Was Shia LeBeouf raped?

[Bomb#20]

I don't see how you have reached that conclusion. The law addresses persons who engage in sexual activities, not those who don't engage or are utterly disengaged from them.

From your link:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.​

"Engage" is the word the law uses to determine whether affirmative consent was given. "Involved" is the word the law uses to determine whom it imputes responsibility to. So the fact that LaBeouf was not engaged implies only that he didn't affirmatively consent; it says nothing about whether he had a responsibility to ensure that the woman in question affirmatively consented. He was certainly involved.

You aren't required to seek consent before doing nothing; the law says you are required to seek consent before knowingly doing something, specifically something that is or results in sexual contact with another person.

A person who is utterly passive and unresponsive, by choice or otherwise, has no need to seek consent because they aren't doing anything that requires it. They aren't doing anything, period.

What are you deriving those conclusions from? The text of SB 967? The text of some other law or court decision that can override the text of SB 967? Your own sense of how the law ought to operate in general?

In general, when the law makes somebody responsible for something, "I was doing nothing; I was utterly disengaged; I was passive and unresponsive." is not legally a defense. You can sue somebody because you slipped on the icy sidewalk in front of his house, and win. That's what "responsibility" means.

 

[Bomb#20]

Distinctions are made at universities because the university is not imposing criminal charges or sentences.

And that's a fine reason to tell universities to apply a preponderance-of-evidence standard instead of a beyond-reasonable-doubt standard, just as in other civil matters. But why would that be a reason to tell them to apply a different definition of what is or isn't a sexual assault?

The bigger issue is not the trauma done to the victims but that it validates the behavior of those individuals who feel there is nothing wrong with 'taking advantage of the situation' when there is someone who is too impaired to effectively object or assess the situation. Including when someone is actually passed out, although that level of impairment is not necessary for it to be rape. And if the 'situation' needs to be helped along with extra drinks or an extra something in the drinks, well, c'est la vie.

Universities are responsible for creating and maintaining a safe environment for students and staff. They also are responsible for educating students. The lesson that it is wrong to take advantage of someone who is so impaired or so intimidated that they are unable to respond needs to be learned somewhere. I prefer from early childhood onward but better late than always a rapist.

Agreed. And none of that applies in LaBeouf's case. He wasn't too impaired to effectively object or assess the situation. The woman didn't give him a drink, let alone something extra. He was able to respond and evidently wasn't intimidated even by ten minutes of whipping.

You already asked the critical questions. "Did LeBeouf express objections in any way? If no, why not?" Those are valid questions to ask anybody making a rape accusation when there's no physical evidence of it. People often talk as though asking those questions at all is a crime against humanity, putting the victim on trial instead of the perpetrator. But no, that's putting the cart before the horse; it's assuming one's conclusion as a premise. Those are the questions we need answered in order to know whether the two people are a victim and a perpetrator in the first place. It's not as though an actual victim isn't going to have reasonable answers to them. "I was asleep." "I was too drunk." "I was afraid he'd hurt me more."

 

[ksen]

"I couldn't interrupt my art show."

 

[Bomb#20]

Exactamundo.

 

[credoconsolans]

Yes, he was raped, but seeing how he was not restrained by the woman, threatened or otherwise intimidated by the woman, it makes me wonder why he didn't just leave.

Yes, I wonder, too. And it doesn't change the fact that it was rape.
Very very weird, and very clearly non-consenting.

Clearly rape, but likely the perp would get off - so to speak - with a light sentence because Shia didn't object in any way shape or form and his whole art piece was to be passive and see what people would do.

The fact he obviously set no limits - except maybe murder - and was in no way incapacitated or restricted except by willing self-restriction - would weigh heavily with any jury.

They'd call him an idiot and cut her loose.

 

[Arctish]

I don't see how you have reached that conclusion. The law addresses persons who engage in sexual activities, not those who don't engage or are utterly disengaged from them.

From your link:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.​

"Engage" is the word the law uses to determine whether affirmative consent was given.

No, the phrase "engage in" is used to describes the condition which, if met, means a person has an obligation to seek consent. If you don't "engage in" sexual activity, the law doesn't apply to you.

