Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction
-
Let's not forget that rape is first and foremost a violent physical assault against a person, always of a sexual nature and most often perpetrated by a male against a female. I would argue that sobriety or intoxication of the victim is not only peripheral and quite irrelevant to the violence of rape but peripheral to any form of wanton assault.
It would seem then from some of the logic - or illogic- expressed here, that it is not unlawful to beat the living daylights out of a any drunkard male or female by virtue of the fact that his or her state of intoxication provides others with an easy opportunity to assault them in a most violent manner.
I cannot see why on earth some folks are always looking for a rationale to mitigate the inexcusable criminal violence of rape.
@renauda said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Let's not forget that rape is first and foremost a violent physical assault against a person, always of a sexual nature and most often perpetrated by a male against a female. I would argue that sobriety or intoxication of the victim is not peripheral to the violence of rape but peripheral to any form of wanton assault.
It would seem then from some of the logic - or illogic- expressed here, that it is not unlawful to beat the living daylights out of a any drunkard male or female by virtue of the fact that his or her state of intoxication provides others with an easy opportunity to assault them in a most violent manner.
I cannot see why on earth some folks are always looking for an rationale to mitigate the inexcusable criminal violence of rape.
First, you have to prove it is rape. When there are conflicting stories, how would you handle it?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
"She shouldn't have dressed like that"
"She shouldn't be out on her own late at night"
"She shouldn't have got drunk"
It's not the women committing a crime. We need to stop blaming them.
@doctor-phibes said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
"She shouldn't have dressed like that"
"She shouldn't be out on her own late at night"
"She shouldn't have got drunk"
It's not the women committing a crime. We need to stop blaming them.
I'm a practical man. If your teenage daughter wants to dress like a hooker, get drunk on her ass and sashay down the worst street in town at 3AM, I do think she takes some responsibility for what happens.
That's not to let the perpetrator of the crime go free, but let's not be an idiot about things....
-
Let's not forget that rape is first and foremost a violent physical assault against a person, always of a sexual nature and most often perpetrated by a male against a female. I would argue that sobriety or intoxication of the victim is not only peripheral and quite irrelevant to the violence of rape but peripheral to any form of wanton assault.
It would seem then from some of the logic - or illogic- expressed here, that it is not unlawful to beat the living daylights out of a any drunkard male or female by virtue of the fact that his or her state of intoxication provides others with an easy opportunity to assault them in a most violent manner.
I cannot see why on earth some folks are always looking for a rationale to mitigate the inexcusable criminal violence of rape.
@renauda said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Let's not forget that rape is first and foremost a violent physical assault against a person, always of a sexual nature and most often perpetrated by a male against a female. I would argue that sobriety or intoxication of the victim is not only peripheral and quite irrelevant to the violence of rape but peripheral to any form of wanton assault.
It would seem then from some of the logic - or illogic- expressed here, that it is not unlawful to beat the living daylights out of a any drunkard male or female by virtue of the fact that his or her state of intoxication provides others with an easy opportunity to assault them in a most violent manner.
I cannot see why on earth some folks are always looking for an rationale to mitigate the inexcusable criminal violence of rape.
So I don’t disagree what you wrote except you can’t just accuse someone of something, there has to be proof. My take is that really there was not enough proof. #cancelculture does not apply here. You can’t just “know”.
-
@renauda said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Let's not forget that rape is first and foremost a violent physical assault against a person, always of a sexual nature and most often perpetrated by a male against a female. I would argue that sobriety or intoxication of the victim is not peripheral to the violence of rape but peripheral to any form of wanton assault.
It would seem then from some of the logic - or illogic- expressed here, that it is not unlawful to beat the living daylights out of a any drunkard male or female by virtue of the fact that his or her state of intoxication provides others with an easy opportunity to assault them in a most violent manner.
I cannot see why on earth some folks are always looking for an rationale to mitigate the inexcusable criminal violence of rape.
First, you have to prove it is rape. When there are conflicting stories, how would you handle it?
How I would handle it is irrelevant. That is the mandate of elected officials and the criminal justice system to handle. In this regard I can only express my opinion. Suffice to say however, my personal bias will tend toward the victim of any attack.
-
@renauda said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Let's not forget that rape is first and foremost a violent physical assault against a person, always of a sexual nature and most often perpetrated by a male against a female. I would argue that sobriety or intoxication of the victim is not only peripheral and quite irrelevant to the violence of rape but peripheral to any form of wanton assault.
It would seem then from some of the logic - or illogic- expressed here, that it is not unlawful to beat the living daylights out of a any drunkard male or female by virtue of the fact that his or her state of intoxication provides others with an easy opportunity to assault them in a most violent manner.
I cannot see why on earth some folks are always looking for an rationale to mitigate the inexcusable criminal violence of rape.
So I don’t disagree what you wrote except you can’t just accuse someone of something, there has to be proof. My take is that really there was not enough proof. #cancelculture does not apply here. You can’t just “know”.
@loki said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
#cancelculture does not apply here. You can’t just “know”.
I am not a participant in the world of cancel culture. It is too reactionary for my liking. I am much further to the left.
-
@renauda said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Let's not forget that rape is first and foremost a violent physical assault against a person, always of a sexual nature and most often perpetrated by a male against a female. I would argue that sobriety or intoxication of the victim is not peripheral to the violence of rape but peripheral to any form of wanton assault.
It would seem then from some of the logic - or illogic- expressed here, that it is not unlawful to beat the living daylights out of a any drunkard male or female by virtue of the fact that his or her state of intoxication provides others with an easy opportunity to assault them in a most violent manner.
