Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    sandy, sl,ut
    Posts
    8,182

    Minnesota supreme court just ruled rape is legal

    As long as the victim willingly got intoxicated. I don't know how this could happen. Even just practically, while establishing consent is a complicated thing legally, establishing someone 'willingly' became intoxicated if someone else makes their drinks or hands them drinks seems thorny at best. Someone could willingly have one drink or two, but establishing that anyone willingly got pass out rape me drunk seems ridiculous.

    I would absolutely hope there are plummeting matriculation levels to all higher education in the state.

    I want to fucking tar and feather the people who voted for this. I know they aren't legally liable, but morally, they are absolutely complicit in rape.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________
    "We don't need predator control, we need whiner control. Anyone who complains that "the gummint oughta do sumpin" about the wolves and coyotes should be darted, caged, and released in a more suitable habitat for them, like the middle of Manhattan." - Spats

    "I'm constantly doing things I can't do. Thats how I get to do them." - Pablo Picasso

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Maine Coast
    Posts
    3,524
    Saw that earlier and have no idea how it happened. The court even is a majority female. One of the worst rulings I have seen in a while.

    https://www.mncourts.gov/supremecourt.aspx

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    14,418
    But clubbing someone over the head and then raping them is still illegal?

    Asking for a friend.
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    59715
    Posts
    4,218

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    10,767

    Minnesota supreme court just ruled rape is legal

    Blame the state legislature not the court.

    The thread title should be changed because its misleading and not at all accurate.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    funland
    Posts
    5,151
    MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT JUST RULED RAPE IS LEGAL
    No it didn't.


    Being intentionally misleading takes away your credibility. Be better; this tactic is what I expect from the OANs and Newsmaxs of the world.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    16,478
    Some where Bill Cosby is POed and wants a new trial.
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    sandy, sl,ut
    Posts
    8,182
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    Blame the state legislature not the court.

    The thread title should be changed because it’s misleading and not at all accurate.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    It is hyperbolic..... as i do admit supreme court are not supposed to legislate from the bench and this is then doing their job to highlight that the state legislature needs to change the law.

    but still fuck man fuck like you cant do that you just cant. This was that outlier 'what if' situation in which you absofuckinglutly should legislate from the bench. You cannot set that legal precedent you can't do that morally.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________
    "We don't need predator control, we need whiner control. Anyone who complains that "the gummint oughta do sumpin" about the wolves and coyotes should be darted, caged, and released in a more suitable habitat for them, like the middle of Manhattan." - Spats

    "I'm constantly doing things I can't do. Thats how I get to do them." - Pablo Picasso

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    13,491
    In other news, Leroy still doesn't understand what happened here. The gist of it is that the prosecutor simply charged under the wrong law. If he would have charged under the correct law, the defendant still would have been found guilty of rape.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    sandy, sl,ut
    Posts
    8,182
    Quote Originally Posted by RootSkier View Post
    In other news, Leroy still doesn't understand what happened here. The gist of it is that the prosecutor simply charged under the wrong law. If he would have charged under the correct law, the defendant still would have been found guilty of rape.
    I don't understand. That is why I posted this thread. Theres a lot in the world I do not understand and that is ok, but I like to learn. I a willing to believe what you said could be true, but still don't see how it excuses this.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________
    "We don't need predator control, we need whiner control. Anyone who complains that "the gummint oughta do sumpin" about the wolves and coyotes should be darted, caged, and released in a more suitable habitat for them, like the middle of Manhattan." - Spats

    "I'm constantly doing things I can't do. Thats how I get to do them." - Pablo Picasso

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    19,169
    Leroy--if you read post #4 and still don't understand then there's nothing anyone else can say that will help you. And how can you say courts aren't supposed to legislate and then say that in this case they should do exactly that? This is not some rare outlier--women have been getting themselves drunk and then raped forever; it will keep happening and the rapists will keep getting off until the MN legislature changes the law, which is likely going to happen soon. Just as soon as they get done fixing whatever law it is that is going to let Derek Chauvin walk free.

    Now be a good boy and delete the thread and if you think you just have to comment on the case, rewrite it.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    14,726
    Wtf is up with deleting threads these days?

    It’s a legit gripe. Yes blame belongs to the legislature not the court.

