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

[cubby]

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

Indeed we have.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you saying what you did here - thank you.

[Themius]

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.

The important thing to note here is that this is a known issue in regards to rape and has been an issue for years and nothing has changed in the way of tackling this area.

[cubby]

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".

This appellate ruling has nothing to do with consent laws.

[Themius]

Indeed we have.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you saying what you did here - thank you.

It probably has something to do with you not prattling on about "outrage culture" like some fox news host.

[cubby]

The important thing to note here is that this is a known issue in regards to rape and has been an issue for years and nothing has changed in the way of tackling this area.

What issue specifically - I discussed at least two, so I just want to be clear before I respond.

[Themius]

What issue specifically - I discussed at least two, so I just want to be clear before I respond.

This one:

Survivors of sexual assault are urging Minnesota lawmakers to close what they say is a big loophole in state law.

Lindsay Brice, law and policy director at the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the ruling was no surprise because the statute’s language doesn’t leave much room for interpretation.

“It makes it very clear that this issue needs to be fixed at the Legislature,” Brice said.

DFL Rep. Kelly Moller of Shoreview is sponsoring legislation that would change the law to say that anyone who’s intoxicated is incapable of consenting to sex even if they consumed alcohol or drugs voluntarily. Moller, who’s also an assistant Hennepin County attorney, said this would give prosecutors additional tools.

There have been cases on this before with this issue already and it makes news for a while and then ultimately nothing actively changes.

which you noted:

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

.

The idea is that the law should be anyone who is intoxicated is incapable of consenting, that would actually be in the spirit of the law.

[cubby]

This one:

Survivors of sexual assault are urging Minnesota lawmakers to close what they say is a big loophole in state law.

Lindsay Brice, law and policy director at the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the ruling was no surprise because the statute’s language doesn’t leave much room for interpretation.

“It makes it very clear that this issue needs to be fixed at the Legislature,” Brice said.

DFL Rep. Kelly Moller of Shoreview is sponsoring legislation that would change the law to say that anyone who’s intoxicated is incapable of consenting to sex even if they consumed alcohol or drugs voluntarily. Moller, who’s also an assistant Hennepin County attorney, said this would give prosecutors additional tools.

There have been cases on this before with this issue already and it makes news for a while and then ultimately nothing actively changes.

which you noted:

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

The idea is that the law should be anyone who is intoxicated is incapable of consenting, that would actually be in the spirit of the law.

I entirely agree with what you're saying here.

[Themius]

I entirely agree with what you're saying here.

The argument that extend off of that is that in this area, the lawmakers aren't too terribly concerned or don't find it a terribly pressing matter since it been as issues for years, been brought up for years, and everyone says "oh what a shame about that." and then summarily do nothing.

This is why with our buddy orange saying this is just "outrage culture" fails for me as it is an appeal to law as if law is virtuous and ethical by virtue of being law.

[Orange Joe]

every woman in a bar is fair game then

i cant even

Since it lists anesthetics too, does that mean anyone going for surgery requiring anesthetics is completely free game for raping, since they obviously had to consent to it as part of the process?

Something doesn't add up...at all. Judge is just rape apologist.

"Ladies Night" at the local bar seems like it may have somewhat different meaning in some areas.

It can easily be read as "under the influence of (alcohol), (a narcotic), (anesthetic), (or any other substance, administered to that person without the person’s agreement)", rather than "under the influence of (alcohol administered to that person without the person’s agreement)".

Obviously the judge deliberately chose to interpret it as the latter, because the judge is a rape apologist and misogynist.

The argument that extend off of that is that in this area, the lawmakers aren't too terribly concerned or don't find it a terribly pressing matter since it been as issues for years, been brought up for years, and everyone says "oh what a shame about that." and then summarily do nothing.

This is why with our buddy orange saying this is just "outrage culture" fails for me as it is an appeal to law as if law is virtuous and ethical by virtue of being law.

Want me to quote more for you? I'm willing to bet not one of those people actually read the link and just decided to blame the judge and be outraged that this happened.

[Themius]

Want me to quote more for you? I'm willing to bet not one of those people actually read the link and just decided to blame the judge and be outraged that this happened.

How is shadowferal's post out of order?

Ladies night as a bar... go get drunk and if you're raped well... hope your lawyer doesn't claim because you were blackout drunk and mentally incapable... else your case may run into some issues.

