Minnesota Supreme Court upholds "AJ's Technically Not Rape Law"

[RobDownSouth]

Noted General Board rape enabler AJ (currently dba "Champakian") has long held that if a woman chooses to drink alcohol in the presence of men, she has only herself to blame if she gets raped.

On Friday, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with AJ. "Bitches be drinking, they get the dick." (paraphrased).

This also helps explain why certain Litsters left California for Minnesota.

#Consent?WeDontNeedNoStinkinConsent

 

[CornusKousa]

Rob misrepresents the courts decision when he doesn't agree with it.

LOL...not shocking.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Rob misrepresents the courts decision when he doesn't agree with it.

LOL...not shocking.

It's quite literally what the law represents.

Minnesota court rules rape charge doesn't apply if the victim got willingly drunk

But you saw "ROB" and just had to spazz out only to be wrong. Again.

 

[adrina]

Ahhh so a person is only guilty of rape if their victim is sober. Got it.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Bitches like rape.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Ladies drink for free!

 

[phrodeau]

Ahhh so a person is only guilty of rape if their victim is sober. Got it.

No. A victim might be coerced or unwittingly intoxicated.

 

[RobDownSouth]

All Too Easy......

It's quite literally what the law represents.

Minnesota court rules rape charge doesn't apply if the victim got willingly drunk

But you saw "ROB" and just had to spazz out only to be wrong. Again.

He triggers so easily of late.

Do you think he'll be man enough to admit his error?

Me neither.

 

[coati]

He triggers so easily of late.

Do you think he'll be man enough to admit his error?

Me neither.

Well, to be fair, he also has a history of labeling sexually active women as "abusers" who deserve to be beaten severely.

So, like, there's a philosophical basis to him being triggered.

 

[CornusKousa]

It's quite literally what the law represents.

Minnesota court rules rape charge doesn't apply if the victim got willingly drunk

But you saw "ROB" and just had to spazz out only to be wrong. Again.

You need to read your own link.

He triggers so easily of late.

Do you think he'll be man enough to admit his error?

Me neither.

What error?? The one you'll never actually point out??

Well, to be fair, he also has a history of labeling sexually active women as "abusers" who deserve to be beaten severely.

So, like, there's a philosophical basis to him being triggered.

Nope. Coati is as dishonest as Rob.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

He triggers so easily of late.

Do you think he'll be man enough to admit his error?

Me neither.

Of course he wouldn't. He just deflected with no relevant response.

 

[CornusKousa]

Of course he wouldn't. He just deflected with no relevant response.

Luk can't point out my error either.

Just vapid shit talk, same as ever.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

I didn't see bobo say where rob was wrong and now he expects people to argue against an argument he didn't make. Lol

Vapid shit talk indeed.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Rob misrepresents the courts decision when he doesn't agree with it.

1. What EXACTLY am I "misrepresenting"?
2. Do YOU agree with this decision?

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Looks like the prosecutor overcharged the guy and the guy is walking now because of it.

The language of the statute matters.

Minneapolis will likely burn again because of prosecutors acting like pandering pols in the Chauvin case, too. Must be something in the water.

 

[CornusKousa]

1. What EXACTLY am I "misrepresenting"?

Noted General Board rape enabler AJ (currently dba "Champakian") has long held that if a woman chooses to drink alcohol in the presence of men, she has only herself to blame if she gets raped.

On Friday, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with AJ. "Bitches be drinking, they get the dick." (paraphrased).

This whole thing.

That's not what the Supreme Court decided.

The court decided that the law doesn't cover "but I was drunk" rape.

Which is a fact.

If Minnesota wants to start prosecuting people for regret "rape" every time someone wakes up from a bender and decides they made a bad choices while fucked up....then the state legislature needs to go change the wording of the law.

Words mean things.

2. Do YOU agree with this decision?

Absolutely, in the real world the word of the law matters Rob.

Rule of law cannot be subject to "progressive" prosecutors on power SJW crusades and power trips running around putting people in prison for things that are not crimes....no matter how much it pisses you and the other mob rule comrades off.

 

[CornusKousa]

Looks like the prosecutor overcharged the guy and the guy is walking now because of it.

The language of the statute matters.

That and the concept that words actually mean certain things....not whatever is a convenient definition for the progressive trying to be manipulative with it likes, is just beyond the mental capability of near all "progressive" democrats.

Minneapolis will likely burn again because of prosecutors acting like pandering pols in the Chauvin case, too. Must be something in the water.

That is a probable outcome.....nah, just Democrats. They're a "special" group.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

That and the concept that words actually mean certain things....not whatever is a convenient definition for the progressive trying to be manipulative with it likes, is just beyond the mental capability of near all "progressive" democrats.

That is a probable outcome.....nah, just Democrats. They're a "special" group.

The sad irony is that they could have had a conviction on a 5th Degree Sexual Assault charge, but the baying mob demanded blood, so they overcharged and got zip.

 

[RobDownSouth]

This whole thing. That's not what the Supreme Court decided. The court decided that the law doesn't cover "but I was drunk" rape. Which is a fact. If Minnesota wants to start prosecuting people for regret "rape" every time someone wakes up from a bender and decides they made a bad choices while fucked up....then the state legislature needs to go change the wording of the law. Words mean things. Absolutely, in the real world the word of the law matters Rob. Rule of law cannot be subject to "progressive" prosecutors on power SJW crusades and power trips running around putting people in prison for things that are not crimes....no matter how much it pisses you and the other mob rule comrades off.

