If a person has to ask these mundane idiotic questions in order to know if they are doing something inappropriate, wrong, or illegal, then being incapable of making a determination of whether or not you have a right to have a certain kind of contact with someone this should be a no-brainer if she's not conscious then you shouldn't be doing anything to her if she didn't ask you or invite you in you shouldn't be in everything you do say think and respond to you is raped because you do not know what rape isn't so I will tell you what rape isn't if she says let's make love let's be intimate let's do this and you go ahead and do it then that's not right because she is giving you her consent if she's not conscious and she has not giving you her cassette so yes, it's rape. anything you do to her body against her will anything you do to her body without her knowledge or her consent that's you got raped and called assault you caught whatever you want but you shouldn't be doing it. Let's try different approach here anyone who asks the question if it's rape the answer is automatically yes. If you do not know definitively that she wants you to do something to her or with her and you're thinking about doing it anyway it's rape there's no way you can be asking this question without contemplating doing something bad to someone, because no one who has consent to do something is going to be asking this kind of question.
He got convicted, appealed, lost the appeal, and then got the appeal over turned by pointing out that the wording of that particular law is poor and says "mental incapacitation" must be involuntary. The file notes that when these definitions were communicated to the jury, they were not conveyed accurately as written, and legally that's considered an error. At the time, the jury ruled against the guy based on how the law should be rather than how it is -- but that still entitles him to a new trial. He was *not* let go or found not guilty, he is being given a new trial and it's specifically stated that the legislature is entitled to correct the wording of the law if felt necessary.
So if the law isn't amended, and he gets the conviction overturned, then you can complain. Otherwise, it seems like a poorly worded law is being fixed because the poor wording was pointed out when someone attempted to exploit it. Mistakes were made, but we have every reason to believe the correct judgement will be arrived at again.
Passed out drunk, yes. That is absolutely rape as you're taking advantage of an unconscious person.
A little drunk... Well it depends but I'd say no, I've slept with a guy who I wouldn't have slept with if I had been sober at the time but does that mean he raped me? No. In that moment, at that time, I consented and it would be amoral of me to pursue legal action when: a) He was just as drunk. b) He did not deliberately get me drunk. c) Although I didn't initially invite his advances, I didn't resist them either. I knew what was happening and I let it happen.
Don't stay silent if you're uncomfortable during or before sex and think deeply before accusing someone for something as serious as rape.
Sooo, if you passed out and I shot you to death is it murder? Hell, no one told you to get pissy drunk and say you hate your life, I wish I was dead while under the influence of an intoxicating drink and then pass out. Hell, he said he wanted to die, so I shot the MF! Annd, now, I'm being called a murder instead of psychiatrist (No offense to the Psychiatrist of the world) Just trying to make a point. If someone is not capable of a mutual agreement to do something it is what it is..."Rape" "Murder" "Theft" Whatever!
I personally do not agree with Minnesota's ruling and think it is wrong, but it is technically a valid ruling. Unfortunately rape is a state by state matter. Most laws are. Each state can define what it legally considers rape. The military always taught us that a drunk/otherwise impaired person cannot give consent and most states hold this to be true, but according to Minnesota Supreme Court, this is not the case. Another thing that sucks is that the U. S. Supreme Court would probably not take this up because this is not a matter of Constitutional Rights. However, whether or not consent can be given is a separate matter from a person having common sense. Yes, it is very wrong for anyone to sexual take advantage of someone who is drunk, but at the same time it is common sense that you lose your wits and ability to defend yourself when you are impaired. That is not a pass to be taken advantage of, but reality is criminals do not care about laws and law enforcement/courts are imperfect and each individual is ultimately responsible for their own personal safety.
irregardless of what hook up culture says NO MEANS NO! Idc if the women that disagree with that say otherwise. We need to live in a society where we take people at their word and move with the information given. The chase game/fantasy being fulfilled for some women is not worth the cost of rape for the ones who didn't want that. The cost is too high. Rape has to be at the top of worst things that can happen to anybody right up there with murder. Some might say they'd rather be murdered than raped. I for one think rape is the most horrible thing anyone could experience. I'm not a woman but as a man I would be broken if I was raped. The idea of getting locked up and raped in prison is a huge fear of mine. I've always stayed on the right side of the law. But I have seen guys who were locked up for one reason or another that didn't belong there and so the idea horrifies me to my bones.
In the old days women took some responsibility... what do I mean by that? Instead of going to hang out with horny men by themselves and then getting 'surprised' if 100% of those men aren't saints, she would go with female FRIENDS who looked out for her and didn't let her be alone with guys. But a lot of modern women believe that every random man is 100% responsible for her and she's not responsible for anything.