Saying women in a bar is fair game is also fair because again... just by being in a bar and drinking you close yourself off from one claim for why it is rape...

Which is an issue and has been for years and is known.

[Orange Joe]

How is shadowferal's post out of order?

Ladies night as a bar... go get drunk and if you're raped well... hope your lawyer doesn't claim because you were blackout drunk and mentally incapable... else your case may run into some issues.

Saying women in a bar is fair game is also fair because again... just by being in a bar and drinking you close yourself off from one claim for why it is rape...

Which is an issue and has been for years and is known.

Odd. You seem to have some text in Shadows post that isn't showing on my screen......

[Themius]

Odd. You seem to have some text in Shadows post that isn't showing on my screen......

"Ladies Night" at the local bar seems like it may have somewhat different meaning in some areas.


My first thought goes to what the topic is about. The loophole around this issue and taking alcohol on purpose.

[Orange Joe]

"Ladies Night" at the local bar seems like it may have somewhat different meaning in some areas.


My first thought goes to what the topic is about. The loophole around this issue and taking alcohol on purpose.

And the rests of the posts? Just reasonable people with reasonable concerns?

[s_bushido]

And the rests of the posts? Just reasonable people with reasonable concerns?

I recognize that you probably think you're being the reasonable enlightened thinker, but when this guy inevitably goes free, what will your excuse for not being outraged be, then? If the law says that a person literally cannot be considered a rape victim if they're willingly intoxicated, why exactly should anyone think that he's not going to get away with rape? The pathetic "oh, but he's getting a second trial!" excuse isn't really going to hold up in this case, now is it?

[Deus Mortis]

I recognize that you probably think you're being the reasonable enlightened thinker, but when this guy inevitably goes free, what will your excuse for not being outraged be, then? If the law says that a person literally cannot be considered a rape victim if they're willingly intoxicated, why exactly should anyone think that he's not going to get away with rape? The pathetic "oh, but he's getting a second trial!" excuse isn't really going to hold up in this case, now is it?

I would assume there are several other things they could probably charge him with. Just sadly with how the law is written he can't be convicted like he did. Hopefully it gets enough attention so that the law does get changed.

[s_bushido]

I would assume there are several other things they could probably charge him with. Just sadly with how the law is written he can't be convicted like he did. Hopefully it gets enough attention so that the law does get changed.

If it was anything but sexual assault law and prosecution I might have a little more optimism. But that shit is notoriously garbage. This particular "she got drunk herself so she was clearly asking for it" law is just another case-in-point. So I'm not holding my breath that a rapist will actually be punished.

[Mayhem]

Want me to quote more for you? I'm willing to bet not one of those people actually read the link and just decided to blame the judge and be outraged that this happened.

You were right, I didn't read it. I read it now. I stand by my post because literally, nothing changed after reading about the decision. The way the US justice system works, the Minnesota supreme court could have made a precedent by not dismissing the ruling, they chose to go the other way. How fucked up do you have to be that you rule a passed-out person mentally capable?

So every drunk woman in Minnesota is fair game, because how the fuck do you prove that someone made you drink more than you should when you passed-out? I mean, why the hell is being raped less meaningful than how willingly you drank vodka?

[Mihalik]

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.

He is getting released.

Yeah they'll retry him, but it's to be seen what can they make stick, and whether he'll just plea out for time served or whatnot as a lot of the evidence used in the previous trial might not be usable again.

[Shadowferal]

S'funny...oh I completely understand the legal angle as written. But I remember the outrage when a guy got busted for upskirting in MASS. There wasn't an actual law and the guy had to be set free...and we saw the state legislature react as swift, well, as fast that these can go to get a law on the books against it.

Lets see how quick MN can react.

[Orange Joe]

I recognize that you probably think you're being the reasonable enlightened thinker, but when this guy inevitably goes free, what will your excuse for not being outraged be, then? If the law says that a person literally cannot be considered a rape victim if they're willingly intoxicated, why exactly should anyone think that he's not going to get away with rape? The pathetic "oh, but he's getting a second trial!" excuse isn't really going to hold up in this case, now is it?

I personally won't be outraged. This is on MN citizens and the law makers they vote in that allow this and don't work to change it. Does it suck she won't see justice? of course. maybe this will wake some people up that something does need changed and the current government isn't doing it.