There's a cute li'l kitten on this post. You've been warned. In a novel bit of legal reasoning, an Oklahoma state appeals court has decided that under Oklahoma law, oral sex with a person who's completely unconscious isn't actually a crime. They're not unsympathetic to victims, no, not at all; it's merely that they refuse to do violence to the language of the state statute which covers "forcible sodomy." Sometimes allowing a little violence to victims who are unable to give consent is simply the unfortunate side effect of being a textual originalist. Somewhere in the lower depths of hell, Antonin Scalia has to be smiling.
These judges need to understand the law is a tool to obtain justice, not to protect wrongdoers, not an exercise of word play or a game to find loopholes. Legislators cannot possibly foresee every possible scenario every law could be broken, the same way the internet was not provided for in the Constitution, but free speech was. This is what judges are for ; justice until the lawmakers catch up with the times. They failed at justice. I don't know if this law was written to protect the male but its interpretation was.
I'd have preferred the hot red head to many of my nights on the road :P And I agree on the "don't recall exploiting anyone", I'm fairly sure that never happened.
I actually first wondered how much of an idiot you have to be to obstruct an unconscious person's airflow before considering the potential for horrible mutilation. Guess I'll have to give back my man card.
Come on, now. The law has been used for years to protect wrongdoers, and many of the people who are gnashing their teeth at this particular ruling cheered every time it happened.
*sneaks Jim Bean into coffee mug**drinks at the office**stares into the distance*What, you want me to act surprised? This is Oklahoma we're talking about.
here's Britney punching Knoxville after "The Poo Cocktail Supreme":
https://youtu.be/ekIgI55XG5...
These judges need to understand the law is a tool to obtain justice, not to protect wrongdoers, not an exercise of word play or a game to find loopholes. Legislators cannot possibly foresee every possible scenario every law could be broken, the same way the internet was not provided for in the Constitution, but free speech was. This is what judges are for ; justice until the lawmakers catch up with the times. They failed at justice. I don't know if this law was written to protect the male but its interpretation was.
What the soaking fuck? Certain states!!! Have the sane people lost all control?
My safe word is snoring.
Thanks to this ruling, I believe I've discovered a loophole in the Commenting Rules For Radicals.I shall henceforth call it The Oklahoma.
[also too, insert mohel joke here]
I'd have preferred the hot red head to many of my nights on the road :P And I agree on the "don't recall exploiting anyone", I'm fairly sure that never happened.
Obviously the secret cabal of wine cooler, slow gin fizz, long island ice tea and strawberry margaritas providers paid off the judges.
Also known as the Bristol Palin Saturday Night Special?
A room! A room! My kingdom for a room!
"Things are fucked up and shit"
I believe we have a winner in our Summarize the Century So Far contest.
Since many of the non-comments seen here are entered under the influence, you might be on to something.
I actually first wondered how much of an idiot you have to be to obstruct an unconscious person's airflow before considering the potential for horrible mutilation. Guess I'll have to give back my man card.
So we'll have to include provisions for those who are mostly dead as well, is that what you're saying?
Come on, now. The law has been used for years to protect wrongdoers, and many of the people who are gnashing their teeth at this particular ruling cheered every time it happened.
*sneaks Jim Bean into coffee mug**drinks at the office**stares into the distance*What, you want me to act surprised? This is Oklahoma we're talking about.