So in MN being blacked out and raped isn't rape

[Orange Joe]

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/0...d-to-get-drunk



this has been an issue for years and yet... it's not been changed.

Having actually read the article, that is not what is being said at all. The Judges didn't say this wasn't rape. Just that it didn't fall under this specific law. and to have a new trial to charge him with the correct charge.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Paul Thissen said because the meaning of the statute is clear “we apply that meaning and not what we may wish the law was or what we think the law should be.”
Thissen noted that the Minnesota Legislature is “institutionally better positioned than courts” to make public policy, and pointed to efforts to overhaul the criminal sexual conduct statute.
Survivors of sexual assault are urging Minnesota lawmakers to close what they say is a big loophole in state law.

[solinari6]

Did she ever give consent for the man to have sex with her? Sounds like she did not so the man did rape her. Whether she was asleep or passed out from drinking and drugs, she never gave consent. You are not allowed to rape someone just because they are asleep or passed out.

I'm not defending this in ANY way, because this is crazy, but it's entirely possible that she consented while blacked out and simply doesn't remember it. Blacked out is not passed out ... you can appear pretty functional while blacked out.

Though there has always been an interesting dichotomy with "things you are responsible for when you get drunk".
ie:
Got drunk and decided to drive a car. <-- Your fault
Got drunk and decided to have sex with someone you otherwise wouldn't have <-- not your fault

[Jonnusthegreat]

It's a very good thing that we don't consider voluntary inebriation as unable to consent. Otherwise I rape people at least once a week. It's a very bad thing that being unconscious isn't considered impaired.

[Shadowferal]

No. Driving drunk is your decision. Raping someone because she's too drunk to say no...is still your decision.

[solinari6]

No. Driving drunk is your decision. Raping someone because she's too drunk to say no...is still your decision.

No, I think you are not getting it. Right now, if you get really drunk, and black out (not PASS out, just black out) and decide to have sex with someone, you can later go back and say that you were too drunk to consent and it was rape (well, you can't say that in Minnesota, apparently). This is why this ruling is so strange, it goes against everything we've been used to about consent and drinking.

FYI if you are having sex with drunk girls every week, you are playing with fire.

[Elegiac]

It's a very good thing that we don't consider voluntary inebriation as unable to consent. Otherwise I rape people at least once a week.

"Voluntary inebriation" doesn't mean you having a few drinks with your wife before having sex. Stop being vile.

It's always het men making these sorts of comments, too. Yikes.

[solinari6]

Actually, there is another article here, that goes into more detail about the law:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-...cid=uxbndlbing

Minnesota is among a majority of states that treat intoxication as a barrier to consent only if victims became drunk against their will. As of 2016, intoxication provisions in 40 states did not include situations in which someone chose to consume drugs or alcohol, according to Brooklyn Law Review.

Apparently this is widespread? I was always taught that drunk people can't consent to sex, not matter if they got themselves drunk or not. Wild.

[Jonnusthegreat]

"Voluntary inebriation" doesn't mean you having a few drinks with your wife before having sex. Stop being vile.

It's always het men making these sorts of comments, too. Yikes.

Well... yes... it does. That's like, the definition of what that means.

[Themius]

Well... yes... it does. That's like, the definition of what that means.

So someone being blackout drunk you think is fair game for raping?

[Jonnusthegreat]

So someone being blackout drunk you think is fair game for raping?

Did you read my post? The answer is there.

[Mihalik]

Sip

What the fuck? Wait...

I don't follow this...at which point is being black out drunk=consent to sex? Wut? Huh?

Am I missing something here?

Edit.

Right, so I just read the article. So apparently really this wasn't up to the court. It seems there's a massive gaping legal loophole in MN law, a loophole MN legislature has been ignoring for years.

I'm inclined to blame the prosecution here. There had to be a different statute they could have used to prosecute, because they seem to be keenly aware themselves that the loophole exists. Or perhaps they are using this to raise awareness.

I fucking hate the fact that the victim has to go through this shitshow, and that rapist dude is a subhuman piece of shit.

[Orange Joe]

What the fuck? Wait...

I don't follow this...at which point is being black out drunk=consent to sex? Wut? Huh?

Am I missing something here?

Edit.

Right, so I just read the article. So apparently really this wasn't up to the court. It seems there's a massive gaping legal loophole in MN law, a loophole MN legislature has been ignoring for years.

I'm inclined to blame the prosecution here. There had to be a different statute they could have used to prosecute, because they seem to be keenly aware themselves that the loophole exists. Or perhaps they are using this to raise awareness.

I fucking hate the fact that the victim has to go through this shitshow, and that rapist dude is a subhuman piece of shit.

This thread is literally outrage culture at it's best. no one is bothering to read what the actual issue is. They just want to rage about something.

[Themius]

This thread is literally outrage culture at it's best. no one is bothering to read what the actual issue is. They just want to rage about something.

Oh come the fuck off it.

it is a known loophole for years they've not bothered to do anything about despite it being a known problem. This points to them apparently not giving too great a shit about it.

When you have judges who literally will rule to let off a person because they're suffering from being rich.... you can't be surprised things don't change.

It's a known issue and they haven't changed it , why?

The fuck is with you people and claiming things are "outrage culture"

"Omg this is outrage culture they're bitching about the law but hey the law is the law THE KNOWN LOOPHOLE IS THE KNOWN LOOPHOLE THAT NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO CHANGE FOR YEARS so of course this should happen, why complain about it?"

