Five saints called in Lovett case

[saintnick12]

Just one comment from the reams of media dedicated to it made me think a little..

Anyone else think that, as captain of an AFL Club, Roo perhaps was a tad hasty thinking Chipper's urgent call at 2.30am was a prank, and turning off his phone..even if he was asleep?

Reckon he'd do it differently if he had his time again

Yeah, I thought the same. He apparently said in his statement that Fisher sounded frantic and said there were police there - yet admits he turned his phone off thinking they were joking. Not a good look from the captain of the club...One of the other clubs leaders ringing him in a crisis and getting that reaction...particularly as Roo was there earlier in the night. Certainly does not paint Roo in a good light.

well sadly the damage was done. not sure roo could have contributed much at 3am in a crowd full of boozed up players.

Agree the damage was done and there wasn't a lot he could do. The one thing he could do was provide support - which clearly he didn't do as he hung up his phone. Maybe thats cos he'd had too much to drink too.
I love Nick - hence the nickname - but this does not paint him in a good light. I'm disappointed he let them down. NOt much he could have done, but clearly Fisher rang him seeking some assistance. He should at a minimum have continued the phone call.

[saintsareprettygoodhey]

i don't think the truth will come out in this case - but lovett will be convicted

just from what i've read in articles... a lot of things seem contradictory

[Wrote for Luck]

imo a ruling will be based much on the individual reactions of those that were there. Usually it can tell you quite a bit.

i.e. Mini telling Lovett to f*ck off, the victim immediately distressed, Lovett stating he can get women whenever he wants, victim stating he pumped the sh*t out of me - it's indicative of intention and what had occured based on response.

I reckon much of what will influence the decision at the end of the day is this type of stuff. Doesn't look great for the Lovett camp. Can understand why the club have done what they've done.

It still seems unbelievable to me that we are now privy to this info after speculating for so long!

[Moods]

imo a ruling will be based much on the individual reactions of those that were there. Usually it can tell you quite a bit.

i.e. Mini telling Lovett to f*ck off, the victim immediately distressed, Lovett stating he can get women whenever he wants, victim stating he pumped the sh*t out of me - it's indicative of intention and what had occured based on response.

I reckon much of what will influence the decision at the end of the day is this type of stuff. Doesn't look great for the Lovett camp. Can understand why the club have done what they've done.

It still seems unbelievable to me that we are now privy to this info after speculating for so long!

I'm not so sure. What about Gram's evidence that the victim told him that she thought it was him. That being the case it sounds like she was consenting until she realised that it wasn't Gram having sex with her. I certainly haven't been defending Lovett throughout this whole saga, but my take on the evidence given is that she was consenting all the way through believing she was having sex with Gram. At the end (after the act) it dawned on her that it was actually Lovett who was having sex with her. She was horrified, hence her reaction afterward. The question is for mine, is it reasonable for Lovett to assume that he thought that the victim wanted to have sex with him at the time. Clearly afterward, by her reaction she didn't. But was Lovett to know that beforehand?

Her reaction would explain her feelings of being treated like a sl*t and used. She clearly wanted to have sex with Gram that evening by the evidence given. The jury will need to determine whether it was reasonable for Lovett to believe that she may have been up for sex with him as well.

[Wrote for Luck]

imo a ruling will be based much on the individual reactions of those that were there. Usually it can tell you quite a bit.

i.e. Mini telling Lovett to f*ck off, the victim immediately distressed, Lovett stating he can get women whenever he wants, victim stating he pumped the sh*t out of me - it's indicative of intention and what had occured based on response.

I reckon much of what will influence the decision at the end of the day is this type of stuff. Doesn't look great for the Lovett camp. Can understand why the club have done what they've done.

It still seems unbelievable to me that we are now privy to this info after speculating for so long!

