We shouldn't castigate other countries' progress on womens' rights while we arestill struggling with our own. While we are generally much better in this category than we were even a quarter-century ago, we still have a long way to go--as shown by this article.

The good news, of course, is that this will be retried--and given how long that process takes, if enough people are outraged over it, a repeal of that 1800's law may be emplaced before the retrial happens.

HUH;, she is a sleep, sex starts, she wakes up, a stranger screwing her, but this is not rape; WTF

Wow...California should step into the current century. Rape is a reprehensible crime and most of the States in the US do a much better job of protecting women than the rest of the globe. Come on Cali get the arcane laws off your books. Try protecting your people.

The arcane laws are still on the books because the men we vote into office are lazy. All they want are the freebies they can get from the office, golf time and 3 hour lunches.

Let's see, he watches her house to make sure she's alone, stalking, he breaks into her house, breaking and entering, he has unconsenual sex with her and the court doesn't call it rape. The judges who came to this decision should be charged with aiding this scum.

txmom32...your's is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read on MSNBC.

GREAT! Ruling. GREAT! first step in remanding it back for retrial. Nice action on the part of The Court, being as "Participant", with recognition and acknowledgement, in and of what is actually going on right in front of Its own eyes!

What a fascinating "connundrum"....a.k.a...."demonstrated loopholing detriment???" that obviously needs to be taken-out of the equation? It seems the ideal would be additionally, "Constitutionally", and not just "Statutorily" done, somehow. Kind of like, "and while we're at it....because it has presented itself...."

What a bunch of idiots. I can’t believe this law was even on the books. I say shame on California for still having it there. I’m with Lady Cat on this one. He should have been charged with stalking, breaking and
entering and rape. I say we neuter him and put in in jail.

There are so many of these stupid, archaic laws that let criminals run free. Even when they are exposed, law makers are too busy doing other things to change these laws. So, it will happen again, and more criminals will be free. I remember a time when law makers did their jobs. Sadly, it was back in the 1800's when these stupid laws were made!

txmom, the laws in effect were from the 19th century. People in office today did not create them but need to fix them. I would be afraid to see what laws Texas has on the books, some may include livestock....

But if this happened to a politician's daughter the law would be changed pretty quick.

I have little doubt that this guy will be convicted again at the retrial. Based on the comments, some people are misreading this article. The court did not say that he is not guilty of rape, only that there needs to be a new trial because of the question about what grounds the jury found him guilty under, tricking her or having sex with a sleeping person. I agree that tricking someone into having sex with you by impersonating someone else should be illegal whether the person is married or not, but apparently that is not the current law in CA. Without a doubt, this law needs to be changed. This issue, however, will likely not come into play in the retrial. The guy initiated the sex while the woman was asleep. Since by definition a person that is asleep can not give consent, this guy will once again be convicted of rape. One thing that is not clear from this article is how the guy came to be in the home to start with. If he broke in, why wasn't he charged with that crime as well as the rape? Was this guy a roommate or friend of a roommate who had been invited into the home? There is a lot of information missing in this article. I hope that the judge sends a message to this @!$%# and his lawyer who got the conviction overturned on this technicality by imposing a harsher sentence than the original one once he is convicted at thee retrial.

Yes, I was sure the article would be about something that happened in a Muslim country.

its true, we are a country full of useless politicians. Government officials are there for one thing and one thing only, their personal legacy. We have one SPECIFIC kind of people that are destroying this nation....and some how they all got to be "in charge". Our so called leaders have spent 100 years creating red tape so that they dont have to do anything...ever but just show up at the photo op.

I think there is something to be learned from them, and I believe it is this: create as much regulation as possible so that you can explain away any non-actions and blame them on the past, which is the past...nothing can be done now.

So in a sense, I can go to work, figure out a way show only the mess, so that my boss gives up hope on anything ever getting done, all while I talk about my amazing new idea on how to solve the mess....rinse and repeat.

Dick-2100935

Does anyone else think it's strange for a woman to make love to someone all along thinking that person is some else? Maybe a quick driver license check would prevent this in the future. Wine, foreplay, condom, driver license check - OK let's rock!

