Oklahoma: Forced oral sex not rape if victim is unconscious

[RAMROD 117,023]

WTF?!!

Find me these lawmakers who make this happen and let me forced mine on them when they are unconcious. 

[monstereo 1,232]

6 minutes ago, just4fun said:

So it isnt rape if she's unconscious and doesn't remember. I guess then what Bill Cosby did was fine. Or people made a big deal out of nothing when they were outraged at Cee Lo's tweets about being unconscious and raped are all ridiculous. 

It doesn't say she was unconscious though.

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, andy232000 said:

yeah i get what you say, but thats the whole point of "helping the victim in a psycological level first" rather than be quick to judge if it happened or not. if she said she was raped, the first thing people should do is listen to her and hear her out before saying "she doesnt remember, she was unconscious, she was drunk". and also, if she was unconscious and the guy kept goingm to me that is just as bad as if she said no. she did not have control of her body in that state 

I'm not familiar enough with this case, but from the article it seems that the girl doesn't even remember anything that happened (which makes me confused, how is someone even being prosecuted then?), which is to be expected when she was that drunk.

So I don't even know if she said she was raped, and none of y'all know either People tried to listen to her and she says she doesn't remember if it's consensual or not, which obviously means she doesn't remember if it was rape or not. What more can you do?

Granted, you can commit the guilty party to a detector test, but in cases of sexual abuse that's a very ambivalent way to check facts (since even if the guy did assault her, he may not even interpret it himself as such based on how things happened, especially when, again, he was drunk and high off his ass), so I'm not surprised they didn't go for that either.

Basically we don't know ****, but people are realizing the crazyness of the law and they are fixing it. So I don't know why everyone is just stating the obvious: that this law is ridiculous. But the actual case in front of us doesn't seem to be one where we could ever find out for real if it was rape or not, even from the girl's own testimony which is "I don't remember it".

Maybe the real problem we should be focusing on (besides the law which is being fixed) is the fact that drugs are such a monstrous influence on youngsters and how it's affecting crime.

[TiphEret 1,320]

22 minutes ago, Didymus said:

But the girl said she didn't remember anything (including if she was conscious or not). Why is everyone taking her side, acting like she was most definitely assaulted?

Looks like your reverse-Warholian "assault victims aren't heard" dynamic. Ugly.

They're working on the law because they realized it's inadequate, which should be the subject of the discussion. Y'all should be thrilled. This isn't even about whether the girl was assaulted or not, which we clearly don't even have the possibility of knowing. This is about the fact that in another case where a girl would remember she was orally assaulted, this law might make the guilty party immune.

Not surprised anyway. This forum doesn't have a high level of reading comprehension skill.

Maybe because more often than not victims are not listened to. And if they are listened to, very often there is never "nough evidence" that what happened, happened. If you think we are that stupid then maybe you should have not come back, you left a few month ago and now you come to tell how people are dumb. How nice!

[PartySick 172,486]

45 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Oklahoma

Oh, that explains it.

[Didymus 34,380]

6 minutes ago, just4fun said:

So it isnt rape if she's unconscious and doesn't remember. I guess then what Bill Cosby did was fine. Or people made a big deal out of nothing when they were outraged at Cee Lo's tweets about being unconscious and raped are all ridiculous. 

It is, and they're fixing the law in agreement to that sentiment

You're all just talking about something else than the actual issue. The law is already identified as wrong and it's being corrected. This case, however, doesn't even tell us if the girl was unconscious or not and the girl herself doesn't remember either, so what's the point of talking about that?

[Johnikan 602]

 

Gaga better go to the judges house, pull out some oscar worthy "Til it happens to you", serve vocals  so hard that even his tears are given life, then the given life tears would call this guy back into the courtroom and declare him guilty!!! 

**** like this is unacceptable.

[monstereo 1,232]

It's scary how so many people think someone should be locked up despite not enough evidence

 

The whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty" isn't valued anymore I see

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, TiphEret said:

Maybe because more often than not victims are not listened to. And if they are listened to, very often there is never "nough evidence" that what happened, happened. If you think we are that stupid then maybe you should have not come back, you left a few month ago and now you come to tell how people are dumb. How nice!

What can you do when you listen to a victim who can't remember if she was assaulted or not? Can someone explain that to me? They did listen but there's no evidence, not even in the girl's own memory

So no, all of your concern about proper treatment of victims of assault is wonderful, but none of you seemed to have read the OP and the article before commenting: the law is already identified as wrong and it is already being changed. So the only thing left to discuss is what, without the girl remembering if the act was consensual or not, a court can do to find out what really happened.

But you're not talking about that either, so yeah. I didn't call anyone dumb, but I did call out the obvious: many members here prefer to post first and read later or not at all. It's obvious most people in here just posted based on the misleading title. How can you defend that?

[Sister 9,907]

People can be true vultures, never drop your guard and get too high and trusting. Always want to be in control of yourself, know that others will hurt you if the chance arrives. It happens more than you know.

[TiphEret 1,320]

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

What can you do when you listen to a victim who can't remember if she was assaulted or not? Can someone explain that to me? They did listen but there's no evidence, not even in the girl's own memory

So no, all of your concern about proper treatment of victims of assault is wonderful, but none of you seemed to have read the OP and the article before commenting: the law is already identified as wrong and it is already being changed. So the only thing left to discuss is what, without the girl remembering if the act was consensual or not, a court can do to find out what really happened.

