Those drunk on their own can't be considered 'mentally incapacitated' in rape cases

[*michaelsean*]

(03-28-2021, 02:41 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: With this particular case? Minimal input.

With women's rights and normalizing rape in general? They're at the front line spewing this kind of bullshit, giving it footholds to build on.

Valiant effort.

[BigPapaKain]

(03-28-2021, 07:02 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Valiant effort.

Weird way to describe being pro-rape; most would call it abhorrent. But I guess if that's what the constituents want.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-28-2021, 08:34 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Weird way to describe being pro-rape; most would call it abhorrent. But I guess if that's what the constituents want.

You’re just gonna keep on trying on this one.

Ok then. You specifically referenced this case when you were said GOP and your clever Dungeons and Dragons comment, not some vague reference to normalizing rape. Then, uh oh, it’s a liberal court. I know, I’ll say the GOP has normalized rape so much, that even a liberal court has been affected. Valiant effort.

And I didn’t even go into your intimate knowledge of the rules of dungeons and dragons. You’re welcome.

[BigPapaKain]

(03-28-2021, 10:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You’re just gonna keep on trying on this one.

Ok then. You specifically referenced this case when you were said GOP and your clever Dungeons and Dragons comment, not some vague reference to normalizing rape. Then, uh oh, it’s a liberal court. I know, I’ll say the GOP has normalized rape so much, that even a liberal court has been affected. Valiant effort.

And I didn’t even go into your intimate knowledge of the rules of dungeons and dragons. You’re welcome.

Actually, I made a comment in general about the GoP and rape, since the topic was about rape (notice i didn't actually quote anyone or anything), and the GoP has a long standing platform of 'eh rape is okay', and since the topic is about rape, I made an off handed comment. You follow? Sure, I made said comment here before I realized the political leanings of the court - which should be apolitical anyways, but I digress. My comment still stands, except now I get to lump in Democrats in my joke - which is a win for me anyways.

You can go ahead and make fun of my knowledge of D&D - trust me when I say I've heard better than anything you can come up with and I've likely been mocked by better people than anyone here. So give me your best shot.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-28-2021, 12:03 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Actually, I made a comment in general about the GoP and rape, since the topic was about rape (notice i didn't actually quote anyone or anything), and the GoP has a long standing platform of 'eh rape is okay', and since the topic is about rape, I made an off handed comment. You follow? Sure, I made said comment here before I realized the political leanings of the court - which should be apolitical anyways, but I digress. My comment still stands, except now I get to lump in Democrats in my joke - which is a win for me anyways.

You can go ahead and make fun of my knowledge of D&D - trust me when I say I've heard better than anything you can come up with and I've likely been mocked by better people than anyone here. So give me your best shot.

You had a super cool line you couldn’t wait to use and you rolled the dice.

Funny you say they should be apolitical when that’s the first thing you went for. Btw think Bill Clinton, college campuses and Hollywood.

But you missed a couple things. One is that it’s a liberal court in a pretty liberal state. The second is that it was a unanimous decision. Maybe there’s a reason for that. But since you had your GOP=evil blinders on you didn’t bother to really read and understand what the decision was based upon. Not much I can do about your attempt to deflect. I’ve pointed it out as best I can, and you know what was in your head.

[BigPapaKain]

(03-28-2021, 12:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You had a super cool line you couldn’t wait to use and you rolled the dice.

Funny you say they should be apolitical when that’s the first thing you went for.

But you missed a couple things. One is that it’s a liberal court in a pretty liberal state. The second is that it was a unanimous decision. Maybe there’s a reason for that. But since you had your GOP=evil blinders on you didn’t bother to really read and understand what the decision was based upon. Not much I can do about your attempt to deflect.

Meh, don't care. I'm gonna go ahead and stick with the GoP is all about rape. Apparently Minnesota is, too, due to a ridiculous loop hole. Just gives me another reason to avoid the place.

[GMDino]

The people cited in the article called it a loophole because it was specifically added:

Quote:The ruling has garnered criticism from sexual assault survivors and advocates, including Abby Honold, who told MPR News that the language of the statute has always been a loophole that makes it difficult for sexual assault survivors to bring cases forward. 

"There are a lot of people who are told when they report now, and when their case is referred to a prosecutor that essentially their sexual assault was technically legal. It's always so heartbreaking to have to hear that from yet another survivor who came forward and reported," Honold told the outlet. 


In response to the ruling, state rep. Kelly Moller said she is sponsoring legislation that says consent can't be given if a victim is incapacitated, even if they voluntarily took drugs or alcohol. 

[*michaelsean*]

(03-28-2021, 12:15 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Meh, don't care. I'm gonna go ahead and stick with the GoP is all about rape. Apparently Minnesota is, too, due to a ridiculous loop hole. Just gives me another reason to avoid the place.

Best I can figure is they just don’t have a law to cover it so they used this one. Someone challenged it, and the justices were like yeah this doesn’t fit the definition. What are they supposed to do? Now hopefully the legislature adds to this law and a wake up call to other states.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-28-2021, 12:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: The people cited in the article called it a loophole because it was specifically added:

So that’s not on the justices, that’s on the legislature to fix.

What do you mean by specifically added?

[GMDino]

(03-28-2021, 12:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So that’s not on the justices, that’s on the legislature to fix.

What do you mean by specifically added?

The way I am reading it the statute does not say that if you got drunk on your own so that has been used to get around the law.  Lawyers I suppose using the exact words to say what isn't said. Or it could have been an interpretation by the judges at some point.

As I said in the OP that it they have known about this but nothing changed and that is stupid.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-28-2021, 12:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: The way I am reading it the statute does not say that if you got drunk on your own so that has been used to get around the law.  Lawyers I suppose using the exact words to say what isn't said. Or it could have been an interpretation by the judges at some point.

As I said in the OP that it they have known about this but nothing changed and that is stupid.

Yes and I think it lists specifically what it entails. I don’t know that it was some sort of write around though. They may not have even considered this depending how old the law is. I think it’s a matter of they simply never enacted a law based on this specific occurrence and so prosecutors relied on this law. (Any or all of this could be wrong. I’m surmising based on the article. )