Does anyone else think it's strange for DICK-2100935 to not have read the article???

Something is wrong here, she did not know it was a stranger until a ray of light crossed his face?

Did not notice a different smell, touch, feel, or voice (sound)?

I do agree that the law is screwed up and needs to be changed, but we do not have the full story here.

never mind. . .

This is an early April Fools' joke, right, MSNBC made this up...? Holy cow, the woman is lucky she didn't end up dead. I must say, the judges were truly only doing their jobs, that is, interpreting the law as it is currently written, but is there no room for common sense? What a load, makes me ashamed to live in CA.

When I first saw the title to this I thought " that has to be a misprint" but NO it wasn't a misprint but a miscarriage of justice. I understand that the judge is doing what he thinks is the legal requirement and if the case goes back and is tried for just the one issue the guilty person will be sentenced again. But the victim is victimized again in 2 ways first it is now official that she wasn't raped (sick to even think that) and secondly she will have to testify and go through another trial just so the rapist is punished.

I must say, the judges were truly only doing their jobs, that is, interpreting the law as it is currently written, but is there no room for common sense?

Do you really want judges deciding that something is a crime, even though there is no such law on the books? I don't think so. That goes far beyond interpretation.

JS in SD

I have little doubt that this guy will be convicted again at the retrial. Based on the comments, some people are misreading this article. The court did not say that he is not guilty of rape

Unfortunately JS the judge did issue a judgment that the "Rapist" did not commit rape. I do agree that once retried the proper judgment will be reinstated. It is just sick that the victim has to go through this again.

"Has the man committed rape? Because of historical anomalies in the law and the statutory definition of rape, the answer is no

You guys are overreacting way too much. Seems to be a common theme around here. He is being retried. He is not off the hook for rape. They cant get him for impersonation, so they'll retry him on the having sex with her while she was asleep grounds, which is rape, so he is still going to jail.

Every state has blue book laws. These are laws that were written so long ago, but never taken off the books because people just never use them, but evidently, it does come back to bite them in the end. For example, it only applied to married women before because there were already laws on the books against premarital sex at the time, and women tended not to have sex with someone unless it was their husbands, so the law made sense to some degree at the time. There is another law in California that says that a husband can beat his wife with a belt, if it is less than one inch in width. Other states have them too. Like in Hawaii, you can be fined for not having a boat. And you are not allowed to put coins in your ear. In New York, there is a law that the penalty for jumping off a building is death. In Rhode Island if either party is deemed an idiot, their marriage is null and void. And San Francisco has a law that says no one can walk down a public street if they are deemed ugly. Obviously the rape on and beating your wife are both pretty bad, but every state has blue laws. The guy wont get away with it, and hopefully it will make the law makers change that archaic law.

@ txmom -

You are absolutely correct. The women who have been elected to office are the ones who are lazy. They should have taken some time, once in office, to have their aides comb through and compile a hit list of archaic laws on the books that harmfully impact women today, and introduced legislation to correct them.

For instance, there used to be a law on the books in either Alabama or Tennesse (I think) that a man could divorce his wife if he discovered that she had used makeup during their courtship. Something having to do with trickery.

Good post Mr. Burn

Why is everyone putting this on the woman? She's the victim. The article says she had been drinking, and she was in her own bed. This stranger came in with her and pretended to be someone he wasn't.

The stranger came into her own bed without her invite, knowledge, or consent.

What's so hard to understand about that? It's rape. Simply because he didn't get violent doesn't obscure the reality of the violation.

I realize that the law is as it is written for over a century ago, and it needs fixed (badly and in a hurry), but I know that a number of states have similar admonishments on their books, too. I think some law clerks and attorneys could do a land office business reviewing the books and bringing our laws up to date. This one--for sure.

Another archaic law from a nearby town: It's illegal to walk your pig on Sunday, even if it is on a leash. The books are littered with these little jewels, and they need an upgrade.

Forrester - Women, from now on, measure him, then plug yourself where his length dies. Anyone else enters and moves that plug further up, you'll know It's someone else. Additionally, if any are too short to reach the plug you'll know It's someone else.

You are a very weird and creepy person.

