Latest Breaking News

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

malthaussen This message was self-deleted by its author.

Edit history

Cannot view edit history for self-deleted messages.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

MN Supreme Court throws out rape conviction because intoxicated woman willingly consumed alcohol [View all] DonViejo Mar 2021 OP

And if a man was raped under the same mzmolly Mar 2021 #1

Then the good justices would have decried "sodomy" and kept the guy in prison. RVN VET71 Mar 2021 #54

I can barely believe I just read that. BobTheSubgenius Mar 2021 #2

The law is illogical. mzmolly Mar 2021 #3

by spiking a drink dsc Mar 2021 #26

One would have to spike several mzmolly Mar 2021 #31

if one used ever clear that could do it dsc Mar 2021 #34

Yikes. mzmolly Mar 2021 #44

This ain't about the fuckin' ALCOHOL. Texin Mar 2021 #53

I'm not arguing in favor mzmolly Mar 2021 #63

Given the unanimous decision, I'm thinking the law was pretty poorly written GregariousGroundhog Mar 2021 #6

Or the law was written to Bettie Mar 2021 #21

have to agree. but also have to acknowledge stopdiggin Mar 2021 #17

So because she was drunk enough to not say NO. usaf-vet Mar 2021 #38

The "logic" just legalized rape Warpy Mar 2021 #66

Great line! re: "consenting to getting hammered is NOT consenting to getting nailed" n/t thesquanderer Mar 2021 #69

so women, if you drink, you can be raped, legally? RussBLib Mar 2021 #4

Yes. If you dare to have a beer mzmolly Mar 2021 #5

Yep... Claire Oh Nette Mar 2021 #10

Even if they buy them drinks Bettie Mar 2021 #22

RIght? Claire Oh Nette Mar 2021 #23

NO! Not at all. That's a misunderstanding of the ruling. CaptainTruth Mar 2021 #35

Thanks for clarifying. mzmolly Mar 2021 #47

Thanks, Captain RussBLib Mar 2021 #51

Bingo! eom Karma13612 Mar 2021 #70

That law needs to be re-written or voted out of existence. Texin Mar 2021 #74

It's a bad statute. It requires intoxication to be involuntary Ocelot II Mar 2021 #7

... by this standard a patient under anesthetic can't be 'raped' when unconscious Dorn Mar 2021 #9

Only if they were involuntarily anesthetized. But it's still a bad statute. Ocelot II Mar 2021 #13

OMZ: This is crazy, this is terrible, this is unbelievable. Dorn Mar 2021 #8

Can this ruling be appealed to SCOTUS? Hope it becomes a rallying cry for 2022-24. Nt Fiendish Thingy Mar 2021 #11

Probably not, because the court only followed the language of a bad statute, Ocelot II Mar 2021 #15

Well, then amending the statute should be THE issue for the next MN election cycle. Nt Fiendish Thingy Mar 2021 #37

Guess I'm gonna be contacting my state rep. Aisha Gomez, a Dem. Ocelot II Mar 2021 #39

I am most definitely not a lawyer HuskyOffset Mar 2021 #12

What we do is contact our state representatives and demand that Ocelot II Mar 2021 #16

JFC! elleng Mar 2021 #14

A woman has the god-given constitutional right to run drunk and naked through the streets ancianita Mar 2021 #18

Not the court. It's just an incredibly sh**ty law. stopdiggin Mar 2021 #19

Four of the seven Justices are women. jalan48 Mar 2021 #20

Not that getting it wrong isn't the problem, I'm surprised 4 out of 7 at least couldn't ... marble falls Mar 2021 #25

They did get it right. They are stuck with the law as it's written. Ocelot II Mar 2021 #40

And five of the seven were appointed by Democrats FBaggins Mar 2021 #28

Exactly. Ocelot II Mar 2021 #41

So the consumption of intoxicants makes one a victim with no justice. That'll never stand ... marble falls Mar 2021 #24

Seriously? ananda Mar 2021 #27

Check again FBaggins Mar 2021 #29

No, not even close. Courts don't have the power to rewrite bad statutes. Ocelot II Mar 2021 #42

And the WAR ON WOMEN continues apace. Would you consider cross-posting this in niyad Mar 2021 #30

War on women? According to some its actually more along the lines of a poorly cstanleytech Mar 2021 #62

I understand that. This applies to that dreadful law. What would you call that law but part of the niyad Mar 2021 #64

"What would you call that law but part of the War on Women??" Stupidity? cstanleytech Mar 2021 #68

Time to update some of these badly written laws nt IronLionZion Mar 2021 #32

This is still 2021,right? Swede Mar 2021 #33

These people call themselves judges? Legal experts? SpankMe Mar 2021 #36

That's what the statute says. Courts don't have the option of rewriting statutes, Ocelot II Mar 2021 #43

Does anyone here understand how statutes vs. court decisions actually work? Ocelot II Mar 2021 #45

It looks like the problem with the law is being corrected... CaptainTruth Mar 2021 #46

I don't think you can try someone under a law that was put in place after the crime was done. patphil Mar 2021 #48

Isn't that an ex-post-facto law? RVN VET71 Mar 2021 #56

You're probably right. CaptainTruth Mar 2021 #57

No Ex Post Facto laws Marcuse Mar 2021 #60

Mens rights... dlk Mar 2021 #49

I had NO idea this was a "thing" in so many states. nt oldsoftie Mar 2021 #50

No self respecting man would take advantage of a drunk woman. Aussie105 Mar 2021 #52

I read somewhere elsewhere KT2000 Mar 2021 #55

Precedent for defense for robbery, dui, and other crimes? keithbvadu2 Mar 2021 #58

1+ keithbvadu2 Mar 2021 #65

Dangerous precedent. GETPLANING Mar 2021 #59

Such bullshit. Get a female drugged or drunk and it's her own fault?? Never changes. nt Evolve Dammit Mar 2021 #61

Sounds like it's the original prosecutor's fault for not applying the law correctly madville Mar 2021 #67

Boy, they hate women. Joinfortmill Mar 2021 #71

They? FBaggins Mar 2021 #73

This message was self-deleted by its author malthaussen Mar 2021 #72