Scott Bennett discussion thread

[Emily]

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. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.

Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.

[37!ws]

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.  

He's probably my favorite of all of Brian's band. He's great with the fans, and he's kind of silly. When Brian and Jeff Beck played in Washington in 2013 (or was it 2014?) the Mrs. and I and a couple of friends had after-show passes due to a connection that a FOAF has. We were waiting off to the side after the show, and someone came out and asked if there was anybody in particular we'd like to see. I swear, had to be at least a dozen people practically in unison who said "PROBYN!" And he did come out and chat for a few minutes, just being the nicest guy. (And I felt bad for him. I overheard someone ask him if he heard Made in California, and he said he had to borrow a couple of discs from a friend because he couldn't afford to buy it himself!)

My impression of Darian from the times I've met him: very humble guy, very nice guy.

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.

I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??

[Emily]

In any case, Bubs, I'm pleased to know that we agree in other discussions.

[adamghost]

Having known them both for more than 20 years, I can say that Darian and Probyn are about the sweetest guys you will ever meet.

[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. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.

Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.

I'm not saying what she did in the hotel lobby gives him permission to do what he did. What I am saying is it's entirely possible she was a willing participant in what happened while it was happening. We don't know what happened between the two of them. All we have is (seemingly) silent footage that's described in such a way to convince you of his guilt. If he was only as drunk as they tell us ("all his faculties in check" or however they described it), then yeah, he took advantage of her. Case closed, he raped that woman.

No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping them is ok when they're drunk

Exactly. Isn't is possible--if he was reasonably drunk himself--he didn't think he was committing an act of rape?

I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??

The article is unclear. It just mentions it happening.

[Emily]

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. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.

Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.

I'm not saying what she did in the hotel lobby gives him permission to do what he did. What I am saying is it's entirely possible she was a willing participant in what happened while it was happening. We don't know what happened between the two of them. All we have is (seemingly) silent footage that's described in such a way to convince you of his guilt. If he was only as drunk as they tell us ("all his faculties in check" or however they described it), then yeah, he took advantage of her. Case closed, he raped that woman.

No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping them is ok when they're drunk

Exactly. Isn't is possible--if he was reasonably drunk himself--he didn't think he was committing an act of rape?

I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??

The article is unclear. It just mentions it happening.

I'm on my phone in my car at a gas station so I'm not going to navigate in-line answers.
He, from his statement, still seems to think it wasn't rape. My point is that he probably didn't think it was rape because he seems to think, from his statement, that "kissing and fondling" means it wasn't rape. That, sober or drunk, his mindset is that it's all ok because they kissed and fondled. A mindset replicated here.
She, from the description of the video - and if you don't believe this to be necessarily true, perhaps Ang doesn't, I don't know, that would be a reasonable demurral to my mind - was drunk enough that she was unable to walk on her own - that's how they ended up on the floor in the hall - and that she was unable to get to her room after. This is too drunk to consent; something that evidently Mr. Bennett and several people on this board don't fully grasp.

[Paul J B]

I suggest people stop referring to articles or Scott's side of the "story". He was convicted and found guilty. Any reasonable person knows cases like this almost never end with a conviction if the accused is not guilty. The trials never get that far. The truth here really sucks but people need to face it.

Egohanger1966 posted a Facebook rant from a friend of Bennett's yesterday that was almost immediately deleted. Well it was there long enough for me to read and it was pathetic. Stating he committed no crime and he loves his wife and the usual crap people spew when someone they care about screws up big time. I don't doubt the guy loves his wife but that has NOTHING to do with having been really stupid and breaking the law. And enough about alcohol. It's an excuse for people with bad tendencies and judgment to act terrible.

People of stature are rarely convicted even when they are blatantly guilty and deserve it. I HATE that this happened, but I'll be damned if I'm going to rationalize an ugly event because I like the guys work and he has a ton of talent. I don't intend to post again about this as it will just start sounding too judgmental.

As far as love and mercy goes.....that's between the people truly involved in this case. Forgiveness is between them. I'm just a fan of some music by a person involved.

[Rob Dean]

Having known them both for more than 20 years, I can say that Darian and Probyn are about the sweetest guys you will ever meet.

+1 Adam

[Ang Jones]

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. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.

Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.

I'm not saying what she did in the hotel lobby gives him permission to do what he did. What I am saying is it's entirely possible she was a willing participant in what happened while it was happening. We don't know what happened between the two of them. All we have is (seemingly) silent footage that's described in such a way to convince you of his guilt. If he was only as drunk as they tell us ("all his faculties in check" or however they described it), then yeah, he took advantage of her. Case closed, he raped that woman.

No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping them is ok when they're drunk

Exactly. Isn't is possible--if he was reasonably drunk himself--he didn't think he was committing an act of rape?

I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??

The article is unclear. It just mentions it happening.

