Young Brehs Charged After Smashing LSU Student Who Later Dies When She Gets Dropped Off And Hit By A Car

[The Devil's Advocate]

Still on your bullshyt huh? If things were so crystal clear, why did you invent rape wounds that didn't exist?

Didn’t exist It’s the first damn article and why they looked into the rape in the first place.


See what’s going on here, like I said, is emotional responses. Y’all angry this is going on and completely missing all the facts.

There’s only two questions here. Was she drunk? Did she have sex while drunk?

Apparently it’s enough for the DA who brought up 3rd degree rape. Enough for the grand jury who heard way more evidence than we have and upgraded it to first degree. Enough for a judge to see the video inside the car and say it helps the prosecutions case more than anything.

This type of thinking is going to get people in trouble. If she’s drunk, leave her alone. It’s a charge. 20 seasons of SVU and y’all ain’t got it yet. Drunk? No consent. Period. Not up for debate.

That’s not my thoughts and assumptions. It’s literally the law. Y’all want it the other way

 

[Samori Toure]

You still don’t get it and it’s fukking amazing

There is NO consent when you’re drunk. The fact y’all keep missing this is why you’re looking for more facts and acting emotional. No matter how many times the law says you can’t give it when drunk, y’all sit here doing backflips trying to explain why it’s ok. Did I say forcible rape? Do you know the law? Did they have sex with a woman 4 times past the limit or nah? fukk is the discussion here?

Yes only in bumblefukk is this a case. And viola. They are in bumblefukk and it’s a case. What am I missing here?

You still don't get it which is amazing. What you are missing is that the defendants are raising the defense of consent to rape charges laid out by statute. If a party could not raise a defense then there would not even be a need for a trial. You come off as acting all knowing, but what you don't get is that the defendants have raised a legitimate question as to whether they or a reasonable person knew or should have known if the young lady was drunk beyond her ability to consent. The tape clearly showed that she was not incapacitated as the cops and the prosecutors tried to pretend that she was earlier in the case. The tape also demonstrated that the young lady was in control of her faculties; was not passed out; not restrained in anyway nor was she defenseless. The boys were driving her home and they let her out when she requested to be let out and then she dikk shamed a dude on the way out the car simply because he didn't want her. You need to keep in mind that the statute only makes a presumption, which would carry the day unless a defendant can show actual proof that she did not seem impaired and she consented to the acts.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

You still don't get it which is amazing. What you are missing is that the defendants are raising the defense of consent to rape charges laid out by statute. If a party could not raise a defense then there would not even be a need for a trial. You come off as acting all knowing, but what you don't get is that the defendants have raised a legitimate question as to whether they or a reasonable person knew or should have known if the young lady was drunk beyond her ability to consent. The tape clearly showed that she was not incapacitated as the cops and the prosecutors tried to pretend that she was earlier in the case. The tape also demonstrated that the young lady was in control of her faculties; was not passed out; not restrained in anyway nor was she defenseless. The boys were driving her home and they let her out when she requested to be let out and then she dikk shamed a dude on the way out the car simply because he didn't want her. You need to keep in mind that the statute only makes a presumption, which would carry the day unless a defendant can show actual proof that she did not seem impaired and she consented to the acts.

They have her BAC. It was 4 times the limit.

Everything else you said is invalid in the eyes of the law but good luck to you and the third time rapist. I’m just gonna let this play out. There’s no arguing with y’all. Die on this hill


And since y’all so sure nobody knew shyt. Here’s the guy who already told the police everything. Argue with him:


In a voluntary interview with detectives, Carver allegedly admitted that Brooks was “very unstable on her feet” when leaving Reggie’s and was “unable to speak without slurring her words.” When Carver asked Brooks for her address, he said that she “fell over and could not answer him,” according to the affidavit.

A short while later, Carver said that he told Washington and Brooks to stop having sex and they all drove away to bring Brooks home. When asked if he thought Brooks was “too impaired to consent to the sexual intercourse,” Carver allegedly responded, “I guess.”


But they didn’t know she was drunk. Y’all have a good day.

 

[Samori Toure]

They have her BAC. It was 4 times the limit.

Everything else you said is invalid in the eyes of the law but good luck to you and the third time rapist. I’m just gonna let this play out. There’s no arguing with y’all. Die on this hill

Dude you have already died on the hill and you look crazy emotional and mad suspect continuing to insist that there is no defense to the charge when voluntary consent is obviously a defense that the defense lawyers have expertly raised.

The cops and prosecutors in Louisiana must be so used to railroading innocent Black men into prison by poisoning potential jury pools through the release of select a information to the media that it caught them completely off guard when the defense released their own information showing the girl's actions. This shyt is laughable and if the jury is completely rigged with White supremacist then there is no way those guys are getting convicted. At this point the prosecutors and judge can't even kill the tapes because the national media smells a compelling story and they obviously have them.

 

[Samori Toure]

Is there video of them assaulting her?

Nope, because they didn't assault her and cops and prosecutors did not even alleged it.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Dude you have already died on the hill and you look crazy emotional and mad suspect continuing to insist that there is no defense to the charge when voluntary consent is obviously a defense that the defense lawyers have expertly raised.

The cops and prosecutors in Louisiana must be so used to railroading innocent Black men into prison by poisoning potential jury pools through the release of select a information to the media that it caught them completely off guard when the defense released their own information showing the girl's actions. This shyt is laughable and if the jury is completely rigged with White supremacist then there is no way those guys are getting convicted. At this point the prosecutors and judge can't even kill the tapes because the national media smells a compelling story and they obviously have them.