I don't have access to the complete legal definition used by the California legislature, but the legal definitions available online all agree that the word engage has a particular meaning in legal terms, and that meaning describes action, either ongoing or promised. A completely passive person is not engaged in an action in the legal sense. There are some laws that don't allow people to remain passive under certain conditions (like witnessing a crime) but this isn't one of them.

A monk who has taken vows of silence is not required to communicate with his assailant and ascertain whether his assailant wants to have sex. A passive sexual-and-social refusenik is not required to interact with the people around him, even if one of them initiates sex.

"Involved" is the word the law uses to determine whom it imputes responsibility to. So the fact that LaBeouf was not engaged implies only that he didn't affirmatively consent; it says nothing about whether he had a responsibility to ensure that the woman in question affirmatively consented. He was certainly involved.

Yes, he was involved, but not actively and not consensually. You appear to be arguing that an utterly passive person can be punished for not seeking consent for something he did not do, and had no intention of doing. I think you are misreading the law, but perhaps it will take an amendment or a ruling by the California courts to clarify things for everyone.

You aren't required to seek consent before doing nothing; the law says you are required to seek consent before knowingly doing something, specifically something that is or results in sexual contact with another person.

A person who is utterly passive and unresponsive, by choice or otherwise, has no need to seek consent because they aren't doing anything that requires it. They aren't doing anything, period.

What are you deriving those conclusions from? The text of SB 967? The text of some other law or court decision that can override the text of SB 967? Your own sense of how the law ought to operate in general?

In general, when the law makes somebody responsible for something, "I was doing nothing; I was utterly disengaged; I was passive and unresponsive." is not legally a defense.

"I did not go fishing, therefore I was not required to obtain a fishing license; I did not break the law by not fishing without a license".

"I did not pick my neighbors strawberries, therefore I was not required to seek permission to pick my neighbor's strawberries; any requirement to seek permission before picking a neighbor's strawberries does not apply to me because I did not engage in that activity."

It's a fundamental principle of law that if you're not doing something that has legal requirements, you don't have to meet those requirements. If you're not driving a car, you don't have to have a Driver's License. If you're not taking someone's wallet, you don't have to have their permission to take it. If you're not running a business, you don't have to meet city codes for businesses.

You have no obligation to seek consent for something you aren't doing or going to do, even if consent is required before doing it.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Engage" is the word the law uses to determine whether affirmative consent was given.

No, the phrase "engage in" is used to describes the condition which, if met, means a person has an obligation to seek consent. If you don't "engage in" sexual activity, the law doesn't apply to you.

You keep saying this, but I look at the plain text of the law and it isn't there. You appear to be drawing that interpretation out of thin air and wishful thinking.

I don't have access to the complete legal definition used by the California legislature, but the legal definitions available online all agree that the word engage has a particular meaning in legal terms <snip>

But that doesn't address the point in dispute. You're doing the South Park "Step 1 is X, Step 3 is Y."/"What's Step 2?"/"Step 3 is Y." routine. Which sentence in the law do you see that says the law doesn't apply to you if you aren't engaged in sexual activity?

"Involved" is the word the law uses to determine whom it imputes responsibility to. So the fact that LaBeouf was not engaged implies only that he didn't affirmatively consent; it says nothing about whether he had a responsibility to ensure that the woman in question affirmatively consented. He was certainly involved.

Yes, he was involved, but not actively and not consensually.

Yes, but the law says it's his responsibility if he's involved in it. It doesn't say it's his responsibility if he's involved in it actively and consensually.

You appear to be arguing that an utterly passive person can be punished for not seeking consent for something he did not do, and had no intention of doing.

And you think that's something American law never does? Obamacare fines people for not buying health insurance.

I think you are misreading the law, but perhaps it will take an amendment or a ruling by the California courts to clarify things for everyone.

I don't think I'm misreading it; hopefully it will never need to be clarified because nobody will be evil enough to try to enforce it in this sort of situation.

"I did not go fishing, therefore I was not required to obtain a fishing license; I did not break the law by not fishing without a license".

"I did not pick my neighbors strawberries, therefore I was not required to seek permission to pick my neighbor's strawberries; any requirement to seek permission before picking a neighbor's strawberries does not apply to me because I did not engage in that activity."