I'm on my phone in my car at a gas station so I'm not going to navigate in-line answers.
He, from his statement, still seems to think it wasn't rape. My point is that he probably didn't think it was rape because he seems to think, from his statement, that "kissing and fondling" means it wasn't rape. That, sober or drunk, his mindset is that it's all ok because they kissed and fondled. A mindset replicated here.
She, from the description of the video - and if you don't believe this to be necessarily true, perhaps Ang doesn't, I don't know, that would be a reasonable demurral to my mind - was drunk enough that she was unable to walk on her own - that's how they ended up on the floor in the hall - and that she was unable to get to her room after. This is too drunk to consent; something that evidently Mr. Bennett and several people on this board don't fully grasp.

This is from the NY Daily News but the others seem consistent: "After Bennett blocked the 21-year-old woman from exiting the elevator, the two get off at the 12th floor and at one point he tries to carry the victim down the hallway, according to the affidavit.
The two then lie down on the hallway floor and Bennett appears to sexually assault the woman, the surveillance footage shows."  "The two then lie down..." no mention of her collapsing. Perhaps she did BUT IT DOESN'T SAY SO. I admit openly that maybe had I seen the video I'd have also found Scott Bennett guilty but we are relying on a report which isn't detailed enough to prove to everyone's satisfaction that justice has been done. Hence it being unhelpful for us to continue to speculate about it.

I'm sorry really that I ever heard about the incident, ever read the comments on the various MBs. Brian Wilson's stance was the best: to refuse to comment at all. I didn't mean to come back to it but it's like biting on an aching tooth.

[Angua]

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.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.

[Amy B.]

The sequence of events is rather confusing, based on the articles. It sounds like she got on the elevator from the lobby and he got in after her. Then she tried to get out but he stopped her. And if that's the case, then why would he need to stop her, if it was consensual?
Then they got out on the 12th floor, where he tried to carry her. Then they had sex (or oral sex or whatever) there, in the hallway of the 12th floor. Then somehow they ended up in his room for 35 minutes, where, according to Scott, nothing happened. Then they were in the 7th floor hallway. Was his room on the 12th floor? Is that why they got out there first? Was her room on the 7th floor? Did she tell him that, and then when they got to the 7th floor, she said she couldn't remember her room number, so he left her there to get security, like he claims?  DIdn't he have a cell phone he could use to call security/the front desk while staying with her instead of leaving her there? Was he so drunk that he wasn't being logical? Or was he so callous that he thought nothing of leaving her there?

There would be a scenario where he's innocent of rape, where they had what he thought was consensual sex and then he tried to help her when he realized she did'nt know where he room was. But only if he was completely, completely drunk. And given that he remembered what happened enough to tell authorities, and he said for certain that nothing happened in his room, he couldn't have been as drunk as she was, right?

[CenturyDeprived]

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. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.

Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.

I'm not saying what she did in the hotel lobby gives him permission to do what he did. What I am saying is it's entirely possible she was a willing participant in what happened while it was happening. We don't know what happened between the two of them. All we have is (seemingly) silent footage that's described in such a way to convince you of his guilt. If he was only as drunk as they tell us ("all his faculties in check" or however they described it), then yeah, he took advantage of her. Case closed, he raped that woman.

No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping them is ok when they're drunk

Exactly. Isn't is possible--if he was reasonably drunk himself--he didn't think he was committing an act of rape?

I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??

The article is unclear. It just mentions it happening.

I'm on my phone in my car at a gas station so I'm not going to navigate in-line answers.
He, from his statement, still seems to think it wasn't rape. My point is that he probably didn't think it was rape because he seems to think, from his statement, that "kissing and fondling" means it wasn't rape. That, sober or drunk, his mindset is that it's all ok because they kissed and fondled. A mindset replicated here.
She, from the description of the video - and if you don't believe this to be necessarily true, perhaps Ang doesn't, I don't know, that would be a reasonable demurral to my mind - was drunk enough that she was unable to walk on her own - that's how they ended up on the floor in the hall - and that she was unable to get to her room after. This is too drunk to consent; something that evidently Mr. Bennett and several people on this board don't fully grasp.

This is from the NY Daily News but the others seem consistent: "After Bennett blocked the 21-year-old woman from exiting the elevator, the two get off at the 12th floor and at one point he tries to carry the victim down the hallway, according to the affidavit.
The two then lie down on the hallway floor and Bennett appears to sexually assault the woman, the surveillance footage shows."  "The two then lie down..." no mention of her collapsing. Perhaps she did BUT IT DOESN'T SAY SO. I admit openly that maybe had I seen the video I'd have also found Scott Bennett guilty but we are relying on a report which isn't detailed enough to prove to everyone's satisfaction that justice has been done. Hence it being unhelpful for us to continue to speculate about it.

I'm sorry really that I ever heard about the incident, ever read the comments on the various MBs. Brian Wilson's stance was the best: to refuse to comment at all. I didn't mean to come back to it but it's like biting on an aching tooth.