Type of stupid argument is that?

[Orange Joe]

Oh come the fuck off it.

it is a known loophole for years they've not bothered to do anything about despite it being a known problem. This points to them apparently not giving too great a shit about it.

When you have judges who literally will rule to let off a person because they're suffering from being rich.... you can't be surprised things don't change.

It's a known issue and they haven't changed it , why?

The fuck is with you people and claiming things are "outrage culture"

"Omg this is outrage culture they're bitching about the law but hey the law is the law THE KNOWN LOOPHOLE IS THE KNOWN LOOPHOLE THAT NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO CHANGE FOR YEARS so of course this should happen, why complain about it?"

Type of stupid argument is that?

This requires the people of the state to actually care and vote in those that will change it. Judges are not suppose to rule how they feel. they are suppose to rule on how the law is written. If you don't like that move to a country where judges and throw you in jail based on feels.

So if you want to blame ANYONE. The people of that state would be the first to look at.


and yes outrage culture = blaming someone easy, not the people actually responsible.

[Shadowferal]

Loopholes don't excuse knowing right from wrong.

[Mihalik]

This thread is literally outrage culture at it's best. no one is bothering to read what the actual issue is. They just want to rage about something.

I'd say the sheer fact that an undeniable rapist is about to go free on a dumbass technicality is pretty fucking outrageous.

There's also the element that consent laws and reforms around consent laws have been a major battleground for years between "conservatives" and "liberul snowflakes".

I wonder, to what degree has this problem not been addressed just because a Republican dominated legislature has been refusing to address this "just to stick to the liberal snowflakes".

[Orange Joe]

I'd say the sheer fact that an undeniable rapist is about to go free on a dumbass technicality is pretty fucking outrageous.

There's also the element that consent laws and reforms around consent laws have been a major battleground for years between "conservatives" and "liberul snowflakes".

I wonder, to what degree has this problem not been addressed just because a Republican dominated legislature has been refusing to address this "just to stick to the liberal snowflakes".

He isn't about to go free. Right in the first paragraph it says to have another trial and charge him with something that will stick.

As for the rest I agree, but at some point people make their own beds. This is on the people that repeatedly vote those people in office.

[cubby]

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/0...d-to-get-drunk

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for a man convicted of raping a woman who was drunk. The justices ruled that the state's definition of "mentally incapacitated" does not include voluntarily inebriated victims.

Hennepin County prosecutors say that in May of 2017, Francois Khalil encountered a woman outside a Dinkytown bar who’d just consumed five shots of vodka and a prescription narcotic. Khalil invited her and a friend to a party.

Court documents say Khalil and two other men drove them to a house in Minneapolis, where there was no party. The woman, identified only by her initials, testified that she blacked out on the couch and later woke up to find Khalil raping her.

In 2019, a jury in Hennepin County convicted Khalil of third-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a victim who was impaired.

But Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned his conviction, ruling that the state’s legal definition of “mentally incapacitated” only applies if a victim was given drugs or alcohol against their will — not if they consumed the substances voluntarily.

Khalil’s attorney Will Walker said the justices agreed with his contention that the trial judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury.

this has been an issue for years and yet... it's not been changed.

I'm going to get absolutely screamed at here, but the ruling makes technical legal sense - just emotionally fucking sucks. So bare with me.

LET ME BE CLEAR AT THE OUTSET HERE - in my opinion, this is clearly rape. She was unconscious, she did not agree = rape.

The ruling isn't saying that the woman wasn't raped - keep that in mind. They are saying that the reasoning argued by the Prosecution was flawed, because you cannot be ruled mentally imbalanced because you've ingested drugs or alcohol by your own choosing.

This ruling is widely established already in cases where people get drunk and commit crimes - being drunk or under the influence does not give you immunity from the crimes you committed. And we like that overall as a society. In this case the court is saying that her voluntary ingesting of drugs and alcohol does not qualify her as mentally incapacitated.

NOW - how this factor relates to the rape charge is...odd. I'm not sure why the prosecution didn't just argue that the woman was unconscious and never agreed to sex, therefore rape.

[Orange Joe]

I'm going to get absolutely screamed at here, but the ruling makes technical legal sense - just emotionally fucking sucks. So bare with me.

LET ME BE CLEAR AT THE OUTSET HERE - in my opinion, this is clearly rape. She was unconscious, she did not agree = rape.

The ruling isn't saying that the woman wasn't raped - keep that in mind. They are saying that the reasoning argued by the Prosecution was flawed, because you cannot be ruled mentally imbalanced because you've ingested drugs or alcohol by your own choosing.

This ruling is widely established already in cases where people get drunk and commit crimes - being drunk or under the influence does not give you immunity from the crimes you committed. And we like that overall as a society. In this case the court is saying that her voluntary ingesting of drugs and alcohol does not qualify her as mentally incapacitated.

NOW - how this factor relates to the rape charge is...odd. I'm not sure why the prosecution didn't just argue that the woman was unconscious and never agreed to sex, therefore rape.

I know we disagree on some stuff, but you said it better than I ever could. probably has something to do with your legal background :P

[Themius]

This requires the people of the state to actually care and vote in those that will change it. Judges are not suppose to rule how they feel. they are suppose to rule on how the law is written. If you don't like that move to a country where judges and throw you in jail based on feels.

So if you want to blame ANYONE. The people of that state would be the first to look at.


and yes outrage culture = blaming someone easy, not the people actually responsible.

Oh bendito... that is not what that means.