I'm not so sure. What about Gram's evidence that the victim told him that she thought it was him. That being the case it sounds like she was consenting until she realised that it wasn't Gram having sex with her. I certainly haven't been defending Lovett throughout this whole saga, but my take on the evidence given is that she was consenting all the way through believing she was having sex with Gram. At the end (after the act) it dawned on her that it was actually Lovett who was having sex with her. She was horrified, hence her reaction afterward. The question is for mine, is it reasonable for Lovett to assume that he thought that the victim wanted to have sex with him at the time. Clearly afterward, by her reaction she didn't. But was Lovett to know that beforehand?

Her reaction would explain her feelings of being treated like a sl*t and used. She clearly wanted to have sex with Gram that evening by the evidence given. The jury will need to determine whether it was reasonable for Lovett to believe that she may have been up for sex with him as well.

Yep that's a good example with her telling Gram that (as an immediate reaction), but that doesn't necessarily mean she thought it were Gram from begining to end. But it's certainly something for the prosecution to focus on. However I think I read that when she retrieved her faculties during the act she said 'no' etc...

A view may be that she was probably being honest when she said that to Gram - but in part it would support her case in the sense that she were in a hopeless state (uselessly intoxicated) and vulnerable?

Re your last point, her reaction after the incident would imply that she did not have any pre-conceived intention to have sex with Lovett, as you say she did with Gram (if that were the case). Otherwise it would be an illogical overeaction, unless in the unlikely circumstance that everything was progressing with consent until Lovett somehow offended the victim during or after the act, which would justify such a response.

[saintsRrising]

I'm not so sure. What about Gram's evidence that the victim told him that she thought it was him.

So if I sneak into your wife's (gf) bedroom at night and start making out with her it is not rape?

That being the case it sounds like she was consenting until she realised that it wasn't Gram having sex with her.

See my earlier comment...and how does one consent if asleep?

Women are allowed to;
1/Enjoy sex
2/Want to have sex
3/ decide who it is with

I certainly haven't been defending Lovett throughout this whole saga, but my take on the evidence given is that she was consenting all the way through believing she was having sex with Gram.

Lovett is a dog who at best took advantage of someone who was asleep and highly drunk...and he knew both.

That she was asleep and pissed you seem to think as her giving consent.

Personally my view is that he should have :

1/ as Gram did lave her alone as she was not capable of doing anything reasonably at the time

2/ if ignoring 1/ made sure she knew it was him.

Sticking your finger into a sleeping person is not seeking consent in anyway shape or form.

It is digital rape.

Lovett had not intent on seeking consent...and he hada duty to.
His only intent was his one sel-gratification.

At the end (after the act) it dawned on her that it was actually Lovett who was having sex with her. She was horrified, hence her reaction afterward. The question is for mine, is it reasonable for Lovett to assume that he thought that the victim wanted to have sex with him at the time. Clearly afterward, by her reaction she didn't. But was Lovett to know that beforehand?

Fair dinkum...she was asleep and heavily drunk..probably to the passing out stage.

She was not in a state to give consent and Lovett would have known this.


The question is for mine, is it reasonable for Lovett to assume that he thought that the victim wanted to have sex with him at the time.

Please elaborate on how exactly does a sleeping person give consent?

Clearly she did not.

Lovett therefore commenced sexual acts without consent. That is rape.

[krabb]

Who the hell cares?

I'm sick and tired of these bozo's disrespecting our Club and dragging us all down to their level.

Dickheads the lot of them!

Good on Reiwoldt for ignoring the idiiots.

Pity they all didnt put the work into our Club that he does.

[Harvey To Hayes]

Who the hell cares?

I'm sick and tired of these bozo's disrespecting our Club and dragging us all down to their level.

Dickheads the lot of them!

Good on Reiwoldt for ignoring the idiiots.

Pity they all didnt put the work into our Club that he does.

What a strange and sad post. I feel bad for you...

[GrumpyOne]

I'm not so sure. What about Gram's evidence that the victim told him that she thought it was him.

So if I sneak into your wife's (gf) bedroom at night and start making out with her it is not rape?

