Oklahoma's Appeals Court Said It's Not Sodomy If You're Unconscious

quote:

---

"In an interview with police, the defendant said the victim engaged in consensual oral sex with him and it was her idea.

The girl told officers she could not remember anything after being at the park. Prosecutors initially charged the boy with first-degree rape and forcible oral sodomy, but because there was no evidence showing he had raped the girl, that charge was dismissed.

---

Can't say I disagree here. His word against hers about the time in question.

quote:

---

Can't say I disagree here. His word against hers about the time in question.

---

This.

I don't remember hooking up with several chicks in college. Doesn't mean I was raped.

quote:

---

Ruling was because the statute was not written clearly to encompass the facts of the case.

Criminal statutes are construed strictly and narrowly. There is no criminal "common law."

I can assure you none of those judges was happy about having to rule that way.

---

I think this fact should say it all...

quote:

---

there was no evidence showing he had raped the girl

---

Case closed

quote:

---

Seems like more of a poorly written law.

---

If I'm reading the story correctly the oral sex occurred at the park and according to the guy was consensual. The girl said she could not remember anything after the park. Who's telling the truth and who is lying? And how can you prove either?

The appeals court ruled 5-0, upholding the lower court's ruling. That is half dozen judges saying the same thing.

I blame the prosecutors, seems to me they overcharged him. He was originally charged with rape and forcible sodomy.

quote:

---

but because there was no evidence showing he had raped the girl, that charge was dismissed.

---

quote:

---

If I'm reading the story correctly the oral sex occurred at the park and according to the guy was consensual. The girl said she could not remember anything after the park. Who's telling the truth and who is lying? And how can you prove either?

---

quote:

---

Prosecutors said another boy who had been in the car at one point said when he was dropped off, the girl was drifting in and out of consciousness and could not walk.

---

Criminal case aside, you're a piece of shite to do anything with a girl in this condition.

You're a better man than this, Darth.

quote:

---

Tulsa County District Court Judge Patrick Pickerill [who also is a judge in Pawnee County] dismissed the forcible oral sodomy charge, stating unconsciousness and intoxication are not present in the law’s definition of the crime."

---

It happened after the park.

quote:

---

quote: said she could not remember anything Don't drink or do drugs Problem solved

---

I wouldn't do that to my wife in that situation, much less in this scenario.

quote:

---

It happened after the park.

---

I've read the story three times now and cannot see where it said this took place after the park. I guess they could have done a better job writing the story to give a good timeline of that night.

Here's where I think things stand based off the limited information from the story.

1. This girl was out drinking with these guys.
2. At some point one of them performs oral sex on her. He says it was her idea and consensual.
3. At some point she becomes so intoxicated she is blacking out.

This leaves the following questions.

1. What was her condition at the time the oral sex took place?
2. What was his condition at the time the oral sex took place?
3. Is he lying when he says it was her idea?
4. Is she lying when she says she does not remember?
5. What proof is there to back up either his or her version of events?

I think it all goes back to the missing timeline in the story. If she was indeed passed out during the oral sex, then it was rape. But if she was just drunk but not yet to the point of blacking out, then it's not rape, especially if he was in a similar state as she was in at that time.