    The only answer is more Somali immigrants. Or more lutefisk.
    Im a subhuman jizz monkey

    Thx mods. Its an awesome signature.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,785
    The thing I didn't understand about this case was why they had to bring drunkenness into it at all to make a rape case. You can't just go up to an unconscious person and start having sex with them. She woke up and told him to stop. Both those things would seem sufficient to bring rape charges. It's not as if anyone has ever suggested that you can be too drunk to not consent.

    I wonder if the DA just messed up in choosing what charges to bring or there was a reason for using the charge contingent on drunkenness.

    And lawyer mags: if a DA brings the incorrect charge and the case is remanded on appeal for something like incorrect jury instructions, is the new trial limited to the original charges?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    6,283
    If this ruling doesn't piss you off, you have no soul or morals. Beyond fuct

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusBrody View Post
    I wonder if the DA just messed up in choosing what charges to bring or there was a reason for using the charge contingent on drunkenness.

    And lawyer mags: if a DA brings the incorrect charge and the case is remanded on appeal for something like incorrect jury instructions, is the new trial limited to the original charges?
    1. That's right. Most prosecutors are total fuckin' chumps and zealously overcharge and over-prosecute. I know one who had a total hard on for charging nonviolent drug offenses but would then sit around the campground smoking weed all weekend. Whatadouche.

    2. He was convicted based on both an improper charge/instruction so basically it is like the trial never happened and they start over. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to change the charges during the retrial.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Haxorland
    Posts
    7,112
    Judge missed the mark. From what I can quickly gather from the case, the girl was passed out, asleep. That sounds like that qualifies under Subd. 9 as physically helpless, not mentally incapacitated Subd 7

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.341

    Subd. 7.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.

    Subd. 9.Physically helpless. "Physically helpless" means that a person is (a) asleep or not conscious, (b) unable to withhold consent or to withdraw consent because of a physical condition, or (c) unable to communicate nonconsent and the condition is known or reasonably should have been known to the actor.
    I'm no lawyer, but there's either more to the case here, or I should open up my own law practice and be better than the prosecution here. These definitions are right next to each other and a dumbass like me can find it within a 30 second google search.

    Bad job by the judge and prosecution, worse job by the legislature for writing this shitty law.
    I've concluded that DJSapp was never DJSapp, and Not DJSapp is also not DJSapp, so that means he's telling the truth now and he was lying before.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    funland
    Posts
    5,151
    trayvon martin and the malheur takeover being another two examples of people getting away with something they never should have because prosecutors chose to charge them incorrectly.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    funland
    Posts
    5,151
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    It is hyperbolic.....
    Sidney Powell is claiming the same thing. that's no excuse for being a liar.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Making the Bowl Great Again
    Posts
    13,491
    Quote Originally Posted by DJSapp View Post
    Judge missed the mark. From what I can quickly gather from the case, the girl was passed out, asleep. That sounds like that qualifies under Subd. 9 as physically helpless, not mentally incapacitated Subd 7



    I'm no lawyer, but there's either more to the case here, or I should open up my own law practice and be better than the prosecution here. These definitions are right next to each other and a dumbass like me can find it within a 30 second google search.

    Bad job by the judge and prosecution, worse job by the legislature for writing this shitty law.
    The problem is that the jury instruction was that she was "mentally incapacitated" under (7). That statute says:

    Subd. 7.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.

    Any half-brained lawyer can tell you this entire subsection requires that the alcohol, narcotic, or any other substance be "administered to that person without the person's agreement." Nothing in this subsection even HINTS that voluntary intoxication would apply to a charge under it.

    tl;dr The court got it right, the legislature is the one that needs to get its house in order.

    Here is the whole opinion. I would suggest you read it if you are outraged: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov...281-032421.pdf

    This thread title is the most misleading one I've seen in some time, but it squares with the overall reporting about this (incredibly fucked up) case.
    Last edited by RootSkier; 03-29-2021 at 04:07 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Timberridge View Post
    But clubbing someone over the head and then raping them is still illegal?

    Asking for a friend.
    Classy.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Haxorland
    Posts
    7,112
    Quote Originally Posted by RootSkier View Post
    The problem is that the jury instruction was that she was "mentally incapacitated" under (7). That statute says:

    Subd. 7.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.

    Any half-brained lawyer can tell you this entire subsection requires that the alcohol, narcotic, or any other substance be "administered to that person without the person's agreement." Nothing in this subsection even HINTS that voluntary intoxication would apply to a charge under it.

    tl;dr The court got it right, the legislature is the one that needs to get its house in order.