That being the case it sounds like she was consenting until she realised that it wasn't Gram having sex with her.

See my earlier comment...and how does one consent if asleep?

Women are allowed to;
1/Enjoy sex
2/Want to have sex
3/ decide who it is with

I certainly haven't been defending Lovett throughout this whole saga, but my take on the evidence given is that she was consenting all the way through believing she was having sex with Gram.

Lovett is a dog who at best took advantage of someone who was asleep and highly drunk...and he knew both.

That she was asleep and pissed you seem to think as her giving consent.

Personally my view is that he should have :

1/ as Gram did lave her alone as she was not capable of doing anything reasonably at the time

2/ if ignoring 1/ made sure she knew it was him.

Sticking your finger into a sleeping person is not seeking consent in anyway shape or form.

It is digital rape.

Lovett had not intent on seeking consent...and he hada duty to.
His only intent was his one sel-gratification.

At the end (after the act) it dawned on her that it was actually Lovett who was having sex with her. She was horrified, hence her reaction afterward. The question is for mine, is it reasonable for Lovett to assume that he thought that the victim wanted to have sex with him at the time. Clearly afterward, by her reaction she didn't. But was Lovett to know that beforehand?

Fair dinkum...she was asleep and heavily drunk..probably to the passing out stage.

She was not in a state to give consent and Lovett would have known this.


The question is for mine, is it reasonable for Lovett to assume that he thought that the victim wanted to have sex with him at the time.

Please elaborate on how exactly does a sleeping person give consent?

Clearly she did not.

Lovett therefore commenced sexual acts without consent. That is rape.

I think Moods summary was totally accurate.

Exactly how drunk was this girl? Seems to remember everything in her favour and bugger-all that does not show her in a good light.

The only relevant evidence is hers and his.

Forget who is involved.... would you lock a bloke away for 5 - 10 years on the basis of her selective memory?

I wouldn't.

[skeptic]

The issue isn't consent so much as it is force

key word = force

i posted this a page back but it seems relevent here

To me this actually seems pretty open and shut

The moment the girl says "Stop" you have to. If you push past that point IMO that's rape.

Whether she consented when she thought it was Jason or not is irrelevent... Even if she originally consented with Andrew and changed her mind 1/2 way through... if Andrew pushed past the point of consent he is guilty as charged IMO.

He forced himself upon her

The issue here is whether or not at some point the female said STOP and what Andrew did from that point forth.

Lets put it in another sense... say She consented to Andrew and then got really bad pain in the below region 1/2way through... if she said stop then and Andrew didn't... it's rape.

She's not willling so he's forcing her

The scary part of this whole thing is whether or not ANdrew really believes what he's saying.
It's clearly rape. Fair enough he's trying not to get himself charged... I understand that but does he really believe he's innocent

[bozza1980]

I

Just one comment from the reams of media dedicated to it made me think a little..

Anyone else think that, as captain of an AFL Club, Roo perhaps was a tad hasty thinking Chipper's urgent call at 2.30am was a prank, and turning off his phone..even if he was asleep?

Reckon he'd do it differently if he had his time again

Yeah, I thought the same. He apparently said in his statement that Fisher sounded frantic and said there were police there - yet admits he turned his phone off thinking they were joking. Not a good look from the captain of the club...One of the other clubs leaders ringing him in a crisis and getting that reaction...particularly as Roo was there earlier in the night. Certainly does not paint Roo in a good light.

well sadly the damage was done. not sure roo could have contributed much at 3am in a crowd full of boozed up players.

Agree the damage was done and there wasn't a lot he could do. The one thing he could do was provide support - which clearly he didn't do as he hung up his phone. Maybe thats cos he'd had too much to drink too.
I love Nick - hence the nickname - but this does not paint him in a good light. I'm disappointed he let them down. NOt much he could have done, but clearly Fisher rang him seeking some assistance. He should at a minimum have continued the phone call.

You are kidding aren't you?

You've never hang up on a drunk mate because you thought they were winding you up?