But you're not talking about that either, so yeah. I didn't call anyone dumb, but I did call out the obvious: many members here prefer to post first and read later or not at all. It's obvious most people in here just posted based on the misleading title. How can you defend that?

Well I will only speak for myself but I did read the article. Yes they recognize the law is wrong, but they focus on ****ing semantics rather than the victim or should I say alleged victim because she was unconscious. I mean there were two other boys present that were witnesses it's not like they can only rely on that girls memory but one more time whatever happens to victim we don't care. I mean we teach sex ed but consent, oh no that's optional right? 

Honestly you should give people a bit more respect instead of making assumptions about their comprehension skills, if people are still outraged about the verdict should they not express it? But honestly don't even bother to quote me.

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, TiphEret said:

Well I will only speak for myself but I did read the article. Yes they recognize the law is wrong, but they focus on ****ing semantics rather than the victim or should I say alleged victim because she was unconscious.

That's not true though Yes, they focused on semantics, but the law is being changed precisely in order to avoid that in the future, so I don't get why everyone's complaining in here, people should be happy this is being recognized by people and there's a process in motion to prevent bad ruling in the future (esp. in a case where a victim actually has something to say).

2 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

I mean there were two other boys present that were witnesses it's not like they can only rely on that girls memory but one more time whatever happens to victim we don't care. I mean we teach sex ed but consent, oh no that's optional right? 

Well, we don't know anything about what they said, so I don't think it's correct to go into that. And, again, not sure why you keep implying that nobody cares. If you have no evidence, you have no evidence, simple as that. I admit that it's a huge problem for sexual assault cases, but on the other hand, it's easy to scream injustice and a lot harder to think of ways you could ever find out the truth in the first place.

4 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

Honestly you should give people a bit more respect instead of making assumptions about their comprehension skills, if people are still outraged about the verdict should they not express it? But honestly don't even bother to quote me.

Well, I already started quoting you before reading that last sentence, so not stopping now. Not sure why you're raging at me like that and throwing personal insults around. I didn't come in this thread to call everyone dumb, I tried to explain what was really at stake and why the replies so far were mostly off-topic and misleading.

Like I said, I didn't understand why everyone was taking the girl's side when they didn't even know the details of the case (most people in here don't even seem to be aware that the girl confessed she doesn't even know what happened herself) and ignored the real news factor of the whole article: that the law was being changed.

I probably shouldn't have made my little diss comment if I knew you'd take it so personally, but I still don't think you can deny I had a point. You in your first post already claimed to know exactly what happened when the girl herself doesn't even remember. How is that a good way to start a discussion about this?

[lego 44,165]

15 minutes ago, monstereo said:

It's scary how so many people think someone should be locked up despite not enough evidence

 

The whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty" isn't valued anymore I see

 

 

But according to the text, the accused one claimed it was CONSENSUAL, so sexual act DID happen and she has no memory of it (she passed out) so how is that not sexual assault? 

 

[TiphEret 1,320]

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

That's not true though Yes, they focused on semantics, but the law is being changed precisely in order to avoid that in the future, so I don't get why everyone's complaining in here, people should be happy this is being recognized by people and there's a process in motion to prevent bad ruling in the future (esp. in a case where a victim actually has something to say).

Well, we don't know anything about what they said, so I don't think it's correct to go into that. And, again, not sure why you keep implying that nobody cares. If you have no evidence, you have no evidence, simple as that. I admit that it's a huge problem for sexual assault cases, but on the other hand, it's easy to scream injustice and a lot harder to think of ways you could ever find out the truth in the first place.

Well, I already started quoting you before reading that last sentence, so not stopping now. Not sure why you're raging at me like that and throwing personal insults around. I didn't come in this thread to call everyone dumb, I tried to explain what was really at stake and why the replies so far were mostly off-topic and misleading.

Like I said, I didn't understand why everyone was taking the girl's side when they didn't even know the details of the case (most people in here don't even seem to be aware that the girl confessed she doesn't even know what happened herself) and ignored the real news factor of the whole article: that the law was being changed.

I probably shouldn't have made my little diss comment if I knew you'd take it so personally, but I still don't think you can deny I had a point. You in your first post already claimed to know exactly what happened when the girl herself doesn't even remember. How is that a good way to start a discussion about this?

Seriously? Where did I claim I knew what happened? And then you call people out on their reading skills? You should not put words in people's mouth. I said it send the signals that we don't care about victims and it's true? I am not going to ask if you have been abused because it(s gross but pretend you are a victim, so first it's hard to tell people because they stigmatize you or call you a lair, when you finally do it you can be sure that even the people that are supposed to listen will tell you things such as what were you wearing, were you drinking and what not and when you go to the judge he says, sorry miss but a penis in a mouth is not rape. So yes I am complaining about that law and the outcome, awesome they will change it but for that case it won't have any impact, so if the guys happen to be guilty nothing will happen to them. Do you call that justice? So I am sorry but no maybe you are happy but I am not and yes I think it's true that 90% of the time people don't care about the victims in this case just look at how most of the time people get away with it. 

 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

10 hours ago, monstereo said:

It doesn't say she was unconscious though.

Yes you are right. It does state that she has no memory of the act which leads to the conclusion that she was unconscious but it could also mean she was just heavily intoxicated. Sorry for the confusion. However, the article states that both "intoxication and unconsciousness are not mentioned in the states forceable sodomy law." Thats why there was no case. It leads me to believe that in the "rape law" there is wording for intoxication and unconsciousness. But that's just implied in the article and not directly stated.