capitalCORN
Member
OK judges bought out by the roofie lobby confirmed.
So this sounds crazy, let's just get that out of the way.
But from what I'm reading here, it seems that someone is potentiall considered unconcious if they're black-out drunk? Does this mean that if I'm with a woman and we're both black-out drunk, and she decides to give me a blowjob, I'm raping her?
Serious question.
I realise that you shouldn't engage in sexual activity with someone that's incapable of consenting, but what about if you are too?
I'm not saying that's what happened here.
So I'm kind of confused about something, and maybe someone can help me out here. If they were both intoxicated, the law expects that he is able to understand that she was too intoxicated, when he himself was potentially too intoxicated? Keeping in mind that she has no memory of anything, and he said she consented. The only other testimony is that she was in and out of consciousness during the ride.
My understanding is that this is the appeals verdict.
The ruling, a unanimous decision by the states criminal appeals court
So a judge can't apply common sense? To let a rapist or murderer go free because of the way some other idiot wrote a law in the rulebook is fucking insane. In cases like this common sense should be applied along the lines of "That motherfucker is a motherfucking rapist, have 5 years in jail to see how you like it"In a word, yes. Criminal law is designed to be specific as to provide notice to society of prohibited acts. Generally, conduct that is not explicitly illegal is not punishable. I'm not an expert on this law, but I lost many cases against clearly morally guilty people who were legally not guilty. Murderers go free all the time under the same logic. In this case it seems very clear that the legislature left a glaring gap that doesn't address a need that we have in society to criminalize abhorrent rapist behavior. If it is true that they did not, then it is the way our system is rightly set up that a morally guilty and corrupt person must go free.
Too bad mob justice isn't a thing anymore however. What a scumbag.
If he was intoxicated, why did he drive her home? There doesn't seem to be a drunk driving charge so, presumably, he was sober enough to operate the car.
She also sounds incapacitated if she had to be carried into the car and a witness in the car claims that she was drifting in and out of consciousness. She's clearly in a state incapable of providing consent to which it seems reasonable that the boy would be aware of this.
If the boy was too intoxicated to realize that the girl isn't even conscious, he should most definitely not be behind the wheel.
So I'm kind of confused about something, and maybe someone can help me out here. If they were both intoxicated, the law expects that he is able to understand that she was too intoxicated, when he himself was potentially too intoxicated? Keeping in mind that she has no memory of anything, and he said she consented. The only other testimony is that she was in and out of consciousness during the ride.
So a judge can't apply common sense? To let a rapist or murderer go free because of the way some other idiot wrote a law in the rulebook is fucking insane. In cases like this common sense should be applied along the lines of "That motherfucker is a motherfucking rapist, have 5 years in jail to see how you like it"
The SC is gonna have a fucking field day with this one.
Holy shit.
So a judge can't apply common sense? To let a rapist or murderer go free because of the way some other idiot wrote a law in the rulebook is fucking insane. In cases like this common sense should be applied along the lines of "That motherfucker is a motherfucking rapist, have 5 years in jail to see how you like it"
http://oklahomawatch.org/2016/04/23...esnt-apply-to-cases-with-unconscious-victims/Benjamin Fu, Tulsa County assistant district attorney and director of the offices special victims unit, called the courts interpretation insane, dangerous and offensive. He said the court had the authority and precedent to determine that the Legislature intended to include intoxication and unconsciousness in the sodomy law. As a comparison, Fu referred to the fact that an intruder who enters the unlocked door of a home can be still charged with breaking and entering.
It's the state Supreme Court, that's it. State issues don't go any further unless they can find a federal issue to appeal on.
The DA said this about the case:
http://oklahomawatch.org/2016/04/23...esnt-apply-to-cases-with-unconscious-victims/
Same thought crossed my mind reading the court's opinion. But I don't think we should let the court off the hook just because the law wasn't explicit. They seem hung up on an interpretation of that statute that defines "force" as something that requires the victim to participate/fight back (which is precluded by them being unconscious). I can easily imagine a different court deciding that what little agency that person had at that moment was being essentially overruled by the attacker, hence force.In a word, yes. Criminal law is designed to be specific as to provide notice to society of prohibited acts. Generally, conduct that is not explicitly illegal is not punishable. I'm not an expert on this law, but I lost many cases against clearly morally guilty people who were legally not guilty. Murderers go free all the time under the same logic. In this case it seems very clear that the legislature left a glaring gap that doesn't address a need that we have in society to criminalize abhorrent rapist behavior. If it is true that they did not, then it is the way our system is rightly set up that a morally guilty and corrupt person must go free.
Too bad mob justice isn't a thing anymore however. What a scumbag.
Benjamin Fu, Tulsa County assistant district attorney and director of the office’s special victims unit, called the court’s interpretation “insane,” “dangerous” and “offensive.” He said the court had the authority and precedent to determine that the Legislature intended to include intoxication and unconsciousness in the sodomy law. As a comparison, Fu referred to the fact that an intruder who enters the unlocked door of a home can be still charged with breaking and entering.