You are asking an awful lot of our captain if you think it's his responsibility to respond to these events.

[bozza1980]

I'm not so sure. What about Gram's evidence that the victim told him that she thought it was him.

So if I sneak into your wife's (gf) bedroom at night and start making out with her it is not rape?

That being the case it sounds like she was consenting until she realised that it wasn't Gram having sex with her.

See my earlier comment...and how does one consent if asleep?

Women are allowed to;
1/Enjoy sex
2/Want to have sex
3/ decide who it is with

I certainly haven't been defending Lovett throughout this whole saga, but my take on the evidence given is that she was consenting all the way through believing she was having sex with Gram.

Lovett is a dog who at best took advantage of someone who was asleep and highly drunk...and he knew both.

That she was asleep and pissed you seem to think as her giving consent.

Personally my view is that he should have :

1/ as Gram did lave her alone as she was not capable of doing anything reasonably at the time

2/ if ignoring 1/ made sure she knew it was him.

Sticking your finger into a sleeping person is not seeking consent in anyway shape or form.


It is digital rape.

Lovett had not intent on seeking consent...and he hada duty to.
His only intent was his one sel-gratification.

At the end (after the act) it dawned on her that it was actually Lovett who was having sex with her. She was horrified, hence her reaction afterward. The question is for mine, is it reasonable for Lovett to assume that he thought that the victim wanted to have sex with him at the time. Clearly afterward, by her reaction she didn't. But was Lovett to know that beforehand?

Fair dinkum...she was asleep and heavily drunk..probably to the passing out stage.

She was not in a state to give consent and Lovett would have known this.

The question is for mine, is it reasonable for Lovett to assume that he thought that the victim wanted to have sex with him at the time.

Please elaborate on how exactly does a sleeping person give consent?

Clearly she did not.

Lovett therefore commenced sexual acts without consent. That is rape.

I think Moods summary was totally accurate.
Exactly how drunk was this girl? Seems to remember everything in her favour and bugger-all that does not show her in a good light.

The only relevant evidence is hers and his.

Forget who is invol
ved.... would you lock a bloke away for 5 - 10 years on the basis of her selective memory?

I wouldn't.

Would you think that a girl who went home with your mate, who has gone with him to his room, is then deemed to drunk for intimate relations by your friend, is then left on your mates bed because he and her friend can't move her, presumably because she is too drunk, would you think this woman wants to have sex with you?

I wouldn't.

But
maybe I'm old fashioned like that.

Her "selective memory" as you put it isn't the only evidence available here, but on that put yourself in the alleged situation, if you woke up to someone violating you, do you think that might stick in the old memory banks??

Lovett has the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty this does not mean that the accused desrerves the kind of bile that is being directed at her.

[Moods]

What bile against the woman in question?

I find SR's post very perplexing. None of us know exactly how things transpired. Everyone was drunk. Quite plausible that Lovett may have believed that the female may have wanted to have sex with him. Who knows? His record of interview suggests that she was enjoying the act. Maybe she was maybe she wasn't.

What I am saying is that she was possibly consenting because she believed it was Gram that was with her. Question is - did Lovett purport to be Gram so that he could have sex with her, or did he have sex with her believing that the female knew who he actually was.

Try not to get emotional Saints Rising. I was one of the few on here that was dead against getting Lovett to our club from the outset. I feel sorry for the female involved, however as Grumpy One has rightly pointed out - we are talking about locking a bloke up. Let's be CERTAIN of the facts before we do just that I reckon. Too many dickheads I've spoken have already got him hung and quartered without actually examining the evidence through both eyes.

[Mr Magic]

One thing that doesn't seem to be in diuspute is the state of intoxication the girl was in.
Under the law, I believe, she cannot give consent if she is 'under the influence'.
Therefore she wasn't capable of giving Lovett consent, no matter what he thought (giving him the benefit of the doubt).

I must say I don't quite understand what those trying to defend Lovett in this are getting at.

