Gotcha.
that’s how I drink booze and coffee. I assume there’s several minutes in those “two sips”
I don’t. In fact, I always wait until it’s not too hot, and then I drink it slowly.
Also, if they accidentally give me full caf when I asked for decaf, I can usually tell after 2 or 3 sips.
Times have changed. I don’t know what the law said, but it used to be a mitigating factor for an accused rapist of the woman admitted to being drunk. Maybe not passed-out, totally unable to consent drunk, but it’s pretty hard to prove later just how drunk you were, and “kinda drunk” was definitely mitigating to the accused.
So, we KNOW that Bill Cosby is a contemptible, horny old lecher. We just don’t know if he’s a rapist.
Come on, doesn’t anybody get the joke?
Versed has the property of being an amnesiac…
Or am I missing the point somehow.
J.
It being only the fourth post in a GQ thread that he was the original poster of many people may have pretended to assume he didn’t come all that way to tell a shaggy dog story.
<shrug> And I can do a percocet with a daiquiri back and not seem drunk/drugged … and have. People have widely differing reactions to drugs [hell, naprosin is about as good as a blue M&M as an NSAID for me …] so I have no problem with the idea that a tenth of a dose of whatever was enough to let her feel like something had been given to her. As far as i know, a full dose of whatever she got would not make a dent in my ability to play the cup game, or render me totally out for the evening.
I would like a cite, preferably caselaw. Because generally once its established that a woman was drunk, then the question becomes was she so drunk as to be unable to consent. If the answer is no, then her drunkenness is irrelevant to the case.
You might have mixed up the Accused’s intoxication which can be a mitigating circumstance as to quantum of sentence but not to conviction.
[QUOTE=aruvqan]
<shrug> And I can do a percocet with a daiquiri back and not seem drunk/drugged … and have. People have widely differing reactions to drugs [hell, naprosin is about as good as a blue M&M as an NSAID for me …] so I have no problem with the idea that a tenth of a dose of whatever was enough to let her feel like something had been given to her. As far as i know, a full dose of whatever she got would not make a dent in my ability to play the cup game, or render me totally out for the evening.
[/QUOTE]
That is true. Different doses affect different people…differently. As the Russians found out at the Moscow Theatre siege.
That is why many people find this aspect of the story less compelling. It takes years of training to be able to administer sedatives safely and it still goes wrong. Its unlikely that a comedian looking to get laid would be able to do so, without blind luck and without leaving a trail of bodies if he persisted at the game.
I am referring to the court of public opinion, not to the law. And my source is an accusation of rape of a student by a student when I was in college. And my documentation is my husband’s memory, since my memory sucks, but his is pretty accurate.
People’s actions are more influenced by the court of public opinion than by the letter of the law, however.
I'm not sure that that you are actually referring to a "mitigating factor" which usually means something that justifies a less severe punishment but does not affect guilt. Is that what you mean, or did you mean that the court of public opinion would generally not find the accused guilty if the victim admitted to being drunk?
There are “mitigating factors” in the court of public opinion? :dubious:
I Counter that with the sheer number of women who have come Forward: 50. Take a Moment to consider that.
One lone woman accusing a celebrity might be suffering from delusions and imagine things.
Even a second woman might be out for Money and lying.
But 50 women? No way. Especially considering the social barriers to reporting a rape: the reactions of “the woman was drunk, it’s her fault” from the public and in court; the Problem of lack of evidence after all These years; the Problem of being believed after all These years; the Problem that they will be told “you weren’t drugged, you were drunk, and are now slinging mud for your own fault”. (That’s a big hurdle why so many rapes are not reported).
Despite that, 50 women came Forward. That’s too much smoke for not being true.
Again, not comparable. The Russians wanted the Kidnappers/ terrorists down, so they used a high dose, and the audience was mixed - elderly People with previous heart Problems for example. In Addition, the sedative was used as gas, so less control over how much was administered to each Person.
