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

[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.

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.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

 

[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.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

That is the point of the law.
The law states that if a person VOLUNTARILY goes with the accused, and VOLUNTARILY gets so drunk that determining consent is impossible, rape cannot be the conviction.... UNLESS... physical evidence can determine rape took place.
And that is not here. She was not physically harmed. At least not from what I read.
This is a bad situation. I totally agree the guy is a dirt bag. But a rapist? That can't be determined. He said she was drunk, but consensual. So we are to believe her over him because why? She is a woman? #BelieveAllWomen?

 

[Ben Thomson]

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

So if your sister or daughter ever calims to have been raped you will just look at her and say..ya sure you were, we know you meant yes when you said no.

 

[Ben Thomson]

From some of these commnets I'm getting the feeling we have a few convicted rapists on this board.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

From some of these commnets I'm getting the feeling we have a few convicted rapists on this board.

A few of them would change their minds if they drank enough to pass out and woke up with a 6'2 240 pound dude corn holing them

 

[Ben Thomson]

Wonder how may sexual predators will now move to Minnesota. It's now open season on women who drink there. Go ahead and rape a woman who has been drinking, you won't get arrested for it. They will probably get on social media and see if there are any bachelorette parties going on somewhere. Party time..YIPEEE!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So if your sister or daughter ever calims to have been raped you will just look at her and say..ya sure you were, we know you meant yes when you said no.

So if your brother or son is accused of rape you will just look at him and say "well you did it!!, she says so!! we know you are guilty!!

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Minnesota SC ruling here was clearly bullshit. However, even arguing that "the law" was simply not and must be followed, a reasonable fix was proposed in the OP link and has been sitting on the table.

If Moller’s bill succeeds in making voluntary drunkenness grounds for a rape charge, prosecutors will still have to explore the defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s state of mind.

“The state still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was intoxicated to the degree incapable of providing consent,” Moller said. “And that burden is high.”

It takes a real blame-the-victim / support-the-rapist mentality to completely disregard any meaningful requirement for consent. Sex is never anything to be taken lightly. Being social animals, consent enables mutual enjoyment in any cooperative activity. Being dead could never be construed as consent so neither is being dead drunk, nor unable to recall what happened. Juries must decide when it boils down to he said / she said. Hooking up with a sociopathic opportunist is always a risk regardless of gender, so best become a good judge of character or abstain.

 

[JoeB131]

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...

As are you guys, really. So we have to go on the facts.

She doesn't remember what happened. He doesn't remember what happened, either, because he said he doesn't remember having sex with her. Was he drunk? Don't know. Was there DNA. Don't know that either. None of the reports say.

The issue of law, though, was that the trial judge allowed a charge of rape to go to the jury when that isn't permissable under MN law, and for good reason.

How was he supposed to know she was too drunk to consent?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

No one should be convicted of rape just because a woman screams rape......there must be physical evidence and even then too many innocent men go to jail cuz some whore lied.

 

[Ben Thomson]

So if your sister or daughter ever calims to have been raped you will just look at her and say..ya sure you were, we know you meant yes when you said no.

So if your brother or son is accused of rape you will just look at him and say "well you did it!!, she says so!! we know you are guilty!!

If there is proof to back up the allegation, hell ya I would tell him it's time to pay for his mistake. But if we lived in Minnesota it wouldn't matter if their was rape, he's scott free.

 

[Ben Thomson]

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.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

No one should be convicted of rape just because a woman screams rape......there must be physical evidence and even then too many innocent men go to jail cuz some whore lied.

Even if there was physical evidence she lied anyway??

 

[TheGreenHornet]

So if your sister or daughter ever calims to have been raped you will just look at her and say..ya sure you were, we know you meant yes when you said no.

So if your brother or son is accused of rape you will just look at him and say "well you did it!!, she says so!! we know you are guilty!!

Exactly....and whats the big deal....unless the woman was beaten up or sumptin....it has been shown that women get intense orgasms whilst being raped....so obviously they enjoly it.

Muslims got one thing right....their ideas on women....put a veil on them.....you rarely see rape in a muslim nation.

But here women go to the grocery store almost nekid....strut around and then act Oh so surprised when some guy gets all excited and wants to fuck them.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Jesus, let me say again, going by some of these comments a few posters on here obviously have been accused of rape at some time or another. Probably true but in their minds..'she asked for it'

 

[Ben Thomson]

So if your sister or daughter ever calims to have been raped you will just look at her and say..ya sure you were, we know you meant yes when you said no.

So if your brother or son is accused of rape you will just look at him and say "well you did it!!, she says so!! we know you are guilty!!

