I wrote: " Show where it states in "black and white" that this bill actually applies to rape charges"
and JB responded with: "This bill would apply to college campus tribunals only...... for now"
my response: Exactly, except there is nothing that indicates that it is just "for now" as he claims. So it looks like he finally got it right and realized that, once again, what he had written was not correct. The bill does not apply to rape charges, and it only indicates that when a complaint is made against someone on a college campus for rape, if the accused claims that they didn't rape the person because they had consent, they must prove that they actually had consent. It doesn't indicate that everyone who has had a complaint made against them for sexual assault must prove that they had consent. Stop making things up and exaggerating to try to make it appear that laws exist that don't JB.
Also, it is perfectly valid for someone who is claiming a defense to a crime or complaint to have to prove that their defense is valid. That has been the way things have been in the criminal system years so why shouldn't it also apply to rape? IF someone claims a defense to a crime the burden shifts to them to have to prove that their claimed defense is valid. The accuser will still have to provide proof that crime actually occurred, but if the accused comes up with a defense they will also have to provide proof that the defense is actually valid. What is wrong with that? Its called being fair. For instance, if someone is being criminally tried for shooting someone and they claim it was done out of self defense they must provide proof that that is actually true. Of course the prosecution will still have to prove that they shot the victim, but the accused will also have to prove that they did it out of self defense. Where is the problem with that? Should someone who comes up with a defense just be believed and have the charges dropped without having to provide any proof that what they are claiming is true? That would be absurd.
