Minnesota: Rape is not rape if you have been drinking of your own free will.

[iamwhatiseem]

Fort fun is not interested in intelligent discussion, but wants to use fallacious arguments to form a conclusion that is not relative to the case

False. I am speaking directly to the general principles. So far, what we have is that, should you become legally intoxicated, you think you should have no legal recourse, if a stranger sticks his penis in your butthole without your explicit consent.

I do see your points. However, i have a little sneaking suspicion that, if it were any of you that were ass raped, it might , let's just say, alter your arguments a little bit.

You keep bringing up this erroneous argument, and then accuse others of bringing up a Non sequitur.
It's real easy...
1) I am not gay. So I would obviously therefore never VOLUNTARILY go with some gay man to his house.
2) I am a responsible adult. I drink beer, even brew my own, but I have not been so intoxicated that I can't remember what happened since I was 16 years old.
So, as stated, your argument is a strawman.

I do also notice, you won't say whether you believe a woman should be able to claim rape, even if she doesn't remember what happened. Or simply claims she don't.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But we aren't talking about a friend here, we are talking about a woman who went off with three total strangers

What are you smoking? This ruling is ridiculous. "she said she was standing outside a Minneapolis bar in May 2017 when a man invited her and a friend to a party." Evidently she initially thought they had a numbers advantage. Maybe her friend encouraged her to get in the car when the two other guys appeared. Doesn't matter.

I don't like siding with the usual right wingers on this one, but they kind of have a point.

No, your daughter is not asking to get raped just because she goes out drinking with a friend. Five shots is less than a cup of vodka. Hardly earthshattering. I've seen people drink entire fifths by themselves before passing out. Of course it's pretty stupid and reckless. Like being a twenty-year-old guy again,.. only with serious potential consequences for all. No, you really don't have to stick your dick into every orifice that appears soft and available just because you're young or a guy any more. You don't get a pass for that. Explicit consent is required.

Thing is, "right wingers" always argue for taking individual responsibility. Do the crime? Do the time! Well the crime here was rape, no matter how you slice it. These fuckers were obviously just waiting outside the bar to take advantage of vulnerable young women and you're cheering that on here. They even had prior convictions. Fuck 'em.

this young man shouldn't be spending the better part of his youth because she can't remember what she did

Oh, cry me a fucking river already why don't ya! Guy "voluntarily consumes alcohol and other substances" no problem, right? Only a serious risk for women. Gee, ain't that convenient!

 

[JoeB131]

What are you smoking? This ruling is ridiculous. "she said she was standing outside a Minneapolis bar in May 2017 when a man invited her and a friend to a party." Evidently she initially thought they had a numbers advantage. Maybe her friend encouraged her to get in the car when the two other guys appeared. Doesn't matter.

Actually, the ruling was quite correct. The trial judge allowed a charge that isn't possible under MN law.

Voluntary incapacity is not a lack of consent.

She made exactly the kind of judgement one would make after a five shots of vodka and taking Vicodin.

She was so drunk a bar wouldn't serve her.

No, your daughter is not asking to get raped just because she goes out drinking with a friend. Five shots is less than a cup of vodka. Hardly earthshattering. I've seen people drink entire fifths by themselves before passing out. Of course it's pretty stupid and reckless. Like being a twenty-year-old guy again,.. only with serious potential consequences for all. No, you really don't have to stick your dick into every orifice that appears soft and available just because you're young or a guy any more. You don't get a pass for that. Explicit consent is required.

Okay.. I probably couldn't handle five shots of Vodka. I think I've drank vodka once in my life and it knocked me on my ass... and I'm no tea-tottler.

How do we know there wasn't explicit consent? She doesn't remember most of what she did or said.

Thing is, "right wingers" always argue for taking individual responsibility. Do the crime? Do the time! Well the crime here was rape, no matter how you slice it. These fuckers were obviously just waiting outside the bar to take advantage of vulnerable young women and you're cheering that on here. They even had prior convictions. Fuck 'em.

Did they have prior convictions? Apparently, he had one for theft. Not that that matters, in the eyes of the law.

I'm not cheering them on. EVERYONE involved here exercised bad judgement. Bad Judgement isn't criminal.

 

[Grumblenuts]

She was so drunk a bar wouldn't serve her.