G-morning Screminmimi...

Amanda,

The good news, of course, is that this will be retried--and given how long that process takes, if enough people are outraged over it, a repeal of that 1800's law may be emplaced before the retrial happens.

Isn't unconstitutional to change a law, then go back and arrest all who broke a law when it did not exist yet? Yes it is. If they change the law, it's post time that this incident happened.

But a panel of judges overturned the trial court's conviction and remanded it for retrial, in a decision posted this week.

That said, they will not be able to "retry" him on rape charges if they change the law after the incident however, they can and will convict him of many other things like, breaking and entering, assault etc.. but rape, unfortunately, I doubt it.

They already overturned this conviction right?! Why? Correct. The "law".

Guess we'll have to sit back, wait and see. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of this unique case.

Lastly, I would castrate this guy if it were my wife/girlfriend. This guy is a total POS man.

Have a nice weekend...

CD

I like you Creek Dog. Rational. Its true he can not be convicted by a law that was no in effect when he did the action. But, I like your course of action if you knew the girl. Take it into your own hands... literally. lol

And I love how everyone addresses me as Mr. Burns. Kind enough to put the dot and space. lol

Good morning, CD.

Strange world, isn't it?

As much as I hate the idea of a rapist going free, I understand the appellate court's concern about the law in the way it is written now. It only protects women who are married, and that is wrong.

Let's say (just for the sake of argument) the appellate court upheld the original ruling. Potentially the rapist's lawyer could have escalated the case to a higher court and argued that his client should have never been charged in the first place, based on the law in the CA books. That would mean not only that a higher court could overturn the original verdicts, but also that might mean the state would not have been able to retry him and he would have gotten away with it completely.

What the appellate court is trying to do is fix the bigger issue here, which is the archaic law and which women it protects. This way when the suspect is retried he cannot use the current law to get acquitted nor can he use it in future attempts to appeal.

What needs to happen now is that citizens should be channeling this rage by demanding their legislators rewrite the law. At the same time we need to keep pressuring the DA to retry the case once the new law is written.

No, the decision wasn't popular, but if the legislators and state attorneys of CA follow the guidance of the appellate court a lot more women will get justice as a result. So there is some logic there.

Morning CD and Mimi,

This is why is has become a habit that prosecutors don't put all of the charges against someone out there on the first trial. It helps them avoid double jeopardy laws if they get a crap jury and also helps avoid stupid old laws that everyone has forgotten about.

I really hope they have new evidence or additional charges to slap on this alleged scum-biscuit

First, before you go spouting off about this, you should read the court's decision and the FACTS underlying the whole incident. It's People v. Morales--Google it. This was not some "stranger"- -the victim had been partying with him and others in her house, and he remained in the house after her boyfriend went home (that's why it isn't burglary or breaking and entering, and certainly not stalking). He was a friend of her brother who was also in the house. The headline on this article is completely misleading, and the judges made the correct decision. The court never said the woman was not raped, nor that the defendant isn't a rapist- -only that the jury wasn't properly instructed by the trial court, and thus the case has to be retried. Sheesh- -talk about an overreaction by some of you on the list, and especially MSNBC.

Pvblivs

This indicates that she was awake, reasonably coherent, but deceived as to identity.

Rape is a very serious matter. And the creation of false equivalences like this will result in it being taken less seriously. Soon we will have women changing their minds a couple months later and making accusations of rape for sex that was consensual at the time. This cannot be allowed to happen. Such farces weaken the position of those who really were victims -- not to mention victimizing the innocent by throwing them in jail for crimes they didn't commit.

So let me get this straight. If a man that is not you sneaks into your wife's room and she, half asleep, assumes it is you up until a certain point during sex you would actually put the blame on your wife for not knowing any better? REALLY? So women in committed relationships now have to double check their lover's identity in the dark before consenting to sex in the safety of their own bedrooms???

Not only is that crazy but it makes you sound kinda sick yourself.

Everyone, not just women, has a right to know and understand who is in their room. Even half asleep. Even in the dark. "Consent" means that someone knowingly and willingly gives you permission to do something. The RAPIST didn't cover the "knowingly" part.