Innocent. Man admitted everything but I’m emotional. Keep fighting the good fight

What’s really scary is the amount of black men in here who know for a fact she was 4 times the limit but think it’s ok to have sex with her cause she said yes.

Y’all gonna find yourself fukked up. Black men with sense, listen…. Don’t have sex with drunk women.

 

[Samori Toure]

They have her BAC. It was 4 times the limit.

Everything else you said is invalid in the eyes of the law but good luck to you and the third time rapist. I’m just gonna let this play out. There’s no arguing with y’all. Die on this hill


And since y’all so sure nobody knew shyt. Here’s the guy who already told the police everything. Argue with him:


In a voluntary interview with detectives, Carver allegedly admitted that Brooks was “very unstable on her feet” when leaving Reggie’s and was “unable to speak without slurring her words.” When Carver asked Brooks for her address, he said that she “fell over and could not answer him,” according to the affidavit.

A short while later, Carver said that he told Washington and Brooks to stop having sex and they all drove away to bring Brooks home. When asked if he thought Brooks was “too impaired to consent to the sexual intercourse,” Carver allegedly responded, “I guess.”


But they didn’t know she was drunk. Y’all have a good day.

Then they showed the tape and she coherent enough to be able to dikk shame a man.

You have a nice day with your emotional racist ass.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Then they showed the tape and she coherent enough to be able to dikk shame a man.

You have a nice day with your racist ass.

Yes. They’ll be using “she can dikk shame so she sober” and not the blood alcohol content that’s scientific and shyt

You got it

 

[broller]

Nope, because they didn't assault her and cops and prosecutors did not even alleged it.

I should have written "allegedly" or assault in quotation marks

 

[Samori Toure]

I should have written "allegedly" or assault in quotation marks

I understood what you asking.

 

[dr. pill biden]

You still don't get it which is amazing. What you are missing is that the defendants are raising the defense of consent to rape charges laid out by statute. If a party could not raise a defense then there would not even be a need for a trial. You come off as acting all knowing, but what you don't get is that the defendants have raised a legitimate question as to whether they or a reasonable person knew or should have known if the young lady was drunk beyond her ability to consent. The tape clearly showed that she was not incapacitated as the cops and the prosecutors tried to pretend that she was earlier in the case. The tape also demonstrated that the young lady was in control of her faculties; was not passed out; not restrained in anyway nor was she defenseless. The boys were driving her home and they let her out when she requested to be let out and then she dikk shamed a dude on the way out the car simply because he didn't want her. You need to keep in mind that the statute only makes a presumption, which would carry the day unless a defendant can show actual proof that she did not seem impaired and she consented to the acts.

thats not true at all

every person has a right to a trial thats your basic 6th amendment right as a citizen…and you/your lawyer can bring up any defense you think might stick even if you are completely guilty

but if the statute says 3rd degree rape is no consent due to incoherent mindstate, and she died with a BAC 5 times the legal limit….thats pretty damn blacc and white.

defense needs a stronger argument than “yea well she called dude a faq she was totally coherent!” like yea no shyt dawg incoherent people can talk all types of shyt, don’t mean its coming from a coherent mindstate

 

[Samori Toure]

thats not true at all

every person has a right to a trial thats your basic 6th amendment right as a citizen…and you/your lawyer can bring up any defense you think might stick even if you are completely guilty

but if the statute says 3rd degree rape is no consent due to incoherent mindstate, and she died with a BAC 5 times the legal limit….thats pretty damn blacc and white.

defense needs a stronger argument than “yea well she called dude a faq she was totally coherent!” like yea no shyt dawg incoherent people can talk all types of shyt, don’t mean its coming from a coherent mindstate

No it is not really black and white like you all are trying to make it otherwise there would never be any defense that anyone could ever raise to statutory violations like speeding and other offenses that the State alleges. So her ability to consent based upon her BAC is only a presumption presented by the State which can be refuted by the defense. On top of that some people have a higher tolerance for alcohol than other people so what might make you drunk or give you a buzz wouldn't affect someone else and the tape released by the defense shows that a reasonable person could presume that she was not intoxicated to x level. The defendants don't carry a BAC kit so how would know her level of drunkness and on top of that they were likely drunk themselveswhich also impactedtheir ability to determine how levelof intoxication. It needs to be stated that he was not passed out drunk behind a dumpster or in someone's basement and these guys didn't accost her unawares. She willingly pursued them and then knowingly engaged in sexual conduct.

 

[⠀⠀⠀]

1 woman hanging out with 4 guys alone. All underage drinking. Breh

 

[bourgeoisie tall freak]

Seems like its going to come down to whether they knew if she was too drunk or not. 1) they drunk with her. 2) ol boy said they knew

Depending on how you see the video too. One has to ask, why are they trying so hard to get her to consent on video by asking her 10 times....is it because they thought it might be problematic and wanted to try to get evidence to defend themselves?

But mostly, see #2.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Seems like its going to come down to whether they knew if she was too drunk or not. 1) they drunk with her. 2) ol boy said they knew

Depending on how you see the video too. One has to ask, why are they trying so hard to get her to consent on video by asking her 10 times....is it because they thought it might be problematic and wanted to try to get evidence to defend themselves?

But mostly, see #2.

That's the thing that gets me... We got a bonafide snitch who said they all knew and said to stop because he knew and the accused rapist is already a two time rapist

And black men in here FIGHTING for them like this.. Would any of these men advise their sons to sleep with drunken women?