Don't we remember the whole furore about the young schoogirl and the Saints players?
If you are over 18 and have sex with your girfriend, who is under 16, is that not 'statutory rape'? It doesn't matter if your girlfriend even initiates the sex, the law says it is rape.

It would seem that in this case, the law states if the girl is intoxicated, she cannot give consent. If she therefore claims that Lovett raped her whilst she was drunk it would seem he is going to have a difficult, if not impossible, time trying to defend it.

Maybe we will see his defense team trying to establish enough circumstances to elicit a non-custodial sentence if he is found guilty - based on his own intoxication and 'misunderstanding' of the law?

But technically, if my understanding of 'consent' is correct, it is a violation of the rape law.

Some seem to be confusing the penalty possibilities with innocence/guilt of the charge.

[saintnick12]

I

Just one comment from the reams of media dedicated to it made me think a little..

Anyone else think that, as captain of an AFL Club, Roo perhaps was a tad hasty thinking Chipper's urgent call at 2.30am was a prank, and turning off his phone..even if he was asleep?

Reckon he'd do it differently if he had his time again

Yeah, I thought the same. He apparently said in his statement that Fisher sounded frantic and said there were police there - yet admits he turned his phone off thinking they were joking. Not a good look from the captain of the club...One of the other clubs leaders ringing him in a crisis and getting that reaction...particularly as Roo was there earlier in the night. Certainly does not paint Roo in a good light.

well sadly the damage was done. not sure roo could have contributed much at 3am in a crowd full of boozed up players.

Agree the damage was done and there wasn't a lot he could do. The one thing he could do was provide support - which clearly he didn't do as he hung up his phone. Maybe thats cos he'd had too much to drink too.
I love Nick - hence the nickname - but this does not paint him in a good light. I'm disappointed he let them down. NOt much he could have done, but clearly Fisher rang him seeking some assistance. He should at a minimum have continued the phone call.

You are kidding aren't you?

You've never hang up on a drunk mate because you thought they were winding you up?

You are asking an awful lot of our captain if you think it's his responsibility to respond to these events.

No, I'm not kidding.

But then again, being a woman, maybe I view it differently. I'm no longer at the age of getting drunk phonecalls from friends in the middle of the night, but when I was that age I can guarantee you I never hung up on any of them... And if police were mentioned, you take it seriously. Seems common sense to me. Maybe if it was Milne or Baker ringing and mucking around I could see how he might think it a joke. But by his own evidence, Fisher was frantic and mentioned police...cause enough to at least continue the phonecall I would think, rather than switch the phone off and go back to sleep. My only defensive of him is that maybe he was too drunk himself.

[bozza1980]

What bile against the woman in question?

I find SR's post very perplexing. None of us know exactly how things transpired. Everyone was drunk. Quite plausible that Lovett may have believed that the female may have wanted to have sex with him. Who knows? His record of interview suggests that she was enjoying the act. Maybe she was maybe she wasn't.

What I am saying is that she was possibly consenting because she believed it was Gram that was with her. Question is - did Lovett purport to be Gram so that he could have sex with her, or did he have sex with her believing that the female knew who he actually was.

Try not to get emotional Saints Rising. I was one of the few on here that was dead against getting Lovett to our club from the outset. I feel sorry for the female involved, however as Grumpy One has rightly pointed out - we are talking about locking a bloke up. Let's be CERTAIN of the facts before we do just that I reckon. Too many dickheads I've spoken have already got him hung and quartered without actually examining the evidence through both eyes.

True, Lovett, like every person in this country, has the right to the presumption of innocence.

All that has been decided to this point is that he has a case to answer.

[bozza1980]

I

Just one comment from the reams of media dedicated to it made me think a little..

Anyone else think that, as captain of an AFL Club, Roo perhaps was a tad hasty thinking Chipper's urgent call at 2.30am was a prank, and turning off his phone..even if he was asleep?

