Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This bill would require these governing boards to adopt policies concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with on-campus and community-based organizations to make services available to victims. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.
This bill would require these governing boards to adopt policies concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with on-campus and community-based organizations to make services available to victims. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.
Yep, can't see anything wrong with this.
As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.
Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.This bill would require these governing boards to adopt policies concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with on-campus and community-based organizations to make services available to victims. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Yep, can't see anything wrong with this.
No I can't. Maybe you can explain your reservations. I'd be happy to debate you on the issues since I ran a Domestic Violence//Sexual Assault Unit, wrote VAWA Grants, managed said grants and managed units of law enforcement officers/deputies/volunteers and counselors/therapists.
Tell me what troubles you and I'll set you straight.
As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.
This bill would require these governing boards to adopt policies concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. The bill would require these governing boards to adopt certain sexual assault policies and protocols, as specified, and would require the governing boards, to the extent feasible, to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with on-campus and community-based organizations to make services available to victims. The bill would also require the governing boards to implement comprehensive prevention programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. By requiring community college districts to adopt or modify certain policies and protocols, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.
Yep, can't see anything wrong with this.
As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.
Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.
Yep, can't see anything wrong with this.
No I can't. Maybe you can explain your reservations. I'd be happy to debate you on the issues since I ran a Domestic Violence//Sexual Assault Unit, wrote VAWA Grants, managed said grants and managed units of law enforcement officers/deputies/volunteers and counselors/therapists.
Tell me what troubles you and I'll set you straight.
Are you actually serious? How is requiring affirmative assent going to help rape victims? When did rape stop being an act against someone's will? Do you honestly think required verbal assent before every single stage of sex for every single person who has sex, every single time they do it, is going to reduce actual rape?
I can see it now:
Lisa: Susan, since we are students at UC Berkley there are some things I am required, by law, to do before we get started. *shuffling through a prepared list of questions approved by the government approved Violence Against Women, Men, and Differently Gendered Students"Should I go on?
Susan: We got married today Lisa, we don't have to do this anymore.
L: The law doesn't care if we are married or not, it still requires affirmative consent. Can we kiss?
S: *sighs* I hate this shit, why is the government in the bedroom with us anyway?
L: *reaches for Susan, then remembers the papers in her hand* Can I hug you?
S: *nods*
L: Susan, you have to say it out loud.
S: *bursts into tears, running into the bedroom and slamming the door*
By the way, since you are willing to defend this piece of shit, can you explain what gave California the authority to ignore Lawrence v Texas? Did it get repealed while I wasn't paying attention? do these girls also have to worry about getting arrested for performing lewd and unnatural acts on each other?
No I can't. Maybe you can explain your reservations. I'd be happy to debate you on the issues since I ran a Domestic Violence//Sexual Assault Unit, wrote VAWA Grants, managed said grants and managed units of law enforcement officers/deputies/volunteers and counselors/therapists.
Tell me what troubles you and I'll set you straight.
Are you actually serious? How is requiring affirmative assent going to help rape victims? When did rape stop being an act against someone's will? Do you honestly think required verbal assent before every single stage of sex for every single person who has sex, every single time they do it, is going to reduce actual rape?
I can see it now:
Lisa: Susan, since we are students at UC Berkley there are some things I am required, by law, to do before we get started. *shuffling through a prepared list of questions approved by the government approved Violence Against Women, Men, and Differently Gendered Students"Should I go on?
Susan: We got married today Lisa, we don't have to do this anymore.
L: The law doesn't care if we are married or not, it still requires affirmative consent. Can we kiss?
S: *sighs* I hate this shit, why is the government in the bedroom with us anyway?
L: *reaches for Susan, then remembers the papers in her hand* Can I hug you?
S: *nods*
L: Susan, you have to say it out loud.
S: *bursts into tears, running into the bedroom and slamming the door*
By the way, since you are willing to defend this piece of shit, can you explain what gave California the authority to ignore Lawrence v Texas? Did it get repealed while I wasn't paying attention? do these girls also have to worry about getting arrested for performing lewd and unnatural acts on each other?
Lawrence v. Texas? See: Lawrence v. Texas ? Case Brief Summary
Rape is about power and control. Your head is securely up your ass on most issues, on this it reaches deep into the colon.
Being drunk isn't a defense. Being drunk just means what you wanted to do you did lacking any inhibitions against doing so.
Here's a novel approach. Since "rape" and "sexual assault" are crimes with legal definitions already, why not remove the college administration and "campus police" entirely from the transaction. If a person believes she (it's always a she) has been assaulted, raped, or otherwise insulted, she should march down to the local police department (or call them up) and file a complaint.
The only things that are gained by having the college injected into the matter is (a) increase the number of people on the college payroll, and (b) minimize embarrassment to the institution, and (c) muddy the water about whether a crime has been committed. And regulations like the one proposed here do nothing to add to the already bad situation.