There are lots of things we don't know, yet I understand the knee-jerk reaction to feel that there has been an indefensible action made by Scott at some point(s) during the incident. Still, I think it's best to think through many potential possibilities, as things aren't necessarily always what they might seem. I would feel this way in a murder trial too, or other cases involving people who aren’t musicians that I happen to be a fan of. Yet I fully admit that this case, and Scott’s actions, may in fact be just as bad as it’s being painted in the article.

Some things that I ponder: providing she was as messed up as was indicated in the prosecution's statements within the article... if Scott and her were heading up in the direction of a private room (not on camera) and he was intentionally intending to take advantage of the situation, why wouldn't he wait to do so until being behind closed doors in the room? One might think that someone who was knowingly doing something insidious like that would go to the room to do it, being that a private room was easily nearby and accessible. Also, is it possible that a drunk person could verbally give consent, or ask for an act to be performed on them (not documented by a camera filming silently), but that the person might still not recall the entire incident and details at all the next day? There could certainly be answers to these questions that would paint Scott's actions in a negative light too.

Again - these questions may have been asked in the courtroom... and maybe regardless of the answers, everything I've mentioned would perhaps still be absolutely, unequivocally completely irrelevant to the final outcome of the case. I just think it doesn't hurt to ponder different conceivable possibilities when trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Especially since the victim doesn't have a memory of the event, and only (apparently?) has a silent video to draw conclusions from, as opposed to a first-hand recollection of what really went on. 

[beatle608]

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.

Darian and Probyn are a couple of the nicest guys I have ever met.

[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.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.

Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
Edited in an attempt to be more civil:
If you don't understand why many people don't think you should proceed with sexual activity with a person you don't know who's falling down drunk, at least understand for your own sake that in many jurisdictions it's illegal.

[Emily]

CD, I think it's rather a knee-jerk reaction that there must be some mitigation. And remember that Mr. Bennett himself concedes that he left her sitting in the hall while he says he went to find help. If she was in sound mind, could she not have helped herself find her room? I think if her state of mind was a fiction of the prosecution, that would have been in Mr. Bennett's statement. People are making up stuff that isn't there to counter what is. It's wishful thinking. Whether motivated by an allegiance to Mr. Bennett, an allegiance to the bro code, or a misguided sense of allegiance to Brian Wilson, I do not know.

Also, by law, her consent when drunk would not have been consent. And this is not unique to sex. By law in most states you can't be held to a contract that you signed while not of sound mind, temporary or permanent, including due to inebriation.

[alf wiedersehen]

Whether motivated by an allegiance to Mr. Bennett, an allegiance to the bro code, or a misguided sense of allegiance to Brian Wilson, I do not know.

Um, none. I just don't happen to think this case is as black-and-white as you do.

Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

Also, I think it's really unfortunate that you insinuated people here are rapists.

[Emily]

Whether motivated by an allegiance to Mr. Bennett, an allegiance to the bro code, or a misguided sense of allegiance to Brian Wilson, I do not know.

Um, none. I just don't happen to think this case is as black-and-white as you do.

Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

Also, I think it's really unfortunate that you insinuated people here are rapists.

Those people don't believe it's rape. I've edited my above post to be more civil. Again, even if you don't think it's black and white, by law, it pretty much is.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

And this past page is why it was moved to the Sandbox.

[Cam Mott]

I guess we will see if there is an appeal and what that changes, if anything.

[China Pig]

This is getting absurd, people are arguing both sides of the coin based on a short article that used only a couple of damming quotes from the prosecuting attorney.
Without access to the full court transcripts nobody here knows exactly what went down. Presuming the defense team did their job correctly, every aspect to prove Scott didn't willfully rape the lady in question would have been discussed and scrutinized thoroughly during the trial and the jury still reached the verdict that he did.

[Angua]

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.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.

Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand. 

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision. 

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty. 

We don't know the full details of how involved and complicit she was. 

He wasn't competent either.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

This is getting absurd, people are arguing both sides of the coin based on a short article that used only a couple of damming quotes from the prosecuting attorney.
Without access to the full court transcripts nobody here knows exactly what went down. Presuming the defense team did their job correctly, every aspect to prove Scott didn't willfully rape the lady in question would have been discussed and scrutinized thoroughly during the trial and the jury still reached the verdict that he did.

Exactly

[Cam Mott]

Presuming the defense team did their job correctly, every aspect to prove Scott didn't willfully rape the lady in question would have been discussed and scrutinized thoroughly during the trial and the jury still reached the verdict that he did.

And if that presumption is wrong, there is an appeals system.

[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.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.

Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand. 

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision. 

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty. 

You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.

[Forrest Gump]

And this past page is why it was moved to the Sandbox.

'cause one person just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
in every thread.

nobody should be commenting anyway. none of our blankety-blank business.