Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Will definitely be lost on many who simply read the headlines without reading articles about this, but the Minnesota supreme court based their decision on a technicality. Existing statute only refers to situations where the victim is given drugs or alcohol without the victim's agreement. There was no language that covered situations where the victim of free will consumed alcohol and drugs, became incapacitated, and was later raped. Hard to believe, but majority of states also have similar such statutes.
Yes, sounds shady, how a person got incapacitated is irrelevant because a person is still unable to give consent either way. And apparently women in the past did not report sexual assault simply because of the limitations of this statute. But it is what it is, and hopefully a bill introduced in 2019 to fix this will pass.
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned a Maple Grove man’s felony conviction for sexual assault because the victim got herself drunk before the incident.
Francois Khalil, then 20, picked up an intoxicated woman outside a Dinkytown bar in 2017, took her back to a North Minneapolis home and raped her after she passed out on a couch, the woman testified, according to court records. A Hennepin County jury in 2019 convicted him of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Khalil’s attorney argued the felony charge does not apply because that statute is for cases in which the victim had drugs or alcohol administered to her without her agreement.
A divided Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Khalil’s conviction, but the state Supreme Court disagreed, overturning the conviction and granting Khalil a new trial.
If I understand correctly, if you violate a dead body (necrophilia) it's against the law, but if you violate a body that is still alive but incapacitated for WHATEVER reason, that's just fine. Wow! Way to go Minnesota. I have friends from Minnesota so I'll ask them.
I can certainly understand why they ruled this way...we may not like it, but jurors still factor in how a woman is dressed or what part of town she is in...thats just the way it is, that what happens when you are judged by your peers I guess.
I can certainly understand why they ruled this way...we may not like it, but jurors still factor in how a woman is dressed or what part of town she is in...thats just the way it is, that what happens when you are judged by your peers I guess.
Like it or not that's the outcome, the decision made by the jury. Somebody needs to find this guy and take him out behind the woodshed IMO and a bunch of women need to teach that stupid woman a lesson.
They're both culprits here when you look at it from afar. They're both giving normal society a bad name and both should be punished.
We need to teach responsibility and respect for one another to those who just don't get it.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,634 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50664
What is "too intoxicated to consent"? I think we've gone way too far, when we state that the mere fact that a woman has been drinking makes it illegal to have sex with her - that seems terribly paternalistic. Throughout our cultural history, going out drinking and then having sex has been accepted.
I would be more comfortable if "too intoxicated to consent" was defined as being unconscious. That's obviously rape if she's not even aware of what's happening.
But the way it's been applied in the past, is if she's had several drinks and decides to have sex, he's guilty of rape. Which is grossly unjust, IMHO.
Where is the line, where a woman has had too much to legally give her consent, and how is the man supposed to understand that line, if you don't make it clear? If she's conversing and walking, she can give consent. If she appears to be sound asleep and isn't moving, can't give consent.
Will definitely be lost on many who simply read the headlines without reading articles about this, but the Minnesota supreme court based their decision on a technicality. Existing statute only refers to situations where the victim is given drugs or alcohol without the victim's agreement. There was no language that covered situations where the victim of free will consumed alcohol and drugs, became incapacitated, and was later raped. Hard to believe, but majority of states also have similar such statutes.
Yes, sounds shady, how a person got incapacitated is irrelevant because a person is still unable to give consent either way. And apparently women in the past did not report sexual assault simply because of the limitations of this statute. But it is what it is, and hopefully a bill introduced in 2019 to fix this will pass.
“Men” made those laws. To be honest most sex laws are too lax for me. You get in deeper trouble robbing the casino in Vegas than rape or sexually hurting a minor .
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned a Maple Grove man’s felony conviction for sexual assault because the victim got herself drunk before the incident.
Francois Khalil, then 20, picked up an intoxicated woman outside a Dinkytown bar in 2017, took her back to a North Minneapolis home and raped her after she passed out on a couch, the woman testified, according to court records. A Hennepin County jury in 2019 convicted him of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Khalil’s attorney argued the felony charge does not apply because that statute is for cases in which the victim had drugs or alcohol administered to her without her agreement.
A divided Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Khalil’s conviction, but the state Supreme Court disagreed, overturning the conviction and granting Khalil a new trial.
Why would they give him a new trial, I don’t understand? Should’ve let him walk free.
What is "too intoxicated to consent"? I think we've gone way too far, when we state that the mere fact that a woman has been drinking makes it illegal to have sex with her - that seems terribly paternalistic. Throughout our cultural history, going out drinking and then having sex has been accepted.
I would be more comfortable if "too intoxicated to consent" was defined as being unconscious. That's obviously rape if she's not even aware of what's happening.
But the way it's been applied in the past, is if she's had several drinks and decides to have sex, he's guilty of rape. Which is grossly unjust, IMHO.
Where is the line, where a woman has had too much to legally give her consent, and how is the man supposed to understand that line, if you don't make it clear? If she's conversing and walking, she can give consent. If she appears to be sound asleep and isn't moving, can't give consent.
One of the few times I agree with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