Reckon he'd do it differently if he had his time again

Yeah, I thought the same. He apparently said in his statement that Fisher sounded frantic and said there were police there - yet admits he turned his phone off thinking they were joking. Not a good look from the captain of the club...One of the other clubs leaders ringing him in a crisis and getting that reaction...particularly as Roo was there earlier in the night. Certainly does not paint Roo in a good light.

well sadly the damage was done. not sure roo could have contributed much at 3am in a crowd full of boozed up players.

Agree the damage was done and there wasn't a lot he could do. The one thing he could do was provide support - which clearly he didn't do as he hung up his phone. Maybe thats cos he'd had too much to drink too.
I love Nick - hence the nickname - but this does not paint him in a good light. I'm disappointed he let them down. NOt much he could have done, but clearly Fisher rang him seeking some assistance. He should at a minimum have continued the phone call.

You are kidding aren't you?

You've never hang up on a drunk mate because you thought they were winding you up?

You are asking an awful lot of our captain if you think it's his responsibility to respond to these events.

No, I'm not kidding.

But then again, being a woman, maybe I view it differently. I'm no longer at the age of getting drunk phonecalls from friends in the middle of the night, but when I was that age I can guarantee you I never hung up on any of them... And if police were mentioned, you take it seriously. Seems common sense to me. Maybe if it was Milne or Baker ringing and mucking around I could see how he might think it a joke. But by his own evidence, Fisher was frantic and mentioned police...cause enough to at least continue the phonecall I would think, rather than switch the phone off and go back to sleep. My only defensive of him is that maybe he was too drunk himself.[/quote

We obviously hold opinions poles apart from each other.

I don't believe being captain of the st kilda football club requires answering calls at 2.30 in the morning from other members of the club.

I do congratulate you for being the sort of person who would offer more assistance than Riewoldt did.

I'm not sure beyond listening to Fisher and advising him to contact someone who could assist him, what more you want from Roo.

They obviously did contact the club because, was it the football manager?, a representative did attend the appartment.

anyway that's my 2 cents

[saintsRrising]

Try not to get emotional Saints Rising..

Where was I emotional?

I just disagree with your logic including on consent.

From what has been reported irrespective of whether Lovett gets convicted of rape or not it would appear that he is a "user" of women.

But then again I don' think it is ok to take advantage of a woman whom is legless.

Having been on this earth a while there are quite a few guys who by their actions disagree...and I am not referring to what has been said in this thread in saying that.

But again from what has been presented if the woman was asleep, then Lovett would appear to have digitly raped her unless you can answer my question of how a woman whom is asleep can have consented to such an act?

[Moods]

One thing that doesn't seem to be in diuspute is the state of intoxication the girl was in.
Under the law, I believe, she cannot give consent if she is 'under the influence'.
Therefore she wasn't capable of giving Lovett consent, no matter what he thought (giving him the benefit of the doubt).

I must say I don't quite understand what those trying to defend Lovett in this are getting at.

Don't we remember the whole furore about the young schoogirl and the Saints players?
If you are over 18 and have sex with your girfriend, who is under 16, is that not 'statutory rape'? It doesn't matter if your girlfriend even initiates the sex, the law says it is rape.

I guess under that logic, every person who has sex when pissed could be accused of rape....

BTW - I'm certainly not defending Lovett. He appears like a bit of a knob to me and I thought that Before he came to the club. Unlike the numerous persons on here who thought he was going to be our saviour.

It would seem that in this case, the law states if the girl is intoxicated, she cannot give consent. If she therefore claims that Lovett raped her whilst she was drunk it would seem he is going to have a difficult, if not impossible, time trying to defend it.

Maybe we will see his defense team trying to establish enough circumstances to elicit a non-custodial sentence if he is found guilty - based on his own intoxication and 'misunderstanding' of the law?

But technically, if my understanding of 'consent' is correct, it is a violation of the rape law.

Some seem to be confusing the penalty possibilities with innocence/guilt of the charge.

