Scott Bennett discussion thread

[Emily]

Was Scott part of the Pet Sounds sessions that Brian recently recorded for Spotify? If so, I wonder if this will affect their release...

I'm talking about these sessions: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/a.329031750468900.73041.136456489726428/1050471824991552/?type=3&theater

It says at the bottom of the linked Rolling Stone piece that he did not participate.

[37!ws]

The same Rolling Stone that quoted the official Brian Wilson statement that he had no further comment, then added that he could not be reached for further comment? 

[Emily]

The same Rolling Stone that quoted the official Brian Wilson statement that he had no further comment, then added that he could not be reached for further comment? 

No. The one with the Bennett defense.

[Cool Cool Water]

Is this him?



Got it from here: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/ms.c.eJxNkUESxTAIQm~;UkUQTvP~;F2mo~;~_Zss3iCCgQWQXIlgxBwXPkBPkGt9IA0cMfAHZgP~;jexdHkOAVh5xFLMVFPAG~_4Bea~;IYtYUhEA2UlKs8IEWiPHxK0eUwjqI89hLwBhrJ7mKK~;iZ526ZANjhdGpA60K4cKpfP~_5h66oSwBjhX72~_YN8h2Upg~-.bps.a.1051198674918867.1073741836.136456489726428/1051198741585527/?type=3&theater

But I can't see the face that clearly...

Nope...

[Ang Jones]

Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid.  

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.
 

I've been thinking about this and it's occurred to me that maybe some people are unaware of the legal definitions of rape. They've been changing in the last few decades, and now in most states of the US using another person's body to perform a sex act when they are incapacitated due to inebriation or drugs is rape, whether or not they verbally consented.
In this case, unless the information in that article was outright incorrect, that's what happened. Why the woman was there, what she said, whether she flirted with him, whether he was drunk, whether she wanted to go to his room, all of that is irrelevant. He used her body for a sex act when she was incapacitated. That's all that needs to be known.
It's a change from earlier definitions and will be a cultural change in some subsets of the population.

Keep that in mind when you are in the US, and if you have children, make them aware as well.

I promised myself not to comment on this story further but just want to write this. I'm not trying to justify Scott's behaviour but if he was also extremely drunk he may not have realised exactly how incapacitated the victim was. Obviously that would be more clear to those who had seen the video. 

I live in the UK and the law here differs - I believe what Scott did would have been called 'sexual assault by penetration' here and the fact that the woman is over 16 would have been a mitigating factor. It would also have been in his favour if the incident was opportunistic or impulsive rather than planned.

I don't think we should judge based on the newspaper article. We can of course accept that those who heard the evidence made their informed judgment but from the details in the Rolling Stone article which give more of Scott's side of the story, it seems that the evidence MAY not have been complete.

[37!ws]

I just have to get this out...throughout this whole $#!tstorm, what's been going through my mind has been: Please, dear God, tell me Probyn and Darian aren't douchebags, too.

[filledeplage]

I feel like an ambulance chaser on this board right now, having been drawn in through one unsavory incident and then back through an even less savory story.  Please understand, in light of what i am about to say, that i believe with all my heart that Scott did wrong, that the victim gets all the concern, and that there is nothing good about this as it stands right now.

Scott was a very important piece of Brian's development over the last ten years.  Brian, early on, referred to him as "the most talented member of my band," or similar (one of the tour books).  He was a collaborator, a motivator, and a friend, and as such will always be an important part of the ouvre.

That said, his conviction clearly marks him as, at the very least, a troubled individual, and quite probably worse.  He is a rapist.

Love.  And Mercy.

If we believe in mercy, we believe in redemption.  

I understand the need to vilify right now.  I agree with it; i am participating.  The victim and her family are, and must be, our first concern, because this never goes away.  But if we believe in mercy, then we believe in redemption.  I hope that Scott will use his enforced time out - likely to last several years - to figure it out.  Not just come out saying he has changed, but actually...changing.  Getting the help he needs.  Fixing whatever that broken thing is inside that lead him to do this heinous thing, and coming out humbled, ready to make real amends, and live his life as something other than a pariah.

If you've known me a long time - damned near 20 years, some of you - then you know i'm a Pollyanna.  I believe in redemption.  I believe in appropriate punishment, and restitution, and fixing what you broke...and i believe in redemption.  I am well aware that this does not happen over night, but i hope with all of my heart that some day there will be redemption and reparations, and that Scott will be able to get on with his life having served his sentence and having made his amends.  I hope that love and mercy find him on the other side.

Agree, Susan...

Redemption, and (love and mercy.)   

[Susan]

If you've known me a long time - damned near 20 years, some of you - then you know i'm a Pollyanna.  I believe in redemption.

Hi, Sooz.

Hi Cam.

[HeyJude]

Was Scott part of the Pet Sounds sessions that Brian recently recorded for Spotify? If so, I wonder if this will affect their release...

I'm talking about these sessions: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/a.329031750468900.73041.136456489726428/1050471824991552/?type=3&theater

It says at the bottom of the linked Rolling Stone piece that he did not participate.

