People are saying he meant "if she's unconscious it's not rape", but I think he was talking about a scenario as he mentioned like a home invasion, is burglary when they're not there, so if he was unconscious at the time, it would not be rape since he wasn't there.
So you can just **** someone and then scream rape afterwards? smfh.
You stay doing the most as always. He admits he gave her drugs and had sex with her, and then goes on a rant about how it's not rape if they weren't conscious and don't remember it. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots and see what happened here.
You stay doing the most as always. He admits he gave her drugs and had sex with her, and then goes on a rant about how it's not rape if they weren't conscious and don't remember it. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots and see what happened here.
Drugs that she took willingly. (Since there wasnt enough evidence to prove that it was rape anyways, which is why that part of the case got dismissed) So yes my arguement still stands.
I think people were misunderstood what he was trying to say.