I am going to be charitable and assume you've perhaps confused American law with that of your ancestral homeland of North Korea.

Here in America (the country you loathe), American jurisprudence has long held that intoxicated people cannot legally give consent (see below). The Minnesota court's ruling would seem to fly in the face of judicial precedence, which we call "Judicial Activism" aka "legislating from the bench", which is essential to preserving the White patriarchy and keeping women in their place.

As an aside, there is not such thing as "regret rape", except perhaps on Fox and OANN.

https://i.imgur.com/3cm6Wot.png

I am not the least bit surprised that you've chosen to align yourself with the small bellicose demographic of Literotica Rape Enablers (AJ, Que, and HisArpy). They seem like your kind of people.

 

[icanhelp1]

Looks like the prosecutor overcharged the guy and the guy is walking now because of it.

The language of the statute matters.

Minneapolis will likely burn again because of prosecutors acting like pandering pols in the Chauvin case, too. Must be something in the water.

Agree! The prosecutor overcharged the individual based on how the law is written. That's not to say that the individual is morally corrupt it's more about overcharging based on the statute and yes the Chauvin case is going down the same avenue and the city will burn.

 

[Lazaran]

I am going to be charitable and assume you've perhaps confused American law with that of your ancestral homeland of North Korea.

Here in America (the country you loathe), American jurisprudence has long held that intoxicated people cannot legally give consent (see below). The Minnesota court's ruling would seem to fly in the face of judicial precedence, which we call "Judicial Activism" aka "legislating from the bench", which is essential to preserving the White patriarchy and keeping women in their place.

As an aside, there is not such thing as "regret rape", except perhaps on Fox and OANN.

https://i.imgur.com/3cm6Wot.png

I am not the least bit surprised that you've chosen to align yourself with the small bellicose demographic of Literotica Rape Enablers (AJ, Que, and HisArpy). They seem like your kind of people.

Lit has its very own "basket of deplorables".

*nods*

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I am going to be charitable and assume you've perhaps confused American law with that of your ancestral homeland of North Korea.

Here in America (the country you loathe), American jurisprudence has long held that intoxicated people cannot legally give consent (see below). The Minnesota court's ruling would seem to fly in the face of judicial precedence, which we call "Judicial Activism" aka "legislating from the bench", which is essential to preserving the White patriarchy and keeping women in their place.

As an aside, there is not such thing as "regret rape", except perhaps on Fox and OANN.

https://i.imgur.com/3cm6Wot.png

I am not the least bit surprised that you've chosen to align yourself with the small bellicose demographic of Literotica Rape Enablers (AJ, Que, and HisArpy). They seem like your kind of people.

Here's the problem: They charged the guy with the wrong crime. They could have gotten SA5, but they went for SA3 and the language of that statute only applies to situations where the victim was involuntarily intoxicated by the assailant.

That's what rule of law is about: Clear lines.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Lit has its very own "basket of deplorables".

*nods*

How would you feel if you jaywalked and a cop, rather than giving you a citation for jaywalking, arrested you for vehicular manslaughter? See, he really, really hates jaywalkers and wants to stamp out the practice.

Would you plead guilty?

 

[icanhelp1]

I am going to be charitable and assume you've perhaps confused American law with that of your ancestral homeland of North Korea.

Here in America (the country you loathe), American jurisprudence has long held that intoxicated people cannot legally give consent (see below). The Minnesota court's ruling would seem to fly in the face of judicial precedence, which we call "Judicial Activism" aka "legislating from the bench", which is essential to preserving the White patriarchy and keeping women in their place.

As an aside, there is not such thing as "regret rape", except perhaps on Fox and OANN.

https://i.imgur.com/3cm6Wot.png

I am not the least bit surprised that you've chosen to align yourself with the small bellicose demographic of Literotica Rape Enablers (AJ, Que, and HisArpy). They seem like your kind of people.

The judge overturned the conviction based on written explanation of the law itself and put forth a retrial, the judge never exonerated him from a crime.

 

[siobhancan99]

Rob

there is no "American Jurisprudence" defining rape or consent. There are 50 different sets, because rape is a state level crime (for the most part). One feature of "American Jurisprudence" is, however, that statutes trump common law.

In this particular case, the Minnesota legislature did indeed pass a law that says if you get yourself drunk, you are not mentally impaired within the meaning of the statute. The ruling from the bench is not "judicial activism" nor does it "fly in the face of American Jurisprudence". In point of fact, the Supreme Court substituting its judgment for the legislature's is counter to the three part governmental system that operates as a check on the power of any one branch.

Is it awful that that's what the law says? yes. Is it going to be changed in the immediate future? I'd guess also yes. The problem, however, lies with the statute and has nothing at all to do with judicial activism. Indeed, the court itself signals that the statute is at odds with what a reasonably person would believe "It is certainly true that a commonsense understanding of the term mentally
incapacitated could include a person who cannot exercise judgment sufficiently to express consent due to intoxication resulting from the voluntary consumption of alcohol. But here, we do not look at the ordinary, commonsense understanding of mentally incapacitated because the Legislature expressly defined the term in the general definitions section of Minnesota’s criminal sexual conduct statutes" it is ironic that it is in fact the lack of judicial activism that results in a new trial here.

To be honest, I'm not so sure Khalil prevails under a new trial, as it seems like he committed 3rd degree rape because she was asleep, intoxicated or not. I'd sure as fuck hope that nobody is going to say someone passed out is not "physically helpless" and if the court said she wasn't well... then i'd be inclined to agree with you.