I believe this is the point he's trying to make. There just isn't enough evidence in this case to convict the accused. Unfortunately, in the public eye he's already been tried and convicted.

 

I know this. And you know this.

Often the accused is expelled (and his life ruined) by the consensus of a panel of fellow students and faculty.

But the media never seems to mention it when they report on the “rape epidemic” on college campuses.

 

Guilty, Not Guilty, innocent, and legally "non-convictable" are all different things.

I don't expect human beings to reserve their opinions based only on the high standard of conviction.

 

You just don't take super drunk girls back to your hotel room, it's not going to end well.

 

You have a link to that video tape? If not, then you don't have any idea what the video shows. All I've seen is her allegation about what someone else said the video tape shows. So we're back to "one accusation" as her claims about what someone else said the video shows are just that, a part of her accusation.

Maybe the video dose show what she claims. Maybe it doesn't. I don't know, But I do know that a whole bunch of the people who want to hang the captain are running around saying "we have video that shows XXX, we have witnesses that said YYY" when in fact we do not, we have her claims about video and witnesses. The video and witnesses are all claims made by her in her court filing or in media appearances.

 

Exactly. It still all boils down to just her accusation at this point.

 

Who here has actually read the lawsuit that was filed? If you have read it, can you honestly say that you don’t have any questions about the claims, or the timeline, or missing information that would be very important?

 

Don't know about Minnesota but there are lots of states whose laws indicate that once someone becomes drunk they lack the legal ability to consent to any sexual activity making any sexual activity with them a criminal sexual assault.

Then there are laws - like Washington's law, holding employers responsible if personnel in supervisory positions harass or demand sexual favors from subordinates: New Washington Laws Aim To Address Sexual Harassment In The Workplace | NW News Network

And let's face reality with this case, if this goes to a civil court jury and the evidence establishes that this MARRIED guy took a drunk female subordinate to his room that he had no previous relationship with to his room for the night, and she is claiming it was against her will, the jury is gonna give her a bundle, particularly a King County Superior Court jury.

At this point, the guy has become enormously expendable to Alaska airlines while doing anything to her would simply get the future civil court jury more angry with the company. Am I correct in assuming that she has been put back on the schedule and he hasn't? Pretty easy to see how this is going to play out.

 

Me.

....

No.

 

Not saying you're mistaken, but what is "drunk"? I think we can all agree that if you're passed out unconscious, then yes, you can't reasonably be considers to have consented to anything and any sexual activity would be rape, first degree sexual assault, or whatever applicable crime. (I'm not trying to equivocate here, the laws vary from place to place. Alaska, for example, no longer has the crime of "rape". What normally is considered "rape" would be first degree sexual assault in Alaska) The thing is, it's not a binary situation in when you're either passed out drunk or stone cold sober, there's a continuum of intoxication. (yeah, I know: thank you captain obvious. ) So at what point does it legally transition from "making poor choices" to ""not legally able to give consent" ? How do you determine that? What happens when a man and a woman at similar levels of intoxication have consensual sex? Did he rape her or did she rape (commit first degree sexual assault against, whatever) him?