car while drunk is a felony. Driving drunk multiple times is a felony even if you don't hit someone. Public intoxication is a misdemeanor

Anonymous

#4 21h

If you're in a vehicle, you have more ability to harm someone with that vehicle than an individual walk has to harm you while you're in the vehicle. In the case of Jane Doe, I would argue that being in a group (ie the group of frat guys) is equivalent to being in the vehicle and being an individual separate from the group (ie the one unaffiliated girl in the room) is equivalent to being an individual walking. So I would disagree that they were both drivers

Anonymous

OP 20h

You’re still ignoring the two drunk drivers who hit each other both go to jail aspect Is also just like to add this argument has nothing to do with the Cornell case bc that guy is full of shit before people start trying to put words in my mouth

Anonymous

#3 13h

There aren't 2 drunk drivers when it comes to consent for sex because in order for sex to happen, at least one person has to be in control of their body. 2 drunks crashing into each other would be because both people lost control of their body and/or vehicle.

Anonymous

OP 12h

This is objectively not true. If two people enthusiastically engage in sex, yet both are beyond the level of inebriation for legal consent at similar levels at the time of engagement, there’s no grounds for charges, which THERE IS CASE LAW COVERING, btw. So it does happen and has happened.

Anonymous

#3 12h

(Enthusiastic is a legal term to differentiate between coercion and willing engagement, not a genuine excitement and regret later)

Anonymous

#3 11h

Two drunk people having consensual sex would be equivalent to 2 drunk drivers safely making it home in this analogy lol the crash into another car or person is referring to rape