Yes, the bar was clearly not drunk, nor interested in trying to use her drunkenness as some lame excuse for taking advantage of her. Do you think rape is a serious crime? Criminal?

Clarification: The headline on this story has been updated — “felony" rape — to be more specific about the severity of Khalil’s prior conviction.

 

[j-mac]

Good points, however we don't have answers to those questions, so I'll stick with what we do know. And, until more comes out, it looks like he preyed on drunk girls.

If he did, a lot more of them would have come forward... and they haven't. So this sounds a lot more like, "Everyone involved was drunk and made bad decisions."

What in the story explains that this guy was drunk? Because I read it, and it only talked about the girl doing 5 shots, and taking drugs....Then it explains that the girl and her friend were standing outside the bar, and this guy drove up...We don't know, was he in the bar? Was he drinking? Was he drunk? We don't know....So, I think you are making that up to fit your particular narrative...

 

[j-mac]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

 

[j-mac]

What are you smoking? This ruling is ridiculous. "she said she was standing outside a Minneapolis bar in May 2017 when a man invited her and a friend to a party." Evidently she initially thought they had a numbers advantage. Maybe her friend encouraged her to get in the car when the two other guys appeared. Doesn't matter.

Actually, the ruling was quite correct. The trial judge allowed a charge that isn't possible under MN law.

Voluntary incapacity is not a lack of consent.

She made exactly the kind of judgement one would make after a five shots of vodka and taking Vicodin.

She was so drunk a bar wouldn't serve her.

No, your daughter is not asking to get raped just because she goes out drinking with a friend. Five shots is less than a cup of vodka. Hardly earthshattering. I've seen people drink entire fifths by themselves before passing out. Of course it's pretty stupid and reckless. Like being a twenty-year-old guy again,.. only with serious potential consequences for all. No, you really don't have to stick your dick into every orifice that appears soft and available just because you're young or a guy any more. You don't get a pass for that. Explicit consent is required.

Okay.. I probably couldn't handle five shots of Vodka. I think I've drank vodka once in my life and it knocked me on my ass... and I'm no tea-tottler.

How do we know there wasn't explicit consent? She doesn't remember most of what she did or said.

Thing is, "right wingers" always argue for taking individual responsibility. Do the crime? Do the time! Well the crime here was rape, no matter how you slice it. These fuckers were obviously just waiting outside the bar to take advantage of vulnerable young women and you're cheering that on here. They even had prior convictions. Fuck 'em.

Did they have prior convictions? Apparently, he had one for theft. Not that that matters, in the eyes of the law.

I'm not cheering them on. EVERYONE involved here exercised bad judgement. Bad Judgement isn't criminal.

As far as I know the legal age to be served in MN is 21. This woman was 20....Why was the bar serving her at all?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

 

[j-mac]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Voluntary incapacity is not a lack of consent.

Where else is any sort of incapacity construed as legal consent? "Oh gee, look they clearly can't prevent me from doing this.. so I guess that means they want me to and it's all good!"
In PA:

There is a lack of consent if a person engages in a sexual act with another person by forcible compulsion or with a person who is incapable of consent because he or she is physically helpless, mentally defective or mentally incapacitated, or because of a victim’s age. Arkansas Code §§ 5-14-103; 5-14-125.

 

[DrLove]

Open season in Minnesota pickup bars. Ply a woman with a few drinks, rape her and it's all good!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Not even close to true. The girl was way beyond a BAC of 0.08%

We are talking about general principles here. 0.08% is legally intoxicated. Please pay better attention, if you plan to comment again. Thanks.

I noticed you dodged the question. Of all people in this thread, i knew you would be the one to dodge. Or maybe you will just let anyone stick their penis in your butthole and don't mind. Hey..whatever floats your boat.

Anyone who gets blotto drunk deserves what they get. There is no general principle. This equalizes the law. A man cannot use voluntary drunkenness as a defense to anything. Women cannot use voluntary drunkenness as a defense to anything else.

You are trying to drag out absurd laws of patrimony where men were the protectors of weak women in a position where they cannot take care of themselves. That ship has sailed. If you want a man to take NO for an answer make damn well sure you possess the faculties to say no.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Voluntary incapacity is not a lack of consent.