Do you really want judges deciding that something is a crime, even though there is no such law on the books? I don't think so. That goes far beyond interpretation.

obviously you didn't read the article, there is in fact exactly such a law that was written in 1872. such laws would be more commonplace if the religious right has their way, after all, an unmarried woman having sex is nothing but a whore (according to such as Rush).

the rapist will be retried, and the law will either be removed or replaced with a new, more comprehensive law.

markwills,

You know who tries to punish rapists more right? It is not you libs. And Rush doesnt speak for the right. He speaks for the drug addicted hypocrites of the right. Which may be a lot, idk. lol

Man plays golf 5 days a week. Wife has a lover who comes over when he's playing golf. One Saturday, in pouring rain, husband leaves the marital bed to play golf, but finds the course closed and returns home. He gets back into bed with his half-asleep wife and whispers in her ear, "It's pouring rain outside", to which she replies, "Yes, and would you believe my husband is playing golf."

Hi Tracy.

You make a good point. It's one I've never considered. Often wondered why some charges were held back.

And Rush doesnt speak for the right. He speaks for the drug addicted hypocrites of the right. Which may be a lot, idk. lol

we can agree there, lol

Is it just me? Because I know who's in bed with me, sex or no sex; everyone "senses" familiarity through form, smell, sound, etc---even with our backs turned. Am I the only one who thinks this story is just a little off?

WTF? "Nonconsensual sex, generally, ought to be regarded as rape, or, if not rape, as a lesser but still quite serious sexual assault.".

If the panel of judges disagree, then put their wives in her shoes, i'm sure the judges will come up with anything to prosecute the Julio Morales.

This is not right.

Creek Dog - I would castrate this guy if it were my wife/girlfriend.

I think a lot of people would agree with that sentiment...until it actually happens to someone they love. My daughter was assaulted as a child by a family member...people asked why my husband didn't shoot the ba$tard. If he had he would have been the one in jail and not out where my daughter and I needed him. Just saying.

Lolly:

I only went so far as to say that it didn't qualify as rape. I didn't say anything about blaming anyone. You are trying to put words in my mouth and calling me sick for your words and ideas.

Everyone, not just women, has a right to know and understand who is in their room.

But fraud is a separate matter. As I said, they may have a case on him for impersonation. And, with the points Lilrkt brings up, we don't know if he deliberately deceived regarding his identity. This points back to the unease I had to begin with. You are stating that if she misidentifies him and consents, and he does not know that she has misidentified him, that he is guilty of "rape." Do you also extend that to casual meetings in a club? If the courts accepted your standard, they would have to apply it in that case too. And that's just unacceptable.

It doesn't matter is the woman is buck naked, humping a car bumper on the corner of 8th and Main at high noon. If she says NO it means NO.

If she is impaired to the point where she is, basically, unconscious, and a man initiates sex ... it is rape. Pure and simple.

People are always quick to want to blame the victim so they can feel just a little safer. Get these damned antiquated laws off the books now!

I believe that was part of the original "Nerds" plot. (I use the word plot loosely) In it at the school fund raiser, a hot cheerleader who had been running the kissing booth is very "horny" and sneaks off to the tunnel of love with what she thinks is her jock boy-friend but it turns out to be the main nerd wearing a Darth Vader mask. In the movie she is won over by his sexual prowess while in reality rape, at least in most states, is punishable by serious hard time. Anybody else see a problem here?

D. Appel:

I am a big believer in "no means no." But if she said "no" the case would not have been thrown out.

I don't see anyone trying to "shame the victim." The only people trying to any shaming are the ones with the "how dare you suggest it might not be rape?" attitude. Are you trying to shame the victim. You are certainly trying to shame someone.

Look, let me give you an analogy. If I am in a hurry and give a package to the wrong person by mistake, I can't later decide that he was a thief.

I don't know what she feels. And I do not judge her emotions. But I have a problem with the attitude that a woman can change her mind and call it "rape" after the fact.

txmom32:: Rape is RAPE-- regardless of how many women there are, regardless of the state and regardless of botox. The judge didn't want him to go to prison cause he might be raped. And by the way, I am a Texas greatgrandmother so I do have more grey matter between my ears. Where are YOUR brains?