Whereas, when Cosby or generally a predator, gives a woman a drink, esp. if alcohol was already involved, they can take the drink away if it appears to be too strong, and if it doesn’t work, they’ll try somebody else. (This is also the difference to a Hospital, where this Person has to anethized for the surgery).
Well the Thing is: let’s say he went wrong, either in dosage or with unexpected allergic reaction, and the woman collapsed. So he calls the ambulance, they either save the woman, or she can’t be revived.
How likely would it be in the 70s or 80s, esp. in Hollywood, that his Statement “She had too much alcohol to drink, and then she collapsed” would be
a) questioned by Hospital and or Police
b) could be proven by Hospital and or Police - unlike the movies, there’s not one drug test, there are dozens because there are so many different drugs
c) an autopsy would be done in case of death automatically (required by law) and would find it?
I don’t know the legal Situation in California back then, or the Technology available for autopsies.
But I remember the other side: medical techniques have advanced in the past decades. What was taught e.g. as first aid or even recommended at hospitals in the 30s changed in the 50s changed in the 70s etc.
However, that doesn’t invalidate the older methods. They may not have been as efficient, but they still worked. Yes, we do chest compressions to start the heart, back then, they pushed the arms up and down, but sometimes it still worked. We no longer rub frozen Body parts with snow, but it can get circulation going. And so on.
So I think there’s a big difference between “what’s the recommended course for Maximum safety” and “what can conceivably work in the real world despite it being very risky”. After all, risks that you skated by by a hair’s breadth you usually don’t see because you don’t know and you got by.
I’m not sure the claim is that the women weren’t sexually assaulted, but rather it’s unlikely that a drug was administered to them that had such immediate effect. That is, the women’s memories may have been compromised, which makes sense owing to the alcohol and/or drugs involved.
I am curious because the night I was conceived, someone witnessed my bio father putting something in my mother’s drink. The witness warned her but she didn’t understand. It was her first time drinking so she didn’t know what normal drunk felt like, but she remembers drifting in and out of consciousness during the sexual encounter and my bio father apologized profusely when she got pregnant. I didn’t find out about this until decades later but I’m trying to determine based on this thread, pharmacologically, what might have happened.
Of course there are. Why do you think people point out that the murder victim was a criminal? Why do you think people object less to the Nazi being punched? Or yes, when people bring up how drunk a woman was to whether she was at least partly responsible for a rape.
Or, to pick a more innocuous example, imagine you hear about someone stealing $100. I’m sure you have one idea in mind. Now what if I tell you that it was $100 left on the shelf at a grocery store. Different idea of the person now, right?
Hell, I first learned of mitigating factors outside of a legal context. I didn’t know it has a specific legal meaning until much later.
constanze, I look forward to learning about your professional expertise and experience in the field of pharmacology. As well as the criminal justice system.
Very funny - when I explictly say that I don’t know the legal System in that place and time. And why do I Need to be a professional pharmacologist to know that People are not Standard like in a beginner’s biology book, but a pre-selected Group will have more similarities than a non-selected sample size?
As I have said (along with others) over the 2.5 year history of posting in this thread, most likely Cosby used that old reliable date rape drug; alcohol.
I have sent a PM to Shmendrik, an actual anesthesiologist. S/he could probably give a definative answer. Everything anyone else has said here (including myself), is speculation.
So just to be clear, when someone slips something into a victim’s drink, whether it’s Rohypnol or whatever else, is the implication that it’s somehow a placebo (for the perpetrator?) Like they just think it’s going to result in unconsciousness when it’s not really doing anything in addition to the alcohol?
Or is it just that those types of drugs didn’t exist back then?
I don’t know what anyone else is saying, but what I said years ago was that had Cosby used a drug so powerful that its effect could be felt after “one or two sips” on as many women as he is purported to have used it on he would have piled up corpses like cord wood. Some of Cosby’s victims are suffering from memory lapses subsequent to being dosed with the drug and are incorrectly reporting the speed of the effect.