But the legislature didn't pass a law making people responsible to obtain fishing licenses and strawberry picking permission unless they engaged in those activities. That doesn't stop the legislature from passing a law making it some other passive person's responsibility to get permission to go on being passive. The legislature can do anything it bloody well pleases and unless a court stops them they can get away with it.

It's a fundamental principle of law that if you're not doing something that has legal requirements, you don't have to meet those requirements.

Cite?

If you're not driving a car, you don't have to have a Driver's License. If you're not taking someone's wallet, you don't have to have their permission to take it. If you're not running a business, you don't have to meet city codes for businesses.

You have no obligation to seek consent for something you aren't doing or going to do, even if consent is required before doing it.

That's a hasty generalization. You are inferring that the legislature can't do a particular crazy thing just because they aren't usually crazy enough to do it.

 

[Arctish]

Senate Rules Committee analysis of SB 967

3.States that it is the responsibility of the person who initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he/she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. States that, if there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.

 

[Axulus]

Senate Rules Committee analysis of SB 967

3.States that it is the responsibility of the person who initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he/she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. States that, if there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.

Yes, initiate and engage are the key words here. Rape laws deal with the individual or individuals actively pursuing and engaging in the sexual activity, regardless of the specifics of the consent laws in a particular jurisdiction. I don't understand what is so confusing about it.

 

[Bomb#20]

Senate Rules Committee analysis of SB 967

3.States that it is the responsibility of the person who initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he/she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. States that, if there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.

So your argument is "Person A says the bill states that P, Q, and R. Therefore the bill does not also state that S."? Why would you assume that the analyst necessarily gave an exhaustive list of the things the bill states?

Yes, "It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity." certainly does imply that "it is the responsibility of the person who initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he/she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity". Of course, it equally implies that "it is the responsibility of the person not initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he/she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity." It implies both. The words "each person" do not mean "only one of the persons".

Yes, initiate and engage are the key words here. Rape laws deal with the individual or individuals actively pursuing and engaging in the sexual activity, regardless of the specifics of the consent laws in a particular jurisdiction. I don't understand what is so confusing about it.

I don't either; so why are you guys confused? You're describing what rape laws should deal with; but based on the plain text, this one evidently deals with more than that, because it was poorly drafted. What a surprise. It's an affirmative consent law, and affirmative consent standards are stupid. Not just because of this specific and no-doubt-unintentional gotcha, a mere symptom of the shoddy thinking that goes into such laws, but because of the systemic problem that when two people are symmetrically drunk and mutually get it on an affirmative consent standard implies they raped each other.

It takes a stupid affirmative consent standard to reach the conclusion the LaBeouf was raped. Look at it this way. Let's imagine a cross-examiner asking LaBeouf to entertain a hypothetical scenario. Suppose the bag over his head had eye holes. Suppose one of the people who came in to see his performance art was obviously very drunk. Suppose after trying and failing to get a reaction out of him, she didn't leave, and instead lay down on the floor in front of him and started sleeping it off, snoring loudly. Suppose the next three people who came into his exhibit ignored the woman, tried to get LaBeouf to react to their typical Buckingham Palace guard antics, failed, and went away.

Now suppose the fourth guy, getting no reaction to the obvious stuff, turns to the sleeping woman, looks at her, thinks for a moment, turns back to LaBeouf, points to her, grins wickedly, and then kneels down, pulls down her pants, and starts performing cunnilingus on her. She continues snoring throughout.

Defense lawyer: "Mr. LaBeouf, if you had seen all that, what would you have done? Would you have interrupted your art show long enough to stop the man? To urge him to stop what he was doing? To dial 911? To yell for your security crew? To run for help, perhaps, in case the man was physically intimidating?"

LaBeouf: "Yes, of course I would have! What kind of person do you take me for?"

Defense lawyer: "And, once again, can you remind the court why you did not express objections in any way when my client engaged you in a sex act?"

LaBeouf: "I couldn't interrupt my art show."

Defense lawyer: "So you're saying a rape would be important enough to interrupt your art show, but what my client did to you was not important enough to interrupt your art show? No further questions."

 

[Toni]

Senate Rules Committee analysis of SB 967

3.States that it is the responsibility of the person who initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he/she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. States that, if there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.

SB 967 deals with policy at state funded institutions of higher learning and not criminal law.