Exactly....and whats the big deal....unless the woman was beaten up or sumptin....it has been shown that women get intense orgasms whilst being raped....so obviously they enjoly it.

Muslims got one thing right....their ideas on women....put a veil on them.....you rarely see rape in a muslim nation.

But here women go to the grocery store almost nekid....strut around and then act Oh so surprised when some guy gets all excited and wants to fuck them.

Standard defense of sexual predators...your mama must be proud...unless she was the one who taught you to think that way.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Jesus, let me say again, going by some of these comments a few posters on here obviously have been accused of rape at some time or another. Probably true but in their minds..'she asked for it'

Of course they ask for it....in one way or another....a pious and smart woman rarely.....very rarely gets raped.

 

[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.

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.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

That is the point of the law.
The law states that if a person VOLUNTARILY goes with the accused, and VOLUNTARILY gets so drunk that determining consent is impossible, rape cannot be the conviction.... UNLESS... physical evidence can determine rape took place.
And that is not here. She was not physically harmed. At least not from what I read.
This is a bad situation. I totally agree the guy is a dirt bag. But a rapist? That can't be determined. He said she was drunk, but consensual. So we are to believe her over him because why? She is a woman? #BelieveAllWomen?

No, please don’t lump me in with all that #BelieveallWomen nonsense.
First of all, you don’t know if she was physically harmed or not, unless you have a copy of the examination. Second, did you miss the testimony where she told him she didn’t want to have sex, and he continued anyway?

In any case I don’t think, from our conversation here, that we are going to agree.

 

[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

So if your sister or daughter ever calims to have been raped you will just look at her and say..ya sure you were, we know you meant yes when you said no.

Decent women rarely get raped....and no man should go to jail merely because some chic says oh by the way I said no...dont be ridiculous....no man should go to jail because of what any woman says. Let us face the ugly truth......women lie.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

The WaPo is reporting that she gained consciousness mid way through and told him she didn’t want to do that, and he continued as she passed back out...

“Khalil drove the women to a house in northern Minneapolis, prosecutors allege. The friend later testified that the woman immediately lay down on the couch and fell asleep.
When the woman woke up and saw that Khalil was allegedly raping her, she told him she didn’t want to have sex, court records say.
“But you’re so hot and you turn me on,” he allegedly replied.
The woman then lost consciousness and woke up between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. with her shorts around her ankles, she testified. She and her friend left the house in a Lyft vehicle, and the woman went to a hospital to have a rape kit done later that day. She reported the case to Minneapolis police four days later, according to court records.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/03/26/minnesota-rape-alcohol/

That is the point of the law.
The law states that if a person VOLUNTARILY goes with the accused, and VOLUNTARILY gets so drunk that determining consent is impossible, rape cannot be the conviction.... UNLESS... physical evidence can determine rape took place.
And that is not here. She was not physically harmed. At least not from what I read.
This is a bad situation. I totally agree the guy is a dirt bag. But a rapist? That can't be determined. He said she was drunk, but consensual. So we are to believe her over him because why? She is a woman? #BelieveAllWomen?

No, please don’t lump me in with all that #BelieveallWomen nonsense.
First of all, you don’t know if she was physically harmed or not, unless you have a copy of the examination. Second, did you miss the testimony where she told him she didn’t want to have sex, and he continued anyway?

In any case I don’t think, from our conversation here, that we are going to agree.

What if she ways lying? Ever known a woman that lied? Not a rare thing by a long shot. Get real boyo.....women need to be kept barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen....then they would not get into so much trouble.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The bottom line is simply this(and no more stupid comments please) the law is designed to protect everyone not just women....but now women like blacks have been given privileged status just because they are a woman....that is not a good thing.

Innocent men are going to jail because of women that lie....and what does our vaunted leader say....oh women must be believed....even though he has been accused of rape by 8 women....why is he not in Jail?

I remember in college i was confiding with a buddy about some problems I was having with some girls.....everything would be going great....both of us having a good time.....i would get them half nekid and both of us would be excited but then they would say oh no...i cant do this...I want to be a virgin when I get married as well as a few other lame excuses.

My friend enlightened me....he told me when they pull that shit on him he just slaps the shit out of them and suddenly their resistance just melts away.

I found him to be right. I got lots of pussy in college....whilst these nerdy little pissants like you see on here claiming oh if she says no she means no.....what malarky.

Women want some dick just like men want some pussy....but women let irrelevant things get in the way of getting what they really want....they are just too indecisive....one has to take charge and that is what they really want...someone else to make the decision for them so then they will not feel guilty.