On the night of May 13, 2017, a woman consumed five shots of vodka and a prescription narcotic before heading to the Dinkytown neighborhood of Minneapolis with a friend. After a bar turned them away, they met three men who invited them to a party.
But there was no party. One of the men, Francios Momolu Khalil, drove the group to a house in North Minneapolis, arriving early the following morning, where the woman blacked out on a living room couch. She woke up to Mr. Khalil sexually assaulting her. She lost consciousness and awoke later with her shorts around her ankles.
The facts of the case are not in dispute, but last week, nearly four years after the attack, the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned Mr. Khalil’s conviction on a third-degree criminal sexual conduct charge. The woman, the court said in a unanimous decision, was “voluntarily intoxicated” at the time because she had made the decision to drink, and therefore did not meet the threshold for mental incapacitation under state law.
...
Minnesota is one of about 40 states that do not explicitly prohibit sex with a voluntarily intoxicated victim
Too bad for Brock Turner, the Dumpster Rapist, that California apparently doesn't look as favorably on raping intoxicated women as Minnesota apparently does.
This is basically the same old, age-old shit: Men are coddled under the law and by custom. Men are deemed to suffer from uncontrollable sexual urges and it is up to women to not encourage their beastial lust. All of the strictures on women's attire in one culture after another is because men cannot be trusted to control their urges.
So, if men are such immature children who are unable to control their sexual appetites, why are they otherwise treated like competent adults?
Something rarely talked about but most of your martial arts are rooted in women fending off aggressive men. That it has been corrupted and turned into something else is perhaps a conversation for another time.
ReplyDeleteIt occurs that men haven't done such a good job of running the world ...
You know, I've been in the company of a LOT of intoxicated women in my time, and never wanted to bother any of them. Well, at least not sexually; honestly sometimes they were a pain in the ass and made me want to just get away.
ReplyDeleteBut what would happen if I just left?
That was always a consideration.
I don't spend time with intoxicated people much any more.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
He hasn't gotten away with anything... long term.
ReplyDeleteThe mark is there for both. Legally hes lucky,
but is it over, I doubt it.
It to me is couched in forcible vs opportunistic
and that makes me believe it was judged on a edge
case. I suspect a lower charge would have held
as then the question of forced to drink or tacit
or given permission is then the question. Maybe
the law says different but if highly intoxicated
and one cannot give permission or say no even if
willfully drunk as one action is not a approval
for assault.
Its still a case where go stupid places and
do stupid things, win stupid prizes.
Rape is not a stupid prize, its assault,
but like everything not being there in
that state is safer.
Intoxicated people are never fun to be around.
Eck!
With what I just posted I'll add this..
ReplyDeleteThe law often only seeks redress for activities prohibited
and deemed illegal. That is based on prohibition, redress.
The protection in that is penalty for the bad actors.
From that we also gets laws that bad actors will use to
abuse others. Craft the law simply and in language that
invites the fewest possible means for abuse and misuse.
When the penalty exists or not the former rule given is
still the only protection.
It remains: Go stupid places, do stupid things,
risk bad outcomes or disaster (win stupid prizes).
Remember the courts have ruled the police have no
obligation to protect the person.
To me that means proceed as if its unsafe.
Because it is.
Eck!
What does the fact she was intoxicated have to do with this .
ReplyDeleteHe assaulted her without her consent.
The only reason that her intoxicated state has any bearing on the case is that it proves her inability to give consent.
Eck,
ReplyDeleteNo matter how stupid her actions were they are not in question .His are .
Does she have a brother? A father? Uncle, cousin?
ReplyDeleteGK,
ReplyDeleteI was covering how the law failed her.
The issue is was she unable to give consent or even deny it.
Keep in mind I do not agree with the ruling or law but
that's a hole that was left and the defense used it.
The Law did not recognize the validity of mentally
incapacitated by being drugged and alcohol. Do I
think it was a bad ruling hell yes.
That her actions were relevant to the decision.
Alcohol and narcotics are a great way to die
never minding other events that maybe hostile
to living. The ruling was lacking law to the
contrary her "party actions" were used against
her in a state where inability function due to
intoxication even on a temporary basis became
a viable defense. I don't like it. But they
ruled so I have to think safety where some
males are predatory toward women and see
them solely as prey.
There is no justifications for him, never was.
Said that up front. I also believe that his name
now public is synonymous with leper and he wears
a target.
Posit this, a cop could have seen her before the
pickup and arrested here for drunk and disorderly
and arrested for a night in a unruly jail cell.
Possible bad endings there too, plus the later
day in court.
My comment about going and doing stupid things knowing
bad may come is based on a lot of years and the idea
that wishful thinking will NOT protect a me (a women).
To prevent assault and legal insanity an affirmative
set of actions are required. That means watching my
dress, drink for both quantity and additives, Not
going places of known risk and so on.
My goal is to convince predators, I am not prey.
Eck!