Whether Bennett sat it for some rehearsals is not of much import at this stage, but I think the Rolling Stone article was simply saying that Bennett has not played any of the dates on the current PS tour.

People are wondering if Bennett was at any of the rehearsals probably for two reasons: They had a larger contingent rehearsing than would play at any given show (e.g. Griffin, Hinsche, and Darian all attending), essentially rehearsing all of the musicians who might come into the band over the course of the tour. Also, there was one report on the 2016 tour thread of a Facebook post from Bennett in which Bennett commented on a rehearsal with Brian and Al being a "good day" or something along those lines.

It seems pretty likely he wasn't at all rehearsals, as he wasn't part of the big group shot taken near the end of rehearsals. I don't think a pic of him at the rehearsals or Spotify session has surfaced, so it may well be that he never attended. The last public appearance with Brian that I'm aware of would have been the January 10 Golden Globes ceremony.

[Emily]

You're right. Didn't catch the word "trek".

[joe_blow]

A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.

How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.

Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.

So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?

[Emily]

A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.

How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.

Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.

So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?

The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

[Emily]

Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid.  

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.
 

I've been thinking about this and it's occurred to me that maybe some people are unaware of the legal definitions of rape. They've been changing in the last few decades, and now in most states of the US using another person's body to perform a sex act when they are incapacitated due to inebriation or drugs is rape, whether or not they verbally consented.
In this case, unless the information in that article was outright incorrect, that's what happened. Why the woman was there, what she said, whether she flirted with him, whether he was drunk, whether she wanted to go to his room, all of that is irrelevant. He used her body for a sex act when she was incapacitated. That's all that needs to be known.
It's a change from earlier definitions and will be a cultural change in some subsets of the population.

Keep that in mind when you are in the US, and if you have children, make them aware as well.

I promised myself not to comment on this story further but just want to write this. I'm not trying to justify Scott's behaviour but if he was also extremely drunk he may not have realised exactly how incapacitated the victim was. Obviously that would be more clear to those who had seen the video.  

I live in the UK and the law here differs - I believe what Scott did would have been called 'sexual assault by penetration' here and the fact that the woman is over 16 would have been a mitigating factor. It would also have been in his favour if the incident was opportunistic or impulsive rather than planned.

I don't think we should judge based on the newspaper article. We can of course accept that those who heard the evidence made their informed judgment but from the details in the Rolling Stone article which give more of Scott's side of the story, it seems that the evidence MAY not have been complete.

By the way, Ang, the charge would have been different and more serious if she were underage. And the planned/impulse aspect is usually taken into account at sentencing. "Rape by instrumentation" is probably analogous to "sexual assault by penetration" and is not as strictly sentenced usually as flat-out rape. So the there's a fair amount of similarity.

[Wirestone]

I just have to get this out...throughout this whole $#!tstorm, what's been going through my mind has been: Please, dear God, tell me Probyn and Darian aren't douchebags, too.

I think the chances of that are probably pretty low.

[Ang Jones]

Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid.  

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.
 

I've been thinking about this and it's occurred to me that maybe some people are unaware of the legal definitions of rape. They've been changing in the last few decades, and now in most states of the US using another person's body to perform a sex act when they are incapacitated due to inebriation or drugs is rape, whether or not they verbally consented.
In this case, unless the information in that article was outright incorrect, that's what happened. Why the woman was there, what she said, whether she flirted with him, whether he was drunk, whether she wanted to go to his room, all of that is irrelevant. He used her body for a sex act when she was incapacitated. That's all that needs to be known.
It's a change from earlier definitions and will be a cultural change in some subsets of the population.

Keep that in mind when you are in the US, and if you have children, make them aware as well.

I promised myself not to comment on this story further but just want to write this. I'm not trying to justify Scott's behaviour but if he was also extremely drunk he may not have realised exactly how incapacitated the victim was. Obviously that would be more clear to those who had seen the video.  

I live in the UK and the law here differs - I believe what Scott did would have been called 'sexual assault by penetration' here and the fact that the woman is over 16 would have been a mitigating factor. It would also have been in his favour if the incident was opportunistic or impulsive rather than planned.

I don't think we should judge based on the newspaper article. We can of course accept that those who heard the evidence made their informed judgment but from the details in the Rolling Stone article which give more of Scott's side of the story, it seems that the evidence MAY not have been complete.

By the way, Ang, the charge would have been different and more serious if she were underage. And the planned/impulse aspect is usually taken into account at sentencing. "Rape by instrumentation" is probably analogous to "sexual assault by penetration" and is not as strictly sentenced usually as flat-out rape. So the there's a fair amount of similarity.

I keep promising not to post further but, yes, there are similarities. I was pointing out the differences because this may explain some difference in attitude between posters.

A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.

How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.

Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.

So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?