Being voluntarily intoxicated is never allowed as an excuse or ameliorating circumstance. He chose to be drunk, she didn't choose to get assaulted. Laws are supposed to protect drunk people from getting victimised but they aren't supposed to protect their attackers. This is done for all types of crimes and intoxication; if it wasn't, you could try to argue in court that you were too drunk to realise that you shouldn't drive if you get charged with a DIU, for instance, which wouldn't make any sense. Unless someone drugs you against your will, you always have a responsibility to remain sober enough to not lose control and judgement.
Benjamin Fu, the Tulsa County district attorney leading the case, said the ruling had him completely gobsmacked
So I'm kind of confused about something, and maybe someone can help me out here. If they were both intoxicated, the law expects that he is able to understand that she was too intoxicated, when he himself was potentially too intoxicated? Keeping in mind that she has no memory of anything, and he said she consented. The only other testimony is that she was in and out of consciousness during the ride.
Same thought crossed my mind reading the court's opinion. But I don't think we should let the court off the hook just because the law wasn't explicit. They seem hung up on an interpretation of that statute that defines "force" as something that requires the victim to participate/fight back (which is precluded by them being unconscious). I can easily imagine a different court deciding that what little agency that person had at that moment was being essentially overruled by the attacker, hence force.
Hence these comments from the assistant DA:
I don't know how laws work in the USA, but this is going to get overturned by some supreme court or something, right? Because a decision this dumb and illogical can't be allowed to stand.
If the law wasn't explicit then they could probably do that, the argument put forward (in the article as I read it) is that the law is explicit enough that things not included aren't necessarily intended by the legislature. The assistant DA makes a poor point: if the breaking and entering law specifically listed a bunch of doors aND windows and in all the variants they were locked then the law would lean towards an unlocked door not being b&e because b&e has been defined differently for some reason, possibly because unlocked doors are a different crime.Same thought crossed my mind reading the court's opinion. But I don't think we should let the court off the hook just because the law wasn't explicit. They seem hung up on an interpretation of that statute that defines "force" as something that requires the victim to participate/fight back (which is precluded by them being unconscious). I can easily imagine a different court deciding that what little agency that person had at that moment was being essentially overruled by the attacker, hence force.
Hence these comments from the assistant DA:
This case involved a state law question, and the decision was handed down by a court of last of resort in OK. So, no, this issue is decided unless the OK court decides to overturn itself or the legislature fixes its sex crime law.I don't know how laws work in the USA, but this is going to get overturned by some supreme court or something, right? Because a decision this dumb and illogical can't be allowed to stand.
This case involved a state law question, and the decision was handed down by a court of last of resort in OK. So, no, this issue is decided unless the OK court decides to overturn itself.
The logic being if they're unconscious then no force could have been needed to rape them. It's like the most literal interpretation of what constitutes forcible sodomy. Rape case dismissed as a result.
In a word, yes. Criminal law is designed to be specific as to provide notice to society of prohibited acts. Generally, conduct that is not explicitly illegal is not punishable. I'm not an expert on this law, but I lost many cases against clearly morally guilty people who were legally not guilty. Murderers go free all the time under the same logic. In this case it seems very clear that the legislature left a glaring gap that doesn't address a need that we have in society to criminalize abhorrent rapist behavior. If it is true that they did not, then it is the way our system is rightly set up that a morally guilty and corrupt person must go free.
So a judge can't apply common sense? To let a rapist or murderer go free because of the way some other idiot wrote a law in the rulebook is fucking insane. In cases like this common sense should be applied along the lines of "That motherfucker is a motherfucking rapist, have 5 years in jail to see how you like it"
OK 21-886 said:the detestable and abominable crime against nature, committed with mankind or with a beast
OK 21-1111(2) said:Where the victim is incapable through mental illness or any other unsoundness of mind, whether temporary or permanent, of giving legal consent;
OK 21-888 said:Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime
This case involved a state law question, and the decision was handed down by a court of last of resort in OK. So, no, this issue is decided unless the OK court decides to overturn itself or the legislature fixes its sex crime law.
Yeah, States have a lot of sovereignty over themselves and their laws. Unless the OK's ruling countermands US law, then that's it, case closed.And the rest of the us cant do anything about this either?
Holy shit
Like some other states, OK has two courts of last resort: a Court of Criminal Appeals that has jurisdiction over criminal cases (which rendered this decision), and a Supreme Court that has jurisdiction over civil cases.Ah. I'm not familiar with the OK court structure. If you are right then my above analysis is wrong and it will be down to the legislature.
Like some other states, OK has two courts of last resort: a Court of Criminal Appeals that has jurisdiction over criminal cases, and a Supreme Court that has jurisdictiom over civil cases.
From the defense attorney:
WHAT THE FUCK
Thx Oklabama"the only thing my client did wrong was not get her consent before he stuck his cock in her mouth"