    Here is the whole opinion. I would suggest you read it if you are outraged: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov...281-032421.pdf

    This thread is the most misleading one I've seen in some time, but it squares with the overall reporting about this (incredibly fucked up) case.
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I don't understand. That is why I posted this thread. Theres a lot in the world I do not understand and that is ok, but I like to learn. I a willing to believe what you said could be true, but still don't see how it excuses this.
    To help you along here Leroy:

    1. Mn did define law here that is intending to say if someone willingly gets drunk and then positively consent, they can't use drunkenness solely as a defense. I.E. if a girl has alcohol that she drank herself, it isn't a magical retroactive defense that mean she can consent at the time and then two weeks later say she was drunk and her consent was therefore invalid even though she said yes. If this was the case, any sane dude would never, ever have sex with a woman after they had a single drink because of this magical retroactive legal defense. Now if that drink is drugged without her knowledge, that is a valid defense.

    2. The case says she was passed out on the couch and woke up while being raped, and then said no (unclear if he stopped after consent was revoked). Subd. 9 of the statue says raping someone who is physically helpless (i.e. asleep) is a crime. Dude was charged under Subd. 7 implying she was just intoxicated. There is likely more to the story here, either that she wasn't actually asleep or the D.A. is a fucking idiot and missed a slam dunk here under Subd 9. Why he wasn't brought up on charges under both sections is the real question. Why didn't the D.A. go after the case that she was passed out, asleep and helpless?

    From the case brief, it sure as hell sounds like a rape. From the legal side of it, someone screwed this up. Why wouldn't the judge mention to the D.A. that this is a Subd. 9 issue? Why would the legislature have such a narrow definition under Subd 9 of physically helpless?

    And there is a grey area with the Subd. 7 issue. There is a difference inbetween being slightly drunk and blacked out on your feet that the Mn. statue doesn't address. People can be blacked out which would is essentially 'physically helpless', but doesn't meet that standard under the Mn. definition, but subd. 7 doesn't allow for someone to get to a physically helpless state on their own. The judge would be correct here to blast the legislature for not addressing this. There is a flip side argument here for the example I put up first of the one drink defense.
    I've concluded that DJSapp was never DJSapp, and Not DJSapp is also not DJSapp, so that means he's telling the truth now and he was lying before.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    8,397
    Well since I only read thread titles and then barely peruse the thread comments Im assuming I can rape chicks In Minnesota now.

    Thanks for the notice OP.

    Let me call up T-Bag and the boys and git-ta-gittin. SWEET!




    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Wasatch Back: 7000'
    Posts
    11,693
    Is there any mention of sec.9 by the Court? If there is I didn’t see it. Did the Complaint need to include a count for violating sec. 9. I haven’t read the statute, but I think DJSapp makes a great point. At the very least in dicta the Supreme Court should have mentioned that a cause of action should have been brought under section 9.

    Lastly if Minnesota requires that the original pleading contain a specific subsection of a statute and that did not happen here, I’m sure that the prosecutors E and O provider, Whether it be the county or a private ensure, has been placed on notice
    A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.
    ― Milton Friedman

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by schindlerpiste View Post
    Is there any mention of sec.9 by the Court? If there is I didn’t see it. Did the Complaint need to include a count for violating sec. 9. I haven’t read the statute, but I think DJSapp makes a great point. At the very least in dicta the Supreme Court should have mentioned that a cause of action should have been brought under section 9.

    Lastly if Minnesota requires that the original pleading contain a specific subsection of a statute and that did not happen here, I’m sure that the prosecutors E and O provider, Whether it be the county or a private ensure, has been placed on notice
    Yeah, it's addressed. I only skimmed the actual Court decision that RootSkier posted but it's worth doing.

    The decision seems to be based more on the fact that the jury was given instructions that the court found to be an incorrect interpretation of the law.

    Relevant quote:

    While the jury may have relied on a physical helplessness theory regardless of the district court’s erroneous instruction as to the definition of mentally incapacitated, we do not know whether it did so. Thus, because we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court’s erroneous jury instructions were harmless, Khalil is entitled to a new trial.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    21,788
    What a weird legal shitshow. Since when does it matter if someone is drunk or not? If you put something in someone without consent then it's rape. End of story.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •