tvc184

The Texas law says, “with the intent” to commit the assault, “administers or provides to the victim”. So is merely giving or providing it to her with intent to commit the assault a crime? I would say yes but I don’t have a clue how the DA would approach a situation where she asked for the drug. If the “intent” to commit the assault is giving the drugs, the intent overcomes any question of how she took it. That is to say that the person knew that it would render her incapable of refusing or resisting the sex act. There has been at least one case where the woman volunteered to take ketamine under a doctor’s care but then the doctor was accused of sexually assaulting her. So voluntarily taking the drug doesn’t necessarily negate the crime. That goes back to my original comment about not being able to say no. Even if a girl says, let’s take some drugs and get high, once she is unable to consent or say no, it doesn’t matter if she took the ketamine. She could have just as well voluntarily drank alcohol until she passed out. At that point it is still without consent. A guy can’t believe, she voluntarily got drunk so I can have sex with her. In reference to this case, it wasn’t a single guy but the accusation was several and with comments like free sex upstairs. If that can be proven, I don’t know how a guy can claim that a woman I don’t know consented to sex while she is unconscious or almost so even if she took the drug voluntarily. In this case I doubt that the issue will be whether she knowingly took the ketamine because knocking her out likely ends all other debate. The huge problem will be the time frame of the accusation and the gathering of evidence. Now if an eye witness(es) comes forward…….

If the person is almost or is unconscious, that isn’t with consent. A person has to have the ability to say no. In most or all states there are implied consent laws when driving. When you drive a vehicle in public, by law you have already consented to taking a breath test or having blood drawn. You can verbally withdraw that consent but that becomes another penalty. However…. the Supreme Court has ruled that implied consent laws mean that if you are unconscious due to intoxication (or injury) and is unable to consent, it doesn’t matter. State law says that be driving you have already consented to giving up your blood. That is to show that an unconscious person can consent while driving merely by driving and being unconscious doesn’t matter. Why bring that up? There is obviously no such thing as implied consent for sex. A guy can’t say (like the police can with an intoxicated driver), “oh well, she didn’t say no”. But merely being intoxicated in my opinion should not matter. A girl could drink two beers while on a date and start feeling frisky and technically be intoxicated but fully aware of her situation. That is not the same as a person who is unconscious or nearly so. Also note that in this case it was brought up that they gave her ketamine. In Texas as an example, using a date rape drug like ketamine or rohypnol automatically kicks it to a First Degree Felony or equal to Murder with up to 99 years in prison. In such a case I don’t think probation is allowed. So assuming this was in Texas and it could be proven that they gave her ketamine, consent doesn’t seem to be an element to the offense because the use of the drug removed any voluntary consent. That’s why there is a specific law on using drugs to render the (usually) female unable to say no. I don’t know the laws in that state but they are probably similar. If the prosecutor “can prove” any person had sex with her after she was given ketamine, they will likely be facing many years in prison and should be in my opinion. Proving it after not having a sexual assault examination for three weeks and certainly no blood tests for drugs in that time frame, will make it difficult.

I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. Certainly no one wants such as accusation but it seems likely that the deck is going to be stacked against them. If they are guilty of the accusations then they need to be put under the jail with extreme prejudice Now we have the governor appointing the AG who seems not to be looking at the case to see what is true or can be proven but the decision is already made. I think sexual assault kits should be performed up to 72 hours after the claimed assault but they may stretch the kits to maybe 7 days. If i read the article correctly, the kit was not performed for almost 3 weeks. It seems like with the little that is known, there might definitely be some issues with reasonable doubt. It’s unfortunate because the complete truth might never come out.

In my opinion it is legal in Texas to draw a firearm to let the other person know that you will use it if necessary. Of course, that kind of flies in the face of the repeated comments I have heard (including some handgun license instructors) that say, if you pull a weapon, then you had better use it or you will go to jail. I believe it depends on the situation. Texas actually addresses this issue in chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code on self-defense. This Section talks about drawing a weapon in order to scare the other person from needing to be dealt with in a more serious manner. Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force. Under 9.04 the “threat” of force is justified “when the use of force is justified”. So if a person reasonably believes that he in danger and the use of force or deadly force is justified, so is the threat to use it. That seems overwhelmingly logical. If you are justified in taking another person‘s life in self-defense, why would only threatening him be a crime but killing him not? The Texas law then specifically says that if you have the justification to defend yourself, the threat that you will in fact defend yourself, including up to deadly force, is not a crime if the threat was limited to scaring the heck out of the person (creating an apprehension) to make him stop. There is always the issue of the threat against you being a reasonable belief. If for example, a person walks up to you in a parking lot and ask for money to buy a sandwich, I believe you would be hard-pressed to make a Jury believe that you were reasonably in fear of your life because a homeless person wanted to eat. On the other hand if you were in your 70s, and some big guy is charging towards you and saying, I’m about to stomp a mud hole in you, would you be a reasonable fear? A person must take him into Account that deadly force in Texas does not mean death, but can also mean serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury can be the loss or protracted loss of a bodily organ or member so a broken hand that puts your arm in a cast for four weeks is almost certainly going to be seen at deadly force. Also note, the Texas law on self defense says that if evidence of self defense is presented to the jury, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense. So in a case, like this a person says (not sure of the details) that, yes he drew a gun because he reasonably believed that he was in danger of serious bodily injury by a person approaching him angrily after the person was told to stop several times. Would he reasonably believe that he is in danger of being seriously injured and does the DA believe or convince the grand jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that need was not in danger? Without actually knowing anything other than what is in the media, I would think that he would not be indicted because there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not unreasonable, fear of serious injury. It is my opinion that many people hear that he drew a gun and automatically say that is a crime. As we can see by the Texas law listed, that is not always true.

!Score 6-40 final

!Score 6-40 Q4

Both.

!Score 6-34 Q4

Thank goodness for the refs. Nederland would have had their third punt return for a touchdown. A block in the back killed a 90 yard return. 😀

!Score 6-34 Q3

!Score 6-34 HALF

!Score 6-34 Q2

[Hidden Content]

That was going to be my next “I don’t ever remember”.

!Score 6-28 Q2