Where else is any sort of incapacity construed as legal consent? "Oh gee, look they clearly can't prevent me from doing this.. so I guess that means they want me to and it's all good!"
In PA:

There is a lack of consent if a person engages in a sexual act with another person by forcible compulsion or with a person who is incapable of consent because he or she is physically helpless, mentally defective or mentally incapacitated, or because of a victim’s age. Arkansas Code §§ 5-14-103; 5-14-125.

Voluntary incapacity is legal consent for a man having unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy. The consent is to be voluntarily incapacitated.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.

So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.

You sure you wanna run with that?

What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.

Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?

Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.

I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...

So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....

I disagree. We don't know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.

You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.

My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.

If she doesn’t remember consenting, did she possess the capacity to consent in the first place?

I hate that we are talking about a man taking advantage of a circumstance where we boil it down to blaming a woman for something when we both agree the guy was scum.

Remember a jury convicted this man.

A jury UNLAWFULLY convicted him. It is the absolute responsibility of the judge to inform the jury of the law. And, therefore, the higher court admonished the lower court is saying "you cannot simply add elements to the law". The judge should have not allowed a rape charge to get to the jury.
I agree, in a perfect world nothing like this would ever happen. But it isn't perfect. And neither is the justice system.
The higher priority is protecting the innocent. And that includes protecting assholes from being convicted of a crime that doesn't apply.
Again, there has to be an element of personal responsibility. A woman cannot posses the power to do/act in any way she wants - to the extreme - and expect others to pay for her poor decisions.
I think this guy is a douchebag. But she is an irresponsible drunk who placed herself WILLINGLY in a position of great risk with no regards of it.

 

[wamose]

So if Cuomo, Biden and Clinton, or anyone else for that matter, would have had the good sense to make sure their victims were drunk and verify it with a pre hanky panky breathalizer, they would all be home free in Minnesota. This law could make the breathalizer a necessity in the dating world.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So if Cuomo, Biden and Clinton, or anyone else for that matter, would have had the good sense to make sure their victims were drunk and verify it with a pre hanky panky breathalizer, they would all be home free in Minnesota. This law could make the breathalizer a necessity in the dating world.

- Or, make using even the most basic common sense and concern for your well being a necessity.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

What is wrong in Minnesota? So many really bad stories out of Minnesota. George Floyd, Justine Damond, Philandro Castilo and now we have this. Minnesota law states that it's not rape if the person has voluntarily been drinking on their own. What kind of warped people pass such a law?

A Minnesota man can’t be charged with rape, because the woman chose to drink beforehand, court rules

Well, its not like no woman never hollered rape when there was no rape.

The nature of women's rape fantasies: an analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents - PubMed

This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

.


Also....well known....some women mean yes when they say no.

Also...well known that women have more intense orgasms whilst being raped and they are more likely to get pregnant when raped than when having normal intercourse.

The pleasure factor women get from being raped is one reason that so many of them feel intense guilt....and that is also a factor in why some men become rapists...they get an intense satisfaction watching a woman they are forcing to have sex get such pleasure from the act.

What Science Says About Arousal During Rape

Yes, orgasms can happen to rape victims.

www.popsci.com

Wow.

So how many women have you raped for their pleasure?

None other than your mother ....you may call me daddy.

so you're into necrophilia too.

Freak

Now son......you should not use bad language....you know what happens when you do that.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Good points, however we don't have answers to those questions, so I'll stick with what we do know. And, until more comes out, it looks like he preyed on drunk girls.

If he did, a lot more of them would have come forward... and they haven't. So this sounds a lot more like, "Everyone involved was drunk and made bad decisions."

What in the story explains that this guy was drunk? Because I read it, and it only talked about the girl doing 5 shots, and taking drugs....Then it explains that the girl and her friend were standing outside the bar, and this guy drove up...We don't know, was he in the bar? Was he drinking? Was he drunk? We don't know....So, I think you are making that up to fit your particular narrative...

Muslims do not drink but they are not above fucking some drunk whore who is making herself available for whatever....if he had left a hundred dollar bill in her panties we would never have heard anything from her.

 

[Anathema]

Very simply this law is just a new level of consequence culture... Pit yourself in a position where you are not capable of making good decisions (drinking alcohol); and then you have to face the potential consequences of that first choice with your potential second bad choice about who to have sex with.

This type of logic is why I don’t drink, smoke, or do drugs.