• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking

CanadaJohn said:
But using your logic, you're a moronic asshole because you live there - if you admit that, I'll accept as legitimate your condemnation of all the people in Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

John...call me whatever you wish. But that doesn't make what I said incorrect.
 
Strange ruling.
But why the hatred of "radical right wing control in Oklahoma"? 22 of the 28 Governors of Oklahoma have been Democrats. Odds are that some strange laws were passed when Democrats controlled the state.
 
soot said:
The guy wasn't charged with "non-consensual oral sex", he was changed with "forcible oral sex".

You can't legally define the word "forcible" in specific way and then when you charge a guy with "forcible oral sex" in a situation where no force was used (cuz the girl was unconscious so he was able to just sorta slide it right on in) be surprised when the judges interpret the law as it's written and not how you wish it were written.

"Something" is wrong with the law here.

Either the forcible sex laws are wrong or the prosecutor charged the kid with the wrong crime, I don't know which.

But in a case where no force, as defined by the law, was used you can't charge a guy under the law with a crime of force and expect a conviction to stand.
Click to expand...

Uhmmmm, what's so difficult to understand that it's just goddamn hard to give consent while passed out with a dick down one's throat. THIS COULD ACTUALLY BE A THE PROBLEM that violates a person with an act of violence. Rape is a violent act.
 
Removable Mind said:


Well, folks, there you have it. Now we know for certain why Texas hasn't slide off into the Gulf. Oklahoma SUCKS! The radical right wing control in Oklahoma is taking the state straight to hell...a living hell.

It just doesn't get much crazier than this.
Click to expand...



In this day of date rape with "roofies" these idiot monkeys came to THIS conclusion? I got a feeling days between boy and girls just became dangerous.

Women, it's time to Oklahoma, forget the musical
 
TheGoverness said:
I just love my home state of Texas. What a great place to live. (Sarcasm x5000)
Click to expand...

I'm a native Texan. I love my home, my state. But it's filled with a radical hard right government that loves being authoritarian. They don't get the "governing" part at all.
 
"It depends on what the definition of 'is' is" ?
 
Cardinal said:
Um...no...I don't think anybody whose brain stem was more evolved than a mosquito's would make that kind of joke.
Click to expand...

It is an old joke here in Texas.

The Texas / Oklahoma trash talk has been going on forever.
 
Fearandloathing said:
In this day of date rape with "roofies" these idiot monkeys came to THIS conclusion? I got a feeling days between boy and girls just became dangerous.

Women, it's time to Oklahoma, forget the musical
Click to expand...

Indeed. Very dangerous.

While I see some in this forum who want to dissect the legal system and laws in Oklahoma, use it to make a case that it's all a problem with the judicial structure.

Bull****. No court in their right minds would negate the basic concepts and laws around "CONSENT". It's impossible to give consent passed out, and especially with a penis in one's mouth. If the girl woke up...what the hell is she supposed to say, "Stop, you're raping me!?...that sounds something like gahhahahhrrrrahdaaaallllgalllammmes...??? :roll:
 
soot said:
The question before the court wasn't whether or not it was "fun", but whether or not it was illegal by existing Oklahoma law under the circumstances in which it occurred in this case.

Quite clearly it was not.

It might be unethical, and it might be something that we want to be illegal, but it wasn't illegal when it happened and how it happened in this case.

Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench (countless examples of them doing just that not withstanding).

If the people of Oklahoma don't like a flaw in their laws which this case has brought to the forefront then they need to petition their legislature to amend the existing law to take incidents like this one in to account.
Click to expand...



Unethical? Sexually abusing an unconscious person is "unethical"?

As to the court, yes the roll of the court is to 'interpret laws' but the over-reaching and all consuming objective is 'justice' These judges ran up against a loop hole caused by not staying current with societies behaviors, and instead of over-riding it the previous decision,m maintained the status quo, which WILL have an immediate impact on juvenile society.

It would appear these "justices" have no balls and hide behind the status quo.

FFS, having any sex with a person too inebriated to give consent is wrong and they failed to even raise to a level of public consciousness
 
Removable Mind said:
Indeed. Very dangerous.

While I see some in this forum who want to dissect the legal system and laws in Oklahoma, use it to make a case that it's all a problem with the judicial structure.

Bull****. No court in their right minds would negate the basic concepts and laws around "CONSENT". It's impossible to give consent passed out, and especially with a penis in one's mouth. If the girl woke up...what the hell is she supposed to say, "Stop, you're raping me!?...that sounds something like gahhahahhrrrrahdaaaallllgalllammmes...??? :roll:
Click to expand...



I fully agree with you. This area used to have an issue with date rape. I know we did not change any laws but I know I would never see any rulings like this. To me the results of the ruling are contrary to the whole 'justice system' purpose....and half the population are now at GREATER risk.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Unethical? Sexually abusing an unconscious person is "unethical"?

As to the court, yes the roll of the court is to 'interpret laws' but the over-reaching and all consuming objective is 'justice' These judges ran up against a loop hole caused by not staying current with societies behaviors, and instead of over-riding it the previous decision,m maintained the status quo, which WILL have an immediate impact on juvenile society.

It would appear these "justices" have no balls and hide behind the status quo.

FFS, having any sex with a person too inebriated to give consent is wrong and they failed to even raise to a level of public consciousness
Click to expand...

What's most disturbing is the lengths to which they reduced "forcible" to its semantic core, and in a way that completely removed the victim's own consent (or as in this case, lack thereof) from the equation. The judgment essentially doesn't even recognize that there was a victim of anything at all.

This is some seriously turn-of-the-century view of woman's autonomy crap here. And I'm not referring to the beginning of the 21st century.
 
Fearandloathing said:
It would appear these "justices" have no balls and hide behind the status quo.
Click to expand...