Now some read that and will want to claim that I'm saying it's okay to rape somebody. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying: do stupid things, win stupid prizes.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
Nowadays that's called victim blaming and you should educate your son's not to rape because of course they otherwise would. The court presumably took the view that if you put yourself in harm's way, completely unprotected, bad things may happen to you because the world is a bad place. I find it highly unlikely that they said or implied she deserved to get raped.
23 rapists in the house so far. Just because someone gets drunk doesn’t mean you should have the right to rape them. What is someone takes medicine that makes them back out- do they deserve to be raped too? Or what if they are injured and knocked out? Should they be raped?
Just a clarification question, A guy and a girl goto bar both drink and are semi conscious they decide to have sex and while in the act she passes out now the next day she doesn't remember that she consented for it would that be rape?
To those (so far) 25 guys who voted A, all I can say is I'm quite certain you've either never had a girlfriend or no longer do. What girls would ever want to be with self-entitled guys like you? Truth be known you all have no sexual lovemaking skills whatsoever, don't know how to please a girl sexually therefore you resort to rape fantasies !
lmao, so these were all clean-cut conservative girls that got forced to drink, kidnapped, and magically end-ed up raped every time. If she passed out before starting I agree it's not consensual. If she passes-out during? not good either. But everyone knows women are more open to sex when drinking. The problem here is a he said vs she said, or get you ant-rape prenup prior.
Next, they'll say that pedophilia isn't a crime. To compare. .
Can a child willingly and knowledgeably give consent? Nope.
Can a woman who has passed out willing & knowledgeably give consent? Nope.
. Some may say that the woman knowingly got drunk. Not necessarily. Some people can hold their liquor far better than others and that's not including date-rape drugs.
In Western culture? I doubt that. Liberals should fight the oppressive ideology that they are welcoming in. Conservatives in America are the traditional liberals seeking to preserving the founding liberal principles. "Liberals" in America are more akin to socialist utopians
What I read in the court docs is: ‘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 only.
Of course. And even if she talked to you about having sex before she blacked out still and 100% wanted it, it's still rape. Which can cause problems i guess if the woman actaully did it want and was just having sex like people when they go out for a drunk one night stand.
Well I mean in the UK if a girl is under the influence she legally cannot consent to sex so... I personally disagree with this because while it basically gives a clear cut rule regarding drunken sex and date rape etc. It also opens the door for retroactive withdrawal of consent. Such as waking up next to someone you thought was good looking the night before but in hindsight not so much the following morning. Or, situations where a girl sees her friends a few days later and they either make fun of her for going home with a guy that wasn't that attractive to them or basically say she made a bad decision.
While I think that this is definitely raping since there's no consent from the blacked out person and it's a horrible act, why would you get so drunk that you pass out? It's revolting to me that there's a couple hours passing by while I don't know what's happening to me or what am I doing. Is that just me? Am I the weird one? Turns my stomach upside down just thinking about being so wasted that I'm completely on the whims of someone else (s), friend or stranger.
It's rape because she was knowingly passed out to the people around her. And the accuser used that as an opportunity to to have sex with her when she couldnt say yes or no... If you can watch a show I recommend it to you, its call I MAY DESTROY YOU! It's a UK series on the BBC Iplayer but its all about these type of things.
My opinion is kinda split. On one hand no one should ever take advantage of a girl who is passed out drunk because it's wrong on every level.
But on the other hand why was she alone? Was no one looking put for her? How did she get blackout drunk without a friend somewhere to help? Don't drink alone ladies, use the buddy system.
“Taking advantage” is not the correct term it’s rape, taking advantage would be like if she was just drunk, or somehow emotionally vulnerable not unconscious.
I know that I don't like whipping around the word rape so I used the term "taking advantage" but more to the actual topic do you at least see what I'm saying though? If girls drink in groups of trusted friend the risk of rape is way lower can we at least agree on that? Because I always tell my cousins to never drink alone always take a trusted friend always plan your ride back before hand always drink water never be afraid to call me if you feel uncomfortable at a party.
And im not trying to defend rapists they all deserve their punishment but can we at least be objective and admit that you shouldn't drink alone with people you don't trust?
Or... wait for it... men could stop taking advantage of drunk women and accept that no means no or maybe wait until she isn’t completely blacked out to see if she’s actually wanting sex? Many men love to say “oh she was drunk, if she wasn’t drunk —“ fuck that. It’s called not taking advantage of a vulnerable woman that you know you’d never get to hook up with if she were sober. I’m sick of the victim blaming narrative.
You know I've never had intentions of raping anyone im not the target man your mad at okay im just saying I'd rather know the women in my life are safe and if that means asking them to take precautions then I'll do it. Because I'm the only man that I can control.