The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

Another analogy. What if you left your keys in your car and it was stolen? Of course the criminal would be the thief but you might find the insurance company wouldn't pay up because they might feel you hadn't taken adequate care of your property. Those who allow themselves to become so drunk that they are passed out on the floor in a public place are also not taking due care. It may not be a criminal act; it may, though, be a misdemeanour. I've behaved irresponsibly on occasion and been lucky. If I got THAT drunk I'd be ashamed of myself as well as furious with anyone who had taken advantage of me.

[Emily]

I'm sure she feels awful about her choices that night. But, legally, the person who stole your car still stole it. The court won't find "the keys were in it" to be a mitigating factor on their behalf.

[Angua]

A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.

How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.

Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.

So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?

The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

I understand the law says that you can't have sex with an unconscious body even if until the moment they passed out they had been gagging for it (though I'm not saying that's what happened here) and you were so drunk you didn't notice.  It also says as I understand it that if you and your wife/long term partner, go out get plastered out of your minds, come home have happy consensual sex your wife (whatever) could accuse you of rape because she was insensible at the time.  So context is everything under these circumstances and as I don't know the full details and I'm completely confident that neither do you, I think we should just shut up about it until we know something instead of going on and on and on.  I have no doubt that Scott did wrong - to what extent I'm personally unsure - but the inflammatory statement published in the original article makes me slightly wary.

[Emily]

A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.

How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.

Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.

So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?

The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

I understand the law says that you can't have sex with an unconscious body even if until the moment they passed out they had been gagging for it (though I'm not saying that's what happened here) and you were so drunk you didn't notice.  It also says as I understand it that if you and your wife/long term partner, go out get plastered out of your minds, come home have happy consensual sex your wife (whatever) could accuse you of rape because she was insensible at the time.  So context is everything under these circumstances and as I don't know the full details and I'm completely confident that neither do you, I think we should just shut up about it until we know something instead of going on and on and on.  I have no doubt that Scott did wrong - to what extent I'm personally unsure - but the inflammatory statement published in the original article makes me slightly wary.

No need to be unconscious - "of unsound mind, whether permanent or temporary."
Every single day you treat the people you know differently than the people you don't know. And you treat the different people you know differently from each other, because you have relationships with them, and you know what they enjoy, and you know what's OK with them. Your wife is not a person you picked up that night in a hotel bar. Unless you're in Vegas.

[Ang Jones]

I'm sure she feels awful about her choices that night. But, legally, the person who stole your car still stole it. The court won't find "the keys were in it" to be a mitigating factor on their behalf.

No argument except that we don't know enough.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Darian is a GREAT guy...rather shy and reserved, and was extremely kind and friendly with my family. Haven't met Probyn in person, just talked online a few times.

[KDS]

Darian is a GREAT guy...rather shy and reserved, and was extremely kind and friendly with my family. Haven't met Probyn in person, just talked online a few times.

Probyn talked to me and my wife outside of the Montgomery College show in Rockville,MD last November for a good five minutes or so.  He also gave us a setlist from the first set that night.  Seemed like a very nice guy. 

[Emily]

I'm sure she feels awful about her choices that night. But, legally, the person who stole your car still stole it. The court won't find "the keys were in it" to be a mitigating factor on their behalf.

No argument except that we don't know enough.

Frankly, my rant wasn't targeting you. I find "I don't know enough to comment" to be perfectly reasonable. I don't feel the same, but I have no criticism of that position. It's the maybe she was flirting, maybe he was drunk too, that bothers me.

[Angua]

A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.

How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.

Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.

So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?

The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

I understand the law says that you can't have sex with an unconscious body even if until the moment they passed out they had been gagging for it (though I'm not saying that's what happened here) and you were so drunk you didn't notice.  It also says as I understand it that if you and your wife/long term partner, go out get plastered out of your minds, come home have happy consensual sex your wife (whatever) could accuse you of rape because she was insensible at the time.  So context is everything under these circumstances and as I don't know the full details and I'm completely confident that neither do you, I think we should just shut up about it until we know something instead of going on and on and on.  I have no doubt that Scott did wrong - to what extent I'm personally unsure - but the inflammatory statement published in the original article makes me slightly wary.

No need to be unconscious - "of unsound mind, whether permanent or temporary."
Every single day you treat the people you know differently than the people you don't know. And you treat the different people you know differently from each other, because you have relationships with them, and you know what they enjoy, and you know what's OK with them. Your wife is not a person you picked up that night in a hotel bar. Unless you're in Vegas.

And if he is of unsound mind too?  And married men don't rape their wives?  And we still don't know enough and I'm not continuing a discussion with you.  I've some paint I need to watch and I know when I'm waisting my breath.

[Emily]

He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

[alf wiedersehen]

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?

Emily, I'm usually on your side, but the last line of your argument here is the straw man fallacy. No one is making that argument. Her flirting "kissing and fondling" in the hotel lobby shows her to have been a willing participant in the moment. Yes, she was drunk, so she wasn't thinking clearly, and therefore couldn't reliably make these decisions for herself. However, if Scott was drunk as well, then he too--by that same reasoning--wouldn't have been able to think or make decisions reliably. We don't actually know what happened between those two that night. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rapist, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.