How the hell did this guy get into her house? How does going into a private bedroom without permission constitute benign approval? If a woman is asleep it must be agreed that she is in an unconscious state. Its rape. Period.

@Pvblivs

Anyone who takes something that doesn't belong to them is a thief. If a package gets delivered to your house that belongs to your neighbor and you do not rectify the situation, you are a thief. And yes, a man that sticks his dick in a woman who has every reason to think the dick belongs to her boyfriend is a rapist. She didn't 'change her mind', she never consented to sex with THIS MAN. What is scary is that you can't see it.

There are two issues here:

1) Should archaic laws be changed? YES.

2) Is this woman's story believable? NO. How do you not know that this other man isn't your boyfriend? Surely they don't smell the same, don't kiss the same, don't have the same "moves." I would know if the person I was being intimate with was my special someone.

annie

I agree that something is not right here. I don't agree with rape ever but as you say you would sense something was not right. If she was able to see in a flash of light she had cognitive thought and knew it was not her beau. maybe she got caught and decided rape was a good alibi.I see from the post here most people act before thinking maybe she did also. This should not have made the news until after the second trial as most are quick to react without the full story

Enough:

So, if someone comes up to you, says "I was supposed to give this to you," hands you a package, and leaves, you consider yourself a thief. For the sake of the argument, the package is not marked and is not obviously intended for somebody else. Now, analogies aren't perfect. With a physical package, you might suspect that the original person stole the package. So you might want to contact the police to make sure you're not dealing in stolen goods, a concern that does not apply here.

According to the court documents, which I Googled, all the people involved were guests at a party. She was not at her home or at her boyfriend's home. So he wasn't an invader. The only real issue is whether she was actually asleep or if she only mistook his identity. Again, coerced sex is rape -- no question. But he is not charged with that. I do not know if they have a committed relationship. Many people do not. But you are telling me that she gets to decide after the fact whether it was rape.

Annie, Okie:

That is a legitimate point. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Mistaken identity is at least a plausible story. It is quite possible that she and the defendant were engaged in an affair. But I don't know that.

Wow, Annie-322924 - way to blame the victim. Too bad not everyone has your superpowers. Does your vagina also have the ability to "shut that whole thing down" so you don't get pregnant?

Is it just me? Because I know who's in bed with me, sex or no sex; everyone "senses" familiarity through form, smell, sound, etc---even with our backs turned. Am I the only one who thinks this story is just a little off?

i guess its too hard to conform the the US constitution when it says:

Article. XIV.

[Proposed 1866; Ratified Under Duress 1868]

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

yep much too hard to understand equal protection under law or the whole no state shall create or ENFORCE any unjust law.

as citizens we do not have to follow any law that is in violation of the US constitution. this woman needs to sue the state for violating the US constitution.

What a country! We have the nerve to point fingers to other countries and their handling of women's rights!!!! Ha, ha, ha, and how sad but typical for California this screw state.

Tricked into sex? It's usually called dating.

Anyone think that maybe he wasnt trying to be her boyfriend. Maybe he thought she was into him and started having sex with her. If she consented, how do we know he knew she thought he was her boyfriend? Starting to have sex with someone when they are asleep is rape, but if you are having sex with a girl in the dark, it is not your fault that she doesnt know who you are. As I find more evidence, this story becomes way more murky. If he tried to pretend to be her boyfriend, I agree rape, if not, then just a bad misunderstanding, but still rape since she was asleep btw.

Suzie....

txmom32:: Rape is RAPE-- regardless of how many women there are, regardless of the state and regardless of botox. The judge didn't want him to go to prison cause he might be raped. And by the way, I am a Texas greatgrandmother so I do have more grey matter between my ears. Where are YOUR brains?

I never said it was not RAPE. The California Law said it was not RAPE. There was some poster above blaming male legislators for this legislation. I simply pointed out that there are a good many women in the California state Government who could have actively addressed laws that were harmful to women and that those legislators have not done that. Maybe the Botox and lipo comment was off base but given that it's Cali it was probably spot on.