Would seem to me that the judges upheld the law.

Sometimes the rule of law is ugly.

Believe me, there are plenty of times I've wanted to just drag some sucmbag out in to the public square and stone him to death without so much as a trail.

But the part of me that wants the rulebook for all Americans to be the same, and for the field to be level, appreciates the fact that sometimes you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Unfortunately, in this case, a 16 year old girl was the "egg".

Now, if I were her father, I'm not saying that I wouldn't respect the court's decisions and take matters in to my own hands, but I'm not saying that I'm sure I would respect it either.

I don't know what I would do and hope that I never find myself in anything like this situation.

But at the end of the day my position is that judges need to rule on and uphold the law as it's written.

There's no room in the rule of law for judges "growing balls' and becoming social and political activists from the bench.
 
soot said:
Would seem to me that the judges upheld the law.

Sometimes the rule of law is ugly.

Believe me, there are plenty of times I've wanted to just drag some sucmbag out in to the public square and stone him to death without so much as a trail.

But the part of me that wants the rulebook for all Americans to be the same, and for the field to be level, appreciates the fact that sometimes you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Unfortunately, in this case, a 16 year old girl was the "egg".

Now, if I were her father, I'm not saying that I wouldn't respect the court's decisions and take matters in to my own hands, but I'm not saying that I'm sure I would respect it either.

I don't know what I would do and hope that I never find myself in anything like this situation.

But at the end of the day my position is that judges need to rule on and uphold the law as it's written.

There's no room in the rule of law for judges "growing balls' and becoming social activists from the bench.
Click to expand...

Forcible = non-concensual. Nobody expected the judges to reduce the meaning of "forcible" to such absurd semantic lengths when everybody was on the same page and pretty clear on the concept up til now.
 
Cardinal said:
What's most disturbing is the lengths to which they reduced "forcible" to its semantic core, and in a way that completely removed the victim's own consent (or as in this case, lack thereof) from the equation. The judgment essentially doesn't even recognize that there was a victim of anything at all.
Click to expand...



That's frightening.

Years ago we had a rape trial in which it was disputed that the victim had actually resisted. In the ruling the judge said "sometimes no doesn't mean no", and went on to conclude the issues in the case were too clouded to convict.

Every parade or demonstration we have ever had for any reason we now see at least one banner saying "no means no".

Further, in a high profile case, former radio host Jian Gomeshi charged as a serial rapist was found not guilty,. it appears his 'victims' continued seeing him after the 'attacks'.

So we have the other way here. Men, should get a signed statement of permission before the first kiss.
 
Fearandloathing said:
That's frightening.

Years ago we had a rape trial in which it was disputed that the victim had actually resisted. In the ruling the judge said "sometimes no doesn't mean no", and went on to conclude the issues in the case were too clouded to convict.

Every parade or demonstration we have ever had for any reason we now see at least one banner saying "no means no".

Further, in a high profile case, former radio host Jian Gomeshi charged as a serial rapist was found not guilty,. it appears his 'victims' continued seeing him after the 'attacks'.

So we have the other way here. Men, should get a signed statement of permission before the first kiss.
Click to expand...

Prolly have to have that note notarized before the first peck on the cheek.
 
Fearandloathing said:
That's frightening.

Years ago we had a rape trial in which it was disputed that the victim had actually resisted. In the ruling the judge said "sometimes no doesn't mean no", and went on to conclude the issues in the case were too clouded to convict.

Every parade or demonstration we have ever had for any reason we now see at least one banner saying "no means no".

Further, in a high profile case, former radio host Jian Gomeshi charged as a serial rapist was found not guilty,. it appears his 'victims' continued seeing him after the 'attacks'.

So we have the other way here. Men, should get a signed statement of permission before the first kiss.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and if a woman wears jeans then it can't be rape because she'd have to remove them herself (I'm not making that up). It never ceases to amaze me how goofy people continue to be nearly a full century after women were given the right to vote. Every time another one of these stories comes out I just think, "Wait, we're still debating this crap?"
 
soot said:
Would seem to me that the judges upheld the law.

Sometimes the rule of law is ugly.

Believe me, there are plenty of times I've wanted to just drag some sucmbag out in to the public square and stone him to death without so much as a trail.

But the part of me that wants the rulebook for all Americans to be the same, and for the field to be level, appreciates the fact that sometimes you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Unfortunately, in this case, a 16 year old girl was the "egg".

Now, if I were her father, I'm not saying that I wouldn't respect the court's decisions and take matters in to my own hands, but I'm not saying that I'm sure I would respect it either.

I don't know what I would do and hope that I never find myself in anything like this situation.

But at the end of the day my position is that judges need to rule on and uphold the law as it's written.

There's no room in the rule of law for judges "growing balls' and becoming social and political activists from the bench.
Click to expand...



It seems to me those judges went out of they're way to find a way not to convict.

I any event that's a cop out. The days of hiding behind 'that's the law' we have no choice are long gone. The justice system is designed to protect the weak, when the system fails it, is the courts who need to rectify it.

In the end, the ruling endangers every woman in the state, and that is just wrong. The legal system may as well be trashed, torn up, as it has been become weapon to be used against women.
 
TheGoverness said:
Lol, "left-wing bigotry". [emoji14]
Click to expand...

Too many on the Left has become the worst bigots in this country lately. They hide behind a facade of political correctness and protected/unprotected classes to exhibit behavior that would be reprehensible if simple changes like substituting "women" for "Oklahoma" were made.
 
Removable Mind said:
With or without a dick in a passed out girls mouth?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the court's decision, i'm talking about your bigotry. OK needs to address it's rape laws and make this kind of thing a class A felony and put these kind of people into jail for a long time, but that doesn't excuse you being a bigot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom