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

[Themius]

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.

[Santti]

"Your honor, those drugs in the beer were totally not meant for her".

"I even warned her: "Watch out, there might be drugs in that beer, roflmao". So as you can see, she was asking for it".

[Themius]

I’d say what about kidnapping? “We are taking you to a party” then take someone NOT TO A PARTY and rape them. And the law says “if you rape an unconscious person it isn’t rape because they drank themselves. Never mind consenting to actions while unconscious”

[Santti]

I’d say what about kidnapping? “We are taking you to a party” then take someone NOT TO A PARTY and rape them. And the law says “if you rape an unconscious person it isn’t rape because they drank themselves. Never mind consenting to actions while unconscious”

It's a fucked up thing to do, but does this count as a kidnapping, btw? It doesn't seem to tell that she was held against her will, or what happened after she woke up. She was lied to about the party, and that she blacked out on the couch.

[Breccia]

"does not include voluntarily inebriated victims."

So here's a question: was it the inebriated, or the voluntary?

If it's the inebriated, the next challenge will be "sure I put drugs in her drink, but the drink was alcoholic so she new what she was doing". Or "she took sleeping pills because she had a big day tomorrow, that makes her fair game"

If it's the voluntary, I think most people choose to go to sleep. I mean, we've all made the effort to stay up when we want to, right?

This is fucking horrifying. And calling it now, it's reversed the first time a guy gets drunk and then raped by another guy.

[breadisfunny]

I’d say what about kidnapping? “We are taking you to a party” then take someone NOT TO A PARTY and rape them. And the law says “if you rape an unconscious person it isn’t rape because they drank themselves. Never mind consenting to actions while unconscious”

it isn't a kidnapping if it's voluntary. since they had no indication at the time that there was no party and thus no reason to want to leave the vehicle therefore they went there of their own free will that would not fit the definition of kidnapping.

- - - Updated - - -

I’d say what about kidnapping? “We are taking you to a party” then take someone NOT TO A PARTY and rape them. And the law says “if you rape an unconscious person it isn’t rape because they drank themselves. Never mind consenting to actions while unconscious”

wouldn't that be a seperate charge of being held against their will as in a sub category of kidnapping?

also a LOT of states have issues with sexual assault loopholes like this. it isn't exclusive to just minnesota. is there any more detailed articles on this because this article has very sparse information.

[Nihilist74]

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.

[Breccia]

Did she ever give consent for the man to have sex with her?

Hence the issue. This new court case could lead to legal precedent to the opposite -- not only is affirmative consent no longer required, but instead, the victim must deny consent, and if unable to do so, loses the option.

Again, I do believe this will be reversed when a drunk man is unable to deny consent to another man.

[s_bushido]

You are not allowed to rape someone just because they are asleep or passed out.

I mean...it sounds like that court disagrees.

[tehdang]

Read the decision. It hinges on the statutory definition of "mentally incapacitated"

“Mentally incapacitated” means that a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person’s agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration.

So the legislature needs to draft a less narrow definition of the statute to include people that willingly drink to that point. That's a task for the legislators, not for judges to rewrite the law to gain a better verdict.

[Magical Mudcrab]

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.

Wait... would I be right in assuming this means that all a rapist needs to do in Minnesota is prove that a woman willfully drank alcohol to get off the hook for rape? That's beyond fucked up if so.

[AeneasBK]

it isn't a kidnapping if it's voluntary. since they had no indication at the time that there was no party and thus no reason to want to leave the vehicle therefore they went there of their own free will that would not fit the definition of kidnapping.

Who's the "they" in the second sentence, the guys or the girl? Deception seems to be included in the definition.

[Slant]

It's a fucked up thing to do, but does this count as a kidnapping, btw? It doesn't seem to tell that she was held against her will, or what happened after she woke up. She was lied to about the party, and that she blacked out on the couch.

According to 18 U.S.C. 1201, whoever illegally confines, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, seizes or takes away a person and holds for ransom or prize can be considered as a criminal.

Decoy fits this scenario wonderfully. They are lying about the destination, creating a false image in their victim's minds to lure them into a secluded place. How this isn't kidnapping and rape is beyond me. This is a textbook example that should be taught at school. The judges must have really shitty laws to work with. If they were more courageous, they would challenge the law with a proper ruling, ie. send it up the chain and have the Supreme Court change the interpretation.

[Mayhem]

Wait... would I be right in assuming this means that all a rapist needs to do in Minnesota is prove that a woman willfully drank alcohol to get off the hook for rape? That's beyond fucked up if so.

every woman in a bar is fair game then

i cant even

[Slant]

it isn't a kidnapping if it's voluntary. since they had no indication at the time that there was no party and thus no reason to want to leave the vehicle therefore they went there of their own free will that would not fit the definition of kidnapping.

By your narrow definition, every literal "kid-napping" isn't kidnapping if the kids are lured into a van with sweets. I'm sure you'll agree that this can't be right.

[Azadina]

Read the decision. It hinges on the statutory definition of "mentally incapacitated"

So the legislature needs to draft a less narrow definition of the statute to include people that willingly drink to that point. That's a task for the legislators, not for judges to rewrite the law to gain a better verdict.

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.

[Shadowferal]

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

[Gestopft]

Woooow that sounds like something the MN legislature needs to fix ASAP.

[PosPosPos]

Read the decision. It hinges on the statutory definition of "mentally incapacitated"

So the legislature needs to draft a less narrow definition of the statute to include people that willingly drink to that point. That's a task for the legislators, not for judges to rewrite the law to gain a better verdict.

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.

[pathora44]

Let me guess the next ruling by this court. That if a woman's blouse is opened any point below the neckline or if her skirt is higher then two inches below her knee then she can not be raped because obviously she was asking for it. This will obviously be followed by this court ruling that if a women is found outside her home not in the presence of her father or husband then she can not be raped because she was again obviously asking for it.

Seriously, fuck these pieces of shit because they made any woman at a bar or a college student at a party a target for any horny bastard who won't take no for an answer and now has a get out of jail free card.

- - - Updated - - -

Defense Attorney: "Your honor I call for an immediate mistrial and for the arrest of the complaining witness because I have a signed affidavit that the bartender served the so called 'victim' one glass of chardonnay. According to the law she gave full consent for any man to have his way with her clearing my innocent client of just wanting to have a good ole time and that she so harmed him by filing a false police report."

Judge: "The case is dismissed with the courts most sincere apologies to this poor poor good ole boy who was innocently looking for some fun. Now bailiff arrest the complaining witness for filing a false police report and you whore, I hope you have a good attorney because that innocent victim you falsely accuse will sue you for all your worth."