You might like to ask yourself why it is that you almost always were drunk when you had sex
what you were really looking to get out of it.
anyone know if this guy is objective or has an agenda? /haven't watched the video yet
Angry men afraid that their right to coerce drunk women into sex without getting called rapists making up an absolute binary state, ignoring the gradient from drunk to incapacitated when even the definition of incapacitation is up for debate in a lot of cases. "Her eyes were open and she was mumbling, and I heard yes".
Law is often very dodgy on these things.
Angry men afraid that their right to coerce drunk women into sex without getting called rapists making up an absolute binary state, ignoring the gradient from drunk to incapacitated when even the definition of incapacitation is up for debate in a lot of cases. "Her eyes were open and she was mumbling, and I heard yes".
Law is often very dodgy on these things.
Not as dodgy as your clearly idiotic statements. You said that "drunk people can not give consent" and later doubled down when someone called you out on your clearly retarded statements by calling him a "potential rapist". And you never even brought up the difference between incapacitaded and drunk before the tweet I quoted. It's almost like you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
And you sound like you are retarded. What's your point?You sound like you are... triggered.
I fucked a couple of times while drunk. Where's your sympathy for me, you heartless bastard?
Heck, I hardly ever fucked sober. I am never fully 100% sober to begin with. Halp, I've been subjected to a torrent of rape and sexual abuse for the entirety of my adult life!
You might like to ask yourself why it is that you almost always were drunk when you had sex, what you were really looking to get out of it.
Drunk people can decide to buy cars that cost six figures, adopt a stray dog, join the military, get married, be tattooed and commit felonies for which they are legally responsible - among many other decisions that are more life changing than a night of casual sex providing a child is not conceived. And having been drunk can't mitigate any of these decisions after the fact. No calling the cops on the tattoo artist because he "assaulted" you while you were drunk. On all these matters, society understands that everyone else needs to operate under the assumption that a drunk person can still make decisions because being drunk doesn't mean that other people can read your mind and tell what you really want.
But now "drunk women can't consent to sex". LOL. They do it all the time. And it isn't as big a deal as any of the other things I've mentioned.
I think one of the main questions here would be about the fact that Karissa herself stated, that she did not know who Avellone was before she met him. In her eyes he was just some dude buying drinks, and she joined in without any previous knowledge of who he was. Whether or not this is still a point that will matter in the grand scheme of things when deciding on whether or not he should be considered a public figure is up for debate I suppose.From the pleadings, MCA's attorney has anticipated worst case (which is a large part of what we attorneys do) and argued the case as if MCA were in fact a "public figure." But the issue is not conceded, as it should not be. The interesting argument here is that MCA is very, very famous, but only to a very, very small group of people. I'm guessing that 99 out of a random 100 people on the street would have no idea who he is. So, the defense is going to have a bit of a tough time winning the argument. On the other hand, to the type of people who attend gaming and sci-fi conventions (i.e. goons/goonettes) I would think that number would rise to at least 4 out of 10, which is also not a slam dunk but closer.
In my experience, such clients rapidly lose their thirst for justice once the real costs of actual litigation starts to roll in. We'll see if MCA has the wherewithal to swallow those costs, but it seems to me to be unlikely. An ideal outcome here would be a settlement with admission of falsehoods from defendants prior to trial but after discovery. After all, defendants will be bearing their own costs as well. I think at the end of the day that is the most likely outcome.
reminder that avellone was also drunk therefore she raped avelloneDrunk people can not give consent.
Maybe that's the end goal here. To pursue a strategy that will require Karissa to publicly recant/apologize for her statements so he can move on "vindicated" in the eyes of the wider public, and potentially be able to clear his name for good. Suing for punitive damages is just one of many outcomes, but he does not strike me as the kind of person who would try to take her to the cleaners even if given the chance.
While she is certainly an unhinged sociopath, I doubt she would go against her defense attorneys better judgment to take a deal when it is offered to her. A jury of her peers will not consist of the witchhunting social media mob that she is used to having, and most sane people will not give her the time of day after most of her original tweets come to light. I doubt this will ever get to a point where a jury is involved at all.Karissa doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would ever settle or admit to being wrong about this. If the judge doesn't dismiss it, she will have complete faith that the jury will rule in her favor.
While she is certainly an unhinged sociopath, I doubt she would go against her defense attorneys better judgment to take a deal when it is offered to her. A jury of her peers will not consist of the witchhunting social media mob that she is used to having, and most sane people will not give her the time of day after most of her original tweets come to light. I doubt this will ever get to a point where a jury is involved at all.
Maybe that's the end goal here. To pursue a strategy that will require Karissa to publicly recant/apologize for her statements so he can move on "vindicated" in the eyes of the wider public, and potentially be able to clear his name for good.
lolyer said:I see KiwiFarms-level intellect isn't limited to KiwiFarmsThe chuds are Very Confused about your involvement, Greg.
I'm looking forward to the "this isn't a SLAPP," "the First Amendment is different in California," "lawtwatter is always wrong," "only unsuccessful lawyers would think Chris Avellone could lose," etc etc etc takes And then after he loses, that it was judicial bias, sabotage, etc
It was absolutely not the correct choice. Do remember that around the same time Chris' accusers "came forward", pretty much the same thing happened to Seven Pesos Pedro. Except he's the one who handled it correctly. He immediately went in full offense mode, used all of his public platforms to vehemently deny the accusations and defend himself, got lawyered up within a day or two and started threatening/throwing lawsuits at his accusers.
Fast forward a year, Enraged Enrique's reputation is still 99.9% intact*, his career didn't take so much as a scratch and almost no one even mentions that case anymore. Compare that to Chris who chose to beg and grovel (or strategically do nothing as you claim ), who has been dropped and abandoned by p. much all of his "friends" and is entirely unemployable in the vidya industry because of his reputation as a sex molester.
*he did get banned from RetardEra, but it's, you know, RetardEra (although that may have been because of his "transphobic" review of The Last of Us 2, I can't remember)
anyone know if this guy is objective or has an agenda? /haven't watched the video yet
Iran is more preferable. Lots of pussies never licked.As I said, his best chance is China now.
Problem is that I don't think he looked at all the evidence. While the video goes on, he never looks at the latter part of the filling, the one that has all the evidence and so on, so I'm a bit skeptical on his overall verdict.