No college should have ANY jurisdiction where possible crimes have been committed. Period. If a crime has been commited, the police should handle it. If not, the police should handle it anyway. If the victim is too intimidated by the thought of prosecuting the case...why is she any different than a victim who happens not to be enrolled in college?
Does this distinction make any logical sense?
A college campus is not an alternate universe. If someone commits a crime on a college campus, is there any logical reason not to treat it the same way as if it were committed by someone on the other side of town? I don't think so.
As consensual sex between two consenting adults who don't talk about sex.
Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.
Yep, can't see anything wrong with this.
No I can't. Maybe you can explain your reservations. I'd be happy to debate you on the issues since I ran a Domestic Violence//Sexual Assault Unit, wrote VAWA Grants, managed said grants and managed units of law enforcement officers/deputies/volunteers and counselors/therapists.
Tell me what troubles you and I'll set you straight.
Are you actually serious? How is requiring affirmative assent going to help rape victims? When did rape stop being an act against someone's will? Do you honestly think required verbal assent before every single stage of sex for every single person who has sex, every single time they do it, is going to reduce actual rape?
I can see it now:
Lisa: Susan, since we are students at UC Berkley there are some things I am required, by law, to do before we get started. *shuffling through a prepared list of questions approved by the government approved Violence Against Women, Men, and Differently Gendered Students"Should I go on?
Susan: We got married today Lisa, we don't have to do this anymore.
L: The law doesn't care if we are married or not, it still requires affirmative consent. Can we kiss?
S: *sighs* I hate this shit, why is the government in the bedroom with us anyway?
L: *reaches for Susan, then remembers the papers in her hand* Can I hug you?
S: *nods*
L: Susan, you have to say it out loud.
S: *bursts into tears, running into the bedroom and slamming the door*
Being drunk isn't a defense. Being drunk just means what you wanted to do you did lacking any inhibitions against doing so.
Being drunk is always a defense, or we would prosecute DWI homicides as regular murders.
The question becomes if both parties are drunk, and drunk of their own volition, why should the man suffer the stigma of being called a rapist soley on the fact that afterwards the woman regretted her action?
Being drunk isn't a defense. Being drunk just means what you wanted to do you did lacking any inhibitions against doing so.
Being drunk is always a defense, or we would prosecute DWI homicides as regular murders.
The question becomes if both parties are drunk, and drunk of their own volition, why should the man suffer the stigma of being called a rapist soley on the fact that afterwards the woman regretted her action?
It's amazing how sure you are of your opinions on issues of which you are clearly ignorant.
Here's a novel approach. Since "rape" and "sexual assault" are crimes with legal definitions already, why not remove the college administration and "campus police" entirely from the transaction. If a person believes she (it's always a she) has been assaulted, raped, or otherwise insulted, she should march down to the local police department (or call them up) and file a complaint.
The only things that are gained by having the college injected into the matter is (a) increase the number of people on the college payroll, and (b) minimize embarrassment to the institution, and (c) muddy the water about whether a crime has been committed. And regulations like the one proposed here do nothing to add to the already bad situation.
No college should have ANY jurisdiction where possible crimes have been committed. Period. If a crime has been commited, the police should handle it. If not, the police should handle it anyway. If the victim is too intimidated by the thought of prosecuting the case...why is she any different than a victim who happens not to be enrolled in college?
Does this distinction make any logical sense?
A college campus is not an alternate universe. If someone commits a crime on a college campus, is there any logical reason not to treat it the same way as if it were committed by someone on the other side of town? I don't think so.
Campus Police are sworn Police Officers under the California Penal Code. See sec. 830.2 (a), (b) below:
CA Codes (pen:830-832.17)
Being drunk is always a defense, or we would prosecute DWI homicides as regular murders.
The question becomes if both parties are drunk, and drunk of their own volition, why should the man suffer the stigma of being called a rapist soley on the fact that afterwards the woman regretted her action?
It's amazing how sure you are of your opinions on issues of which you are clearly ignorant.
Care to counter my argument, and not just provide your usual baseless snark?
It's amazing how sure you are of your opinions on issues of which you are clearly ignorant.
Care to counter my argument, and not just provide your usual baseless snark?
Being drunk is never a defense, it may become a mitigating factor in terms of sentencing (for example day for day credit for entering and completing a substance abuse treatment program) but being drunk is the essential element of drunk driving, felony drunk driving is driving drunk and injuring another person; and, Vehicular Manslaughter when drunk and someone is killed.
Murder is either of the first or second degree and does not apply to driving drunk, for the essential element of either premeditation (in first degree) or the killing of another by intent but without premeditation (as in the second degree) is missing.
Why you persist in exposing your ignorance is enigmatic.
Being drunk isn't a defense. Being drunk just means what you wanted to do you did lacking any inhibitions against doing so.
Being drunk is always a defense, or we would prosecute DWI homicides as regular murders.
The question becomes if both parties are drunk, and drunk of their own volition, why should the man suffer the stigma of being called a rapist soley on the fact that afterwards the woman regretted her action?
It's amazing how sure you are of your opinions on issues of which you are clearly ignorant.