[Mr Magic]

One thing that doesn't seem to be in diuspute is the state of intoxication the girl was in.
Under the law, I believe, she cannot give consent if she is 'under the influence'.
Therefore she wasn't capable of giving Lovett consent, no matter what he thought (giving him the benefit of the doubt).

I must say I don't quite understand what those trying to defend Lovett in this are getting at.

Don't we remember the whole furore about the young schoogirl and the Saints players?
If you are over 18 and have sex with your girfriend, who is under 16, is that not 'statutory rape'? It doesn't matter if your girlfriend even initiates the sex, the law says it is rape.

I guess under that logic, every person who has sex when pissed could be accused of rape....
BTW - I'm certainly not defending Lovett. He appears like a bit of a knob to me and I thought that Before he came to the club. Unlike the numerous persons on here who thought he was going to be our saviour.

It would seem that in this case, the law states if the girl is intoxicated, she cannot give consent. If she therefore claims that Lovett raped her whilst she was drunk it would seem he is going to have a difficult, if not impossible, time trying to defend it.

Maybe we will see his defense team trying to establish enough circumstances to elicit a non-custodial sentence if he is found guilty - based on his own intoxication and 'misunderstanding' of the law?

But technically, if my understanding of 'consent' is correct, it is a violation of the rape law.

Some seem to be confusing the penalty possibilities with innocence/guilt of the charge.

I believe that observation is correct.
If the female is drunk and claims she was raped by the male, then providing she can prove that the person she is alleging was the rapist, the male could be charged.

When you think about it logically, how can a person give 'consent' if they are not in control of their faculties?

Is drunkeness a defense for murder?
'I shot him but we were drunk at the time'

Is drunkeness a defense for assault?
'I bashed the guy's head in but we were drunk at the time'

Is drunkeness a defense for robbery?
'I stole his wallet but we were both drunk at the time'

Why then should drunkeness be a defense for sexual assault?
It might be used as a mitigating factor in dertermining the penalty, but surely it's not 'reasonable' as a defense?

[stinger]

[
Sticking your finger into a sleeping person is not seeking consent in anyway shape or form.

It is digital rape.

Lovett had not intent on seeking consent...and he hada duty to.
His only intent was his one sel-gratification.



Fair dinkum...she was asleep and heavily drunk..probably to the passing out stage.

She was not in a state to give consent and Lovett would have known this.


Lovett therefore commenced sexual acts without consent. That is rape.

spot on......

[stinger]

One thing that doesn't seem to be in diuspute is the state of intoxication the girl was in.
Under the law, I believe, she cannot give consent if she is 'under the influence'.
Therefore she wasn't capable of giving Lovett consent, no matter what he thought (giving him the benefit of the doubt).

I must say I don't quite understand what those trying to defend Lovett in this are getting at.

Don't we remember the whole furore about the young schoogirl and the Saints players?
If you are over 18 and have sex with your girfriend, who is under 16, is that not 'statutory rape'? It doesn't matter if your girlfriend even initiates the sex, the law says it is rape.

I guess under that logic, every person who has sex when pissed could be accused of rape....
BTW - I'm certainly not defending Lovett. He appears like a bit of a knob to me and I thought that Before he came to the club. Unlike the numerous persons on here who thought he was going to be our saviour.

It would seem that in this case, the law states if the girl is intoxicated, she cannot give consent. If she therefore claims that Lovett raped her whilst she was drunk it would seem he is going to have a difficult, if not impossible, time trying to defend it.

Maybe we will see his defense team trying to establish enough circumstances to elicit a non-custodial sentence if he is found guilty - based on his own intoxication and 'misunderstanding' of the law?

But technically, if my understanding of 'consent' is correct, it is a violation of the rape law.

Some seem to be confusing the penalty possibilities with innocence/guilt of the charge.

I believe that observation is correct.
If the female is drunk and claims she was raped by the male, then providing she can prove that the person she is alleging was the rapist, the male could be charged.

