|
Oklahoma keeps getting it wrong.
|
Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking .
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/...ol-consent
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Why do they keep ignoring these expressions of their fucking "god's" anger?
http://www.news9.com/story/31823695/torn...ard-county Quote:Tornadoes Touch Down As Severe Storms Roll Across Oklahoma They seem a little dense out there. Quote:...therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.  (April 28, 2016 at 7:09 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking . It's not a very good idea to put your Johnson in an unconscious person's mouth. You could end up with a nub. 
If there's no consent, it's rape, full stop. It doesn't matter if the victim gives an audible 'NO!', or if she's too hammered to say anything at all.
I imagine there are 17 year old males the length and breadth of Oklahoma thinking now that all they have to do is get a girl drunk to the point of incoherence and they won't be prosecuted for whatever they do to her. Da fuck is wrong with this court? Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
 RE: Oklahoma keeps getting it wrong.
April 29, 2016 at 4:27 am
(This post was last modified: April 29, 2016 at 4:27 am by Joods.)
(April 29, 2016 at 4:19 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If there's no consent, it's rape, full stop. It doesn't matter if the victim gives an audible 'NO!', or if she's too hammered to say anything at all. bold mine. This. Exactly. April is Domestic Violence and Sexual Violence Awareness month. This is the largest part of the campaigning that organizations who help victims deal with domestic and sexual violence and abuse try to make a point of saying. If there is NO consent, it IS rape. Period. If you aren't conscious or alert enough to make that decision, then you aren't conscious or alert enough to consent. That doesn't give anyone - man or woman - cart blanch to assault you because you are unable to speak up for yourself. Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(April 28, 2016 at 7:09 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking . Jesus motherfucking christ. No wonder why assault victims won't speak up. It's decisions like this that prevent them from doing so. I mean, shit, if a court holds this opinion, they set a precedence that anyone can assault anyone as long as the person is unconscious enough to not be able to stop it. Knowing this, the victim won't speak up because they already don't have a chance in court as long as this shit opinion is out there. That state just regressed itself by decades. What the mother fuck? Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
Some stupid bitch standing up for a rapist, and then a bunch of judges standing up for a rapist.
At least the law is being changed. It damn well better be. If I was this girls mother or grandmother, I'd probably be in jail for what I would do to the rapist and his lawyer. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/us/oklahom...ebriation/ 
The specific act delineated in the article sure isn't what I was expecting. (WoG's observation springing to mind)
I'd assumed it was more oral on the part of the male . . . . Where I'm headed here, there is evidence of penetration, so this ruling is anomalous in the extreme. As out of date as English Common Law is these days, penetration is penetration. [period] The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
Courts don't make the law they just levy judgements based on what the law reads. If this court said it's not against the law it simply means as the current laws read this is not a crime. Solution? petition the state legislature to amend the law so the courts can make a guilty judgement if one of these cases are brought before it.
 (April 29, 2016 at 2:26 pm)Drich Wrote: Courts don't make the law they just levy judgements based on what the law reads. If this court said it's not against the law it simply means as the current laws read this is not a crime. Solution? petition the state legislature to amend the law so the courts can make a guilty judgement if one of these cases are brought before it. I have to say I agree with Drich, on this one. Oklahoma is known for a myriad of barbaric and anachronistic laws, this being among them. Remember, this is the state that tried to get around the Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2004 by saying their state had a State's Interest (a loophole in the Lawrence case, which allows the state to regulate otherwise private behavior if there is a "government interest" at stake) in "public morality" which allowed them to continue arresting gay people for sodomy. It didn't last long under scrutiny, but it does give you a little insight into how Oklahoma lawmakers think.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
