Minnesota supreme court just ruled rape is legal

[old goat]

The SC decision didn't clear the defendant--he has to have a new trial. If there is another statute that applies that is more likely to convict him no doubt he will be charged under it. If there is no MN statute that he can be convicted under then the fuckup was clearly on the part of the legislature.

It still doesn't sound like a slam dunk. She says she was raped when she was passed out. He says she was drunk but not out and seemed to consent--ie not physically helpless. We all know (have personally experienced maybe) that drunk people can black out events that occurred while they were seemingly awake and mentally functioning--eg The "Honorable{ Brett Kavanaugh
It seems like the MN legislature, when it enacted the law, was sending a message that if you get yourself drunk and bad stuff happens to you--well, you shouldn't have gotten drunk.
I certainly don't agree with this thinking. DJ Sapp says " If this was the case [allowing women to claim they couldn't consent because they were under the influence of alcohol}, any sane dude would never, ever have sex with a woman after they had a single drink because of this magical retroactive legal defense." Is that necessarily a bad thing--that men would only have sex with women they were absolutely sure wanted to have sex with them?

[Choss Jonger, Sr.]

Why is it that no one ever asks me if I consent? Why is it that questions of “sober enough to consent” aren’t applied to me? /rhetoric

Having external genitalia and a larger body, metabolizing alcohol more efficiently conspire to rob me of my ability to say NO.

[DJSapp]

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.

Yeah, reading deeper in the MNSC's decision, it's primarily based on the instructions given to the jury and the specific part he was charged and found guilty on having this issue, not the facts of the case which are only briefly summarized as 'She had 5 vodkas, some Rx narcotics, was denied entrance to another bar, was invited to the accused man's house, passed out, woke up during the rape and said to stop. Woke up the next morning without shorts on, found them along with her friend and left.' Nothing from the defense's side of things. The SC ordered a new trial as the jury was not instructed correctly, not that he be set free, and took the time to light up the legislature for these loopholes.

All that said, with the same facts, same prosecution, and no change in defense, would another jury come to a different conclusion? I'd wager no.

[leroy jenkins]

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.

Yea, I don't get how it is different than a non sexual assault? A sober conscious person could consent to a mma fight or boxing match, or I guess to being spit on as part of some art project or something, but are we allowed to just beat the shit out of sleeping people or spit on them?

[leroy jenkins]

Sidney Powell is claiming the same thing. that's no excuse for being a liar.

Oh now that is hyperbole. My thread title deceived noone and you know it. Yet you're like personally offended by it. Jesus fucking christ dude. Yes my slightly facetious thread title on an internet message board about skiing is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth to manipulate people into giving me some sort of power to wrest control of a supposedly democratic nation. Yes my actions are an evil on par with that. What fucking world do you live in dude do you hear yourself?

[DJSapp]

DJ Sapp says " If this was the case [allowing women to claim they couldn't consent because they were under the influence of alcohol}, any sane dude would never, ever have sex with a woman after they had a single drink because of this magical retroactive legal defense." Is that necessarily a bad thing--that men would only have sex with women they were absolutely sure wanted to have sex with them?

It could be weaponized both ways. Say you ask her out for dinner and a movie. She meets at the bar and already has one glass of wine in hand and she closes out the tab. You eat dinner without drinking anything. You watch the 2 hour show. You take a walk afterward. She invites you upstairs and magic happens. Next morning she heads out to her Dr. and gets a rape kit done as a secret insurance policy. Shit goes sideways two weeks later and the two of you and you break it off. She calls her lawyer and says she was raped while drunk on your first date. She has the bar receipt which is a lot longer than you thought because her friends were there drinking with her, so it's 6 glasses of wine, not one. You thought she was stone cold sober. She has a morning after rape kit as evidence. Enjoy paying a lawyer $100k to fight this he said she said argument about how drunk she felt and lose because of these woke laws. Enjoy losing your job because you're in county and can't make bail during the proceedings.

Yes, that's a very different example and fairly extreme. Yes, it's a slippery slope, and I've know some vindicitive women that would be capable of this kind of thing. But unless you install a breathalyzer on your bedpost and make her blow a 0.00 before the pants come off it's dangerous both ways. I agree that men should absolutely be certain that a woman is ready and willing to have sex, but basing that on absolute stone cold sobriety is a bit too extreme. Allowing a head nod or a slurred 'okaaaayyyy whateverrrr' of someone in a functional blackout is far too far as well. There's a middle ground here, but I'm not going to be the one to figure out how to measure it.

[Core Shot]

Why have none of you mentioned the facts.

This isn’t date rape.

Rapist wasn’t in the bar with her. She stumbles into the street after four shots and a perc or two.

He drags her home and violates her. Wtf.
Where’s jong slaughter? This is rape cut and dried. Fuck that fucking fuck. Cut off his Johnson. Preserve it in lye. Then rehydrate it and make him eat it with pepper and cream sauce. #lutefisk

[old goat]

The middle ground is getting to know someone reasonably well before you fuck them. While most of us have never been accused of rape, I would guess most of us have impulse fucked at least one person who caused us more trouble than the sex was worth. Getting to know someone isn't foolproof either, but it helps. But I'm old fashioned, and old.