I cannot see why on earth some folks are always looking for an rationale to mitigate the inexcusable criminal violence of rape.
First, you have to prove it is rape. When there are conflicting stories, how would you handle it?
@jolly said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
First, you have to prove it is rape. When there are conflicting stories, how would you handle it?
In that Minnesota case, the “rape” was already proven in the lower court. The lower court already resolved the issues surrounding facts, intent, and guilt. The Minnesota Supreme Court was making a point of law that says the statute as currently written somehow excludes cases where the victim got intoxicated without the aid of the perpetrator. Now, this is not a case of “conflicting stores” (the lower court resolved those already), but a matter of legal definitions.
-
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
The Brad
-
@renauda said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Let's not forget that rape is first and foremost a violent physical assault against a person, always of a sexual nature and most often perpetrated by a male against a female. I would argue that sobriety or intoxication of the victim is not only peripheral and quite irrelevant to the violence of rape but peripheral to any form of wanton assault.
It would seem then from some of the logic - or illogic- expressed here, that it is not unlawful to beat the living daylights out of a any drunkard male or female by virtue of the fact that his or her state of intoxication provides others with an easy opportunity to assault them in a most violent manner.
I cannot see why on earth some folks are always looking for an rationale to mitigate the inexcusable criminal violence of rape.
So I don’t disagree what you wrote except you can’t just accuse someone of something, there has to be proof. My take is that really there was not enough proof. #cancelculture does not apply here. You can’t just “know”.
@loki said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
So I don’t disagree what you wrote except you can’t just accuse someone of something, there has to be proof. My take is that really there was not enough proof. #cancelculture does not apply here. You can’t just “know”.
The Minnesota lower courts have resolved the matter concerning “proof” and has found that the accusation has been proven, and the Minnesota Supreme Court is not disputing the lower court’s findings regarding “proof,” but making a point that the statute as currently written excludes cases where the victims got intoxicated without the aid of the assailant. The debate now is whether this sort of statutory exclusions are warranted.
-
@jolly said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
First, you have to prove it is rape. When there are conflicting stories, how would you handle it?
In that Minnesota case, the “rape” was already proven in the lower court. The lower court already resolved the issues surrounding facts, intent, and guilt. The Minnesota Supreme Court was making a point of law that says the statute as currently written somehow excludes cases where the victim got intoxicated without the aid of the perpetrator. Now, this is not a case of “conflicting stores” (the lower court resolved those already), but a matter of legal definitions.
@axtremus said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@jolly said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
First, you have to prove it is rape. When there are conflicting stories, how would you handle it?
In that Minnesota case, the “rape” was already proven in the lower court. The lower court already resolved the issues surrounding facts, intent, and guilt. The Minnesota Supreme Court was making a point of law that says the statute as currently written somehow excludes cases where the victim got intoxicated without the aid of the perpetrator. Now, this is not a case of “conflicting stores” (the lower court resolved those already), but a matter of legal definitions.
Ok that is different. No one should get away with rape.
-
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
If the answer is "No", it begs the question of the percentage of sex acts which qualify as rape?
-
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
If the answer is "No", it begs the question of the percentage of sex acts which qualify as rape?
@jolly said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
If the answer is "No", it begs the question of the percentage of sex acts which qualify as rape?
I take this so seriously because a situation like I described ruined my best friend's life. I mean destroyed him.
The Brad
-
@jolly said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
If the answer is "No", it begs the question of the percentage of sex acts which qualify as rape?
I take this so seriously because a situation like I described ruined my best friend's life. I mean destroyed him.
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@jolly said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
If the answer is "No", it begs the question of the percentage of sex acts which qualify as rape?
I take this so seriously because a situation like I described ruined my best friend's life. I mean destroyed him.
Well, according to some in this thread, he needs execution or something just short of it. I think both men and women have their own individual makeup of angel and demon, with often unclear motives. I think each situation can be different and facts are facts.
So, in cases of consent, I take yes as yes and no as no, no matter what state the person may be in, if that state is of their own choosing.
-
@jolly said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
If the answer is "No", it begs the question of the percentage of sex acts which qualify as rape?
I take this so seriously because a situation like I described ruined my best friend's life. I mean destroyed him.
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@jolly said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
If the answer is "No", it begs the question of the percentage of sex acts which qualify as rape?
I take this so seriously because a situation like I described ruined my best friend's life. I mean destroyed him.
Any specifics you’re able to share about this, LD?
-
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@jolly said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
If the answer is "No", it begs the question of the percentage of sex acts which qualify as rape?
I take this so seriously because a situation like I described ruined my best friend's life. I mean destroyed him.
Any specifics you’re able to share about this, LD?
@horace said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@jolly said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
@lufins-dad said in Minnesota Supreme Court Overturned Rape Conviction:
Can an intoxicated woman actually give consent? I'm not talking unconscious. I'm not talking so drunk she can barely stand up. I'm talking about the level where she shouldn't drive home, but can still carry on a conversation....
If the answer is "No", it begs the question of the percentage of sex acts which qualify as rape?
I take this so seriously because a situation like I described ruined my best friend's life. I mean destroyed him.
Any specifics you’re able to share about this, LD?
All I'll say is that everybody was a little inebriated. We could drive but shouldn't have... My date and I left when his date started saying we should all go back to his place. At this point she was sitting in his lap...So we said thanks, but we really have to get going. The next day his college career was over. It never went to criminal charges, but it came damn close to it.
