Is this real?
Edit: phew it isn’t.
1 Like
Meant to add emoji. Now the opportunity has passed 
And another trumpublican voice has been deplatformed (end sarcasm)
I don’t understand this case. It seems they got hung up on the fact that the woman got intoxicated herself, vs being drugged, but totally missed the fact that she did not consent to sex.
This woman was unconscious for much of the raping including the start of it. Had she been conscious and consented to sex while drunk it would be a different story. You can’t just have sex with intoxicated passed out women because of this loophole. You could as long as they consent before passing out I suppose (legally, not ethically).
Maybe I am missing something here?
I still thank that’s rape. Taking advantage of people who are drunk is scummy.
I don’t think so. The code section even includes “physically helpless,” which includes “asleep.”
I was only speaking on legality there. The loophole would allow that. I don’t think the loophole allows what was done here (no consent, but drunk).
“Mentally incapacitated” does specify that the substance must be administered without the person’s agreement.
Yes, but doesn’t this assume that the woman who is passed out by default consents to sex if incapacitated.
I feel the loophole is meant for a situation in which a drunk person consents to sex, and then later changes their mind. In that case, it matters the person had voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated themselves. I think for it not to be considered legally rape, that consent needs to be there. Consent isn’t a protection against a rape charge if the person was drugged involuntarily.
Can you post the code section. I read through the article, and the judges opinion doesn’t logically add up.
Unless “lacks the judgement to give reasoned consent” means by default consent to sex? It doesn’t sound like this woman ever consented, so it is irrelevant that she was drunk.
The judge ruled she was “not mentally incapacitated”. Sure, then the normal “you need to have consent or it is rape” applies, right?
It sounds like the formally convicted rapist is going to have another trial. I am thinking that he will just be prosecuted for the same charge, but instead of it being a case of 3rd degree sexual misconduct because of the victim being incapacitated, it will be a 3rd degree sexual misconduct charge with the justification being forceful penetration.
No. It says: Subd. 4.Consent.
(a) “Consent” means words or overt actions by a person indicating a freely given present agreement to perform a particular sexual act with the actor. Consent does not mean the existence of a prior or current social relationship between the actor and the complainant or that the complainant failed to resist a particular sexual act.
(b) A person who is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless as defined by this section cannot consent to a sexual act.
(c) Corroboration of the victim’s testimony is not required to show lack of consent.
and
Subd. 9.Physically helpless.
“Physically helpless” means that a person is (a) asleep or not conscious, (b) unable to withhold consent or to withdraw consent because of a physical condition, or (c) unable to communicate nonconsent and the condition is known or reasonably should have been known to the actor.
So we agree that there wasn’t consent, right? The victim here was asleep at the time. So she would be called physically helpless per subd. 4 section b. If she was physically helpless, per that section, she cannot consent to sex. If there is no consent, isn’t it a form of rape?
I think the conviction got overturned because prosecution argued she was mentally incapacitated (at least this is my take so far), which she doesn’t qualify for. She does qualify as being physically helpless though (as she was asleep). There is going to be another trail, and I am thinking they will get a conviction while arguing she was physically helpless (not incapacitated), did not consent to sex, and was raped.
Yes.
1 Like
I think we also agree that he will probably get a conviction, right?
I think this all comes down to how the prosecution approached the case. They went for her being incapacitated, and a loophole exists there because she voluntarily intoxicated herself (meaning she can’t be counted legally as incapacitated). She was still raped as she was helpless, but the judge had to overturn it because the Jury convicted on her being incapacitated (which she legally wasn’t). But there is another trial, and IMO they will get a guilty conviction on the grounds of her being helpless.
I do.
I think it has to do with the district court giving the jury bad instructions.
Did you read that somewhere? Share if so.
I am no expert here. The district court needs to explain the charges against the defendant to the jury, correct? Did they not explain all of the things that qualify or disqualify the charge against the defendant?
I did read in this article that some (including some state law makers) now think the rapist will only be charged for 5th degree sexual misconduct.
That doesn’t seem to jive with the definition for 3rd degree sexual misconduct as she was physically helpless. The state will have to show that she was physically helpless though (which seems harder than incapacitated). My bet is they go for 3rd and 5th degree.
Yes. Page 2 of the link I posted.
I’ll look at it, but I’ll take your word for now, as I don’t know all the details of it. The guy deserves prosecution IMO as his act is not defendable.
I recently messaged a friend of mine who has survived this, and she seemed annoyed with me asking her views on the Minnesota decision. She said the false report rate is something like being afraid to go outside because of the fear of a piece of space garbage hitting one in the head.
She also suggested I read this:
Know My Name: A Memoir is Chanel Miller’s moving survival story.
I will get to it as soon as I can.
The false report rate is basically unknown and unknowable. It’s very small if you assume that the only false reports are those where the report can be proven false (ie. the reporter is convicted of filing a false police report). That basically never happens.
On the other hand, it’s astronomically high if you assume that the only true rape accusations are those where a conviction is handed down and every other accusation is a false accusation.
Of course, the reality is somewhere in between. There are undoubtedly actual rapes where there is not enough evidence for a conviction and there are also undoubtedly false reports where a conviction against the false accuser is not in the cards.
Suggesting that the reality is all the way to one side or the other is either disingenuous or ignorant.