As far as the legal middle ground--you're right DJ, it's tricky. As Ben Franklin put it "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Hundreds of years before that Maimonides said 1000.

[k2skier112]

It could be weaponized both ways. Say you ask her out for dinner and a movie. She meets at the bar and already has one glass of wine in hand and she closes out the tab. You eat dinner without drinking anything. You watch the 2 hour show. You take a walk afterward. She invites you upstairs and magic happens. Next morning she heads out to her Dr. and gets a rape kit done as a secret insurance policy. Shit goes sideways two weeks later and the two of you and you break it off. She calls her lawyer and says she was raped while drunk on your first date. She has the bar receipt which is a lot longer than you thought because her friends were there drinking with her, so it's 6 glasses of wine, not one. You thought she was stone cold sober. She has a morning after rape kit as evidence. Enjoy paying a lawyer $100k to fight this he said she said argument about how drunk she felt and lose because of these woke laws. Enjoy losing your job because you're in county and can't make bail during the proceedings.

Yes, that's a very different example and fairly extreme. Yes, it's a slippery slope, and I've know some vindicitive women that would be capable of this kind of thing. But unless you install a breathalyzer on your bedpost and make her blow a 0.00 before the pants come off it's dangerous both ways. I agree that men should absolutely be certain that a woman is ready and willing to have sex, but basing that on absolute stone cold sobriety is a bit too extreme. Allowing a head nod or a slurred 'okaaaayyyy whateverrrr' of someone in a functional blackout is far too far as well. There's a middle ground here, but I'm not going to be the one to figure out how to measure it.

If you actually knew any woman that has been raped, you'd see how fucked up that retarded example is. Men are fucking pigs. Rapes are not usually reported. That was seriously some misogynistic BS dude

[adrenalated]

As Ben Franklin put it "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer".

The issue with that quote, in the context of rape, is that an innocent person suffers when a guilty person escapes.

[I Skied Bandini Mountain]

yeah, I couldn't see this entire thread going off the rails.

[Lone Star]

What fucking world do you live in dude do you hear yourself?

Same one you met me in. Not the real one. That's what's great about it

[neufox47]

If you actually knew any woman that has been raped, you'd see how fucked up that retarded example is. Men are fucking pigs. Rapes are not usually reported. That was seriously some misogynistic BS dude

I can’t find it but there was a podcast where two women debated the application of justice by universities, one had defended the accused and the other prosecuted. The one who defended the accused had stories like what DJ Sapp offered. One in particular was of a white girl who gave a blow job to a black guy and while she stated she was never threatened nor did she say no or express an unwillingness to have sex she said afterwards she didn’t want to do it but felt she “had to” in that situation and accused him of rape.

So while in the majority of cases I think you are right but there are cases like that.

[DJSapp]

Core Shot: you got a link to the facts of the case? The SC brief doesn't support what you said. In fact, if you read it, it's mostly silent on facts and witness statements. I'd love to know more from the case if you have a link.

K2: my example was an extreme one. I've know women who were sexually assaulted. I've known men that were falsely accused and had their lives wrecked because of it. I completely agree that men are fucking disgusting pigs. I work in construction which is the retirement program for ex cons, ex military, ex gangbangers, high school flunkies, drug dealers, and many other kinds of scumbags. I know what I know and I know it isn't even half of what they're capable of. In general, I believe women's stories of rape and assault. I believe this guy is guilty as fuck and should be fed to jong slaughter.

But does that mean there aren't women out there that would angle a law that is absolutely that one sided and make up some bullshit story? I know some very, very sharp women that wouldn't think twice about it. Is it the majority? Hell no, but as I said, it's an extreme example.

There needs to be something reasonable as a middle ground. Hell, some women aren't even comfortable socializing without a drink. Would a blanket law here saying anyone who drinks a drop is too impaired to make any decision fair? What does that say about women? Too fragile to handle a single beer? A judgement of a person being in a reasonable state of mind to make a choice on consent is a loaded question here when horny 20 somethings are involved. At least one person is going to be looking for any sign that furthers their agenda while ignoring every other sign. Do we need to go back to Victorian times where women had chaperones?

For the record I'm pretty damn old fashioned. Sex on the first night is a complete mystery to me and I don't know why anyone would do that.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[old goat]

The issue with that quote, in the context of rape, is that an innocent person suffers when a guilty person escapes.

No doubt, which is why the MN law should be toughened if there isn't a statute the guy can be convicted on, given what we think the facts are--a woman obviously too intoxicated to give meaningful consent. The standard for mental competence to consent to sex should be the same as the standard for consenting to elective surgery.

But a woman (or man) who has been raped suffers whether the rapist is convicted or not. Does conviction ease the suffering enough to justify sending an innocent man to prison for 20 years? As horrible as it is for a guilty person to go free, when it comes to invoking the power of the state against a single individual, the benefit of the doubt has to go to the individual, regardless of what the crime is.