When you think about it logically, how can a person give 'consent' if they are not in control of their faculties?

Is drunkeness a defense for murder?
'I shot him but we were drunk at the time'

Is drunkeness a defense for assault?
'I bashed the guy's head in but we were drunk at the time'

Is drunkeness a defense for robbery?
'I stole his wallet but we were both drunk at the time'

Why then should drunkeness be a defense for sexual assault?
It might be used as a mitigating factor in dertermining the penalty, but surely it's not 'reasonable' as a defense?

drunkeness is not a defence...it was once......not any more ..nor should it have ever been..imho....if you purposely get yourself legless...why should that excuse you from your subsequent actions....

[Moods]

Just so I've got this straight. You guys think that just b/c someone is drunk they can't consent to anything? No point arguing b/c you're wrong. Of course you can consent. I'm not suggesting for a second that digitally penetrating someone while they're sleeping is not rape. However what if the female awoke and enjoyed what was happening to her? All I'm saying is that this may have been the case BECAUSE she thought the person was Gram. Once she realised that it wasn't Gram and it was Lovett she was angry (and I'm not suggesting for a second that she didn't have any right not to be furious) and reported it as rape. In her mind she would not never have consented to sex with Lovett.

[stinger]

Just so I've got this straight. You guys think that just b/c someone is drunk they can't consent to anything? No point arguing b/c you're wrong. Of course you can consent. I'm not suggesting for a second that digitally penetrating someone while they're sleeping is not rape. However what if the female awoke and enjoyed what was happening to her? All I'm saying is that this may have been the case BECAUSE she thought the person was Gram. Once she realised that it wasn't Gram and it was Lovett she was angry (and I'm not suggesting for a second that she didn't have any right not to be furious) and reported it as rape. In her mind she would not never have consented to sex with Lovett.

if it looks like a duck...quakes like a duck.....then more than likely it's a duck........you cannot stick your finger into a female's pink bits unless you believe she is consenting......a sleeping drunk who was with another guy and is asleep in his bed is hardly in a position to consent now is she....?..ask yourself this...would you have acted in the same manner as lovett.?..and if the answer is no.....ask yourself why did you come to this conclusion......


.....i also have some breaking news for you too mate...if you jumped your missus or girlfrind in similar circumstances and she cried rape...your kids, if you have any.. would be visiting you in gaol......wtf do you think he is before the courts.charged with the digital rape plus another count of rape......... ?:roll:


if she was up for it...we would never have heard of it....lovett would still be a saints player and we would probably be in 1st position on the ladder and flag favourites....but ...as forrest gump so wisely said...."sh1t happens"

[Moods]

Just so I've got this straight. You guys think that just b/c someone is drunk they can't consent to anything? No point arguing b/c you're wrong. Of course you can consent. I'm not suggesting for a second that digitally penetrating someone while they're sleeping is not rape. However what if the female awoke and enjoyed what was happening to her? All I'm saying is that this may have been the case BECAUSE she thought the person was Gram. Once she realised that it wasn't Gram and it was Lovett she was angry (and I'm not suggesting for a second that she didn't have any right not to be furious) and reported it as rape. In her mind she would not never have consented to sex with Lovett.

if it looks like a duck...quakes like a duck.....then more than likely it's a duck........you cannot stick your finger into a female's pink bits unless you believe she is consenting......a sleeping drunk who was with another guy and is alsleep in his bed is hardly in a position to consent now is she......ask yourself this...would you have acted in the same manner as lovett...and if the answe is no.....ask yourself why did you come to this conclusion......


.....i also have news for you to mate...if you jumped your missus or girlfrind in similar circumstances and she cried rape...your kids, if you have any.. would be visiting you in gaol......wtf do you think he is before the courts.....


if she was up for it...we would never have heard of it....lovett would still be a saints player and we would probably be in 1st position of the ladder and flag favourites....but ...as forrest gump so wisely said...."sh1t happens"

We'll wait and see won't we.