I’m not mad at you, but this narrative is just unacceptable and “split opinions” don’t work. Is the buddy system important? Absolutely. Should women travel with others because safety in numbers? Absolutely. But not everything is in our control, and there’s no way to know what led to that woman being alone with that man. I’m talking about doing the right thing. And when you have a woman entirely unconscious laying in front of you, too many men resort to rape and it shouldn’t always have to come to that.
I agree no one should ever do anything like that there is no defense of it. I dunno when I hear of women being raped while passed out drunk it makes me remember the parties I've been to where I would check up on people who were passed out and I just immediately think "where was their buddy? Why was no one looking out for them?" And it's not in a defense of rapists kind of way but more of like "why can't we all look out for one another surely someone noticed she over did it at some point, why didn't they say anything"
I do care I just know when I'm at parties I always check on the girls who look like they are about to pass out because I would hate to have that on my conscience that I could have done something but didn't because "oh well she'll be fine" it's just the little I can do to make sure rape doesn't happen
Why would anyone call male friend to rape her why would that be anyone's first response? My first response would be to sit her upright and make sure she is okay and not leave her sight until I found a family member or friend rhay could get her somewhere safe.
A woman deserves to get raped just because she's drunk? I don't get it. I thought anything you do without someone's consent is either an harassment/sexual harassment/rape.
In this court case, Minnesota says mentally incapacitated does not include drugs or liquor taken willfully. It’s crap and prob will be overturned federally.
Women should utilise an abundance of caution when accompanied by a vagina. Rape is NEVER justified no matter how many risky behaviors a woman partakes in.
Do you due diligence. This isn't what the Minnesota Supreme Court thinks. The Court interprets the law. The problem is with the law itself. The Minnesota legislature needs to craft a better law.
TITLE: Felony rape charge doesn’t apply if victim got drunk on her own, Minnesota Supreme Court rules SUBTITLE: Lesser charge may have been better fit, attorneys note. Legislature considers bill toughening law
By JOSH VERGES jverges@pioneerpress. com Pioneer Press PUBLISHED: March 24, 2021 at 5:07 p. m. UPDATED: March 25, 2021 at 3:23 p. m. The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned a Maple Grove man’s felony conviction for sexual assault because the victim got herself drunk before the incident.
Francois Khalil, then 20, picked up an intoxicated woman outside a Dinkytown bar in 2017, took her back to a North Minneapolis home and raped her after she passed out on a couch, the woman testified, according to court records. A Hennepin County jury in 2019 convicted him of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Khalil’s attorney argued the felony charge does not apply because that statute is for cases in which the victim had drugs or alcohol administered to her without her agreement.
A divided Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Khalil’s conviction, but the state Supreme Court disagreed, overturning the conviction and granting Khalil a new trial.
Justice Paul Thissen wrote that the prosecution’s interpretation of third-degree assault “unreasonably strains and stretches the plain text of the statute.”
The relevant section of third-degree criminal sexual conduct applies to cases where the victim is “mentally incapacitated” due to drugs or alcohol that was “administered to that person without the person’s agreement.”
Thissen wrote that the Legislature clearly intended to limit the statute to situations where the victim did not voluntarily drink to intoxication. Rather, it’s for situations where the victim was “given alcohol surreptitiously (for example, when someone ‘spikes’ a punch bowl at a party),” he wrote.
Thissen acknowledged that a “commonsense understanding” of mentally incapacitated could include someone who drank voluntarily yet “cannot exercise judgment sufficiently to express consent” to sex. But that’s not how the statute was written.
In Khalil’s case, his accuser had swallowed one pill of a prescription drug and five shots of vodka before a bouncer refused to let her into the Dinkytown bar.
LEGISLATION Thissen noted in his opinion that the Legislature has taken a recent interest in the statute.
In 2019, some lawmakers sought to expand the definition of the felony crime to include situations in which the victim voluntarily drank so much that the victim could not give consent. Instead, the Legislature created a working group to recommend changes.
A bill is advancing through the House that would add language to the third-degree statute, making it a felony to have sex with someone who is too intoxicated to consent, no matter how they got that way.
Chief sponsor Rep. Kelly Moller, DFL-Shoreview, issued a statement Wednesday urging the bill’s passage.
“Victims who are intoxicated to the degree that they are unable to give consent are entitled to justice. Our laws must clearly reflect that understanding, and today’s Supreme Court ruling highlights the urgency lawmakers have to close this and other loopholes throughout our (criminal sexual conduct) law,” she said.
Probably not, But I won’t do it, Unless your both drunk as hell and none of you really know what your doing then drunk people will make that mistake but if you have had 1 or 2 beers or shots and she’s had 9+ or whatever can get her passed out drunk. You shouldn’t do it. Give her a comfortable sport to sleep with off,
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