The quote is from Franklin but the legal principle has been repeated over and over through the centuries (although not always practiced, as the number of DNA exonerations shows). That's why the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "a preponderance of the evidence" as in civil cases, (I've been going to law classes as night--ie watching Law and Order), and why in most states it requires a unanimous jury.

When in doubt, think with your head, not your dick.

[RootSkier]

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

Prosecutors with E&O insurance is the funniest shit I've read this week. Prosecutors don't have E&O insurance (it's really malpractice insurance in the legal world) because you can basically never sue a prosecutor. And even if you can, and even if you win, the local government will be on the hook for it, rather than the individual.

[Core Shot]

Core Shot: you got a link to the facts of the case? The SC brief doesn't support what you said. In fact, if you read it, it's mostly silent on facts and witness statements. I'd love to know more from the case if you have a link.

I can’t read briefs or opinions. Unless you pay me.

What I posted was what I read from news clips after seeing this horrible thread.
Bad cases make bad law? Not sure but this story sucks.

What I recall reading was that he met her in the street
After she was in the bar.
Doing and drinking whatever may or may not be admissible in court.

Sadly. It seems he found a very messed up gal in the street and took her home for criminal activities. It sucks.

[Long duc dong]

If you actually knew any woman that has been raped, you'd see how fucked up that retarded example is. Men are fucking pigs. Rapes are not usually reported. That was seriously some misogynistic BS dude

1)

My wife had someone tackle her in a parking lot and cut her underwear off. The attacker then fled, without doing anything else. I don't know what category that goes under. We never found out what brought that on. The guy just fucking fled. She is still jumpy in parking lots.



2)

DJ Sapp is actually making a reasonable point. Currently at the University of California (this is for the whole UC system, and yes, I know this is not a court of law) an individual that is intoxicated cannot give consent. That means that if a college kid goes out drinking on a Thursday night and his girlfriend stays home and writes a paper, well that means she is raping him if they have sex when he comes home. It is that simple.

3)

Not all men are fucking pigs.

4)

Don't bring on this bs about 'if you actually knew a woman that had been raped' because you have absolutely no fucking clue who DJ Sapp does, and does not, know.

5)

I would like to say a bit more to you, but I'm going to hold off. Don't ever presume to know who I do, and don't, know. Don't ever presume to know what their experiences are.

[stuckathuntermtn]

The SC decision didn't clear the defendant--he has to have a new trial. If there is another statute that applies that is more likely to convict him no doubt he will be charged under it. If there is no MN statute that he can be convicted under then the fuckup was clearly on the part of the legislature.

It still doesn't sound like a slam dunk. She says she was raped when she was passed out. He says she was drunk but not out and seemed to consent--ie not physically helpless. We all know (have personally experienced maybe) that drunk people can black out events that occurred while they were seemingly awake and mentally functioning--eg The "Honorable{ Brett Kavanaugh
It seems like the MN legislature, when it enacted the law, was sending a message that if you get yourself drunk and bad stuff happens to you--well, you shouldn't have gotten drunk.
I certainly don't agree with this thinking. DJ Sapp says " If this was the case [allowing women to claim they couldn't consent because they were under the influence of alcohol}, any sane dude would never, ever have sex with a woman after they had a single drink because of this magical retroactive legal defense." Is that necessarily a bad thing--that men would only have sex with women they were absolutely sure wanted to have sex with them?

It's fucking scary how easily (some?) women can black out. Especially drunks in their 20s who really like tequila. My covid fling from last year probably doesn't remember half our short but intense relationship.

That's still a weird law to have. Montana has a perhaps surprisingly progressive law. If anyone puts anything into someone else without permission, then it's rape. It even states that not saying "no" is not the same as consent. The texts also doesn't quibble with what went into which hole. It's just too bad they don't enforce it with starting football players.
I don't think there's any nth degree assault where intoxicants may have been involved and it depends on who took them or gave them to you or whatever. But we have reached past the end of my knowledge of MT criminal law.

[Lone Star]

^^^ im not 20something or a woman, your tequila brain is hazy too

[ötzi]

My wife had someone tackle her in a parking lot and cut her underwear off.

Sorry that happened, sounds super scary for her. The mind boggles.

[leroy jenkins]

If you actually knew any woman that has been raped, you'd see how fucked up that retarded example is. Men are fucking pigs. Rapes are not usually reported. That was seriously some misogynistic BS dude

The irony of calling out misogyny while being misandrist.

[leroy jenkins]

1)

Don't bring on this bs about 'if you actually knew a woman that had been raped' because you have absolutely no fucking clue who DJ Sapp does, and does not, know.

5)

I would like to say a bit more to you, but I'm going to hold off. Don't ever presume to know who I do, and don't, know. Don't ever presume to know what their experiences are.

Yea the sad truth is we all know rape victims and victims of child abuse.

[RootSkier]

The irony of calling out misogyny while being misandrist.

Are you an #alllivesmatter guy?

[old goat]

The irony of calling out misogyny while being misandrist.

Why don't we all call ourselves misanthropes and be done with it?