Exactly what does being a Texas Greatgrandma have to do with gray matter? I know a great many of your generation, unless you mean you are one of those 60 year old great grandmothers, that I quite admire. Perhaps it gives you some unique insight into the motivation of the Judge? Why would the judge care if a rapist got raped in prison? Apparently, it happens often enough that it has become a Hollywood punch line why would a Cali judge care.

The fact of the matter is...as a woman I am so tired, and quite frankly embarrassed, by women who believe that they should hold positions of power and yet feel they need special interest points to get there or permission from men to do the same damn job. If a Woman runs for a State legislature position under a platform that they care about women the they should absolutely, without fail, spend some time actually doing that part of their job. Stupid law that has been on the books since 1800's really, there is not excuse that it still remains there.... women's suffrage has long passed shouldn't the vote matter for something more that "political correctness"?

lilrkt, #1.40- Thanks for the information. The first thing that came to my mind after reading the article was to question to what level it paralleled "Date Rape"; and going off the information you provided, only, it seems like it may "effectively" lie within that realm.

As far as it goes with the "archaic" Law, it seems like now would be the best and "most efficient" time for the Prosecution, in this case, to move to have it struck down as being, and having-been-at-the-time, "Discriminatory" and in violation of Equal Protection, for the Victim; while at the same time showing that "Date Rape" Laws are already and were also on the books to "remedially" take care of it being struck down. (Rather than having the Legislature waste all that time and Taxpayer Money to "re-invent" the wheel).

The victim said her boyfriend was in the room when she fell asleep, and they'd decided against having sex that night because he didn't have a condom and he had to be somewhere early the next day.

Obviously this is a Conservative responsible couple. When they don't have a condom they control their emotions and make the proper and logical decision to not have sex.

Liberals/Progressives feel it's a right to have sex and the consequences should either be dealt with by society paying for the contraceptives or they have sex, she gets pregnant, and just aborts the product of conception. No concern for morality or the true concept of a relationship.

The rapist was also most likely a Liberal/Progressive as he feels everything is his to just take when he feels like it, morals or rights be damned.

It seems to me that some years back we had what is popularly called the Revolutionary War. A war to end British rule & law. Thousands of our ancestors died or were wounded so that we would never have to live under these laws again. It is reprehensible that any court in our country would even consider ruling on the basis of law from any era, of any country other than the USA. Any jurist involved in this decision should be permanently removed from the bench & disbarred.

roadlesstraveled

Does anyone else think it's strange for DICK-2100935 to not have read the article???

"Morales pretended to be her boyfriend in the darkened room, and it wasn't until a ray of light from outside the room flashed across his face that she realized he wasn't her boyfriend,"

Roadless, are your blinders on also where you put your lust before your brain?- remember to get that driver license check and don't be fooled again!

Annie-322924

Is it just me? Because I know who's in bed with me, sex or no sex; everyone "senses" familiarity through form, smell, sound, etc---even with our backs turned. Am I the only one who thinks this story is just a little off? #1.49 - Fri Jan 4, 2013 1:04 PM EST

She was drunk. If you're straight, I'm sure you'd know the difference but when being a couple pages to the wind, she was probably just letting her boyfriend bust a nut even if she was too tired "but", that little flicker of light across his face let the cat out of the bag.

Also, her boyfriend was in bed with her and decided to leave so she also may have thought that he didn't leave and was horny even though he didn't have a balloon with him. ;-)

Again, if this were my wife/girlfriend, I would castrate this POS M-F'r.

Annie (and Joe from later) - you all are under the assumption that she'd had sex with her boyfriend before. All we know is that they decided not to this particular night because he didn't have a condom. Maybe they had been waiting, thought about doing it that night for the first time together, and they forgot protection. Then when "her boyfriend" gets frisky later, she consented because they had been planning this and she was really in the mood. I don't know if this is true, but nothing supports your assumption that they'd had sex before either.

Gnrb:

The fact is that there is a lot that we don't know. But quite a few people here have decided they don't need facts. They have proclaimed the guy guilty and want him to go to jail. There have been enough people wrongly convicted of rape for me to want caution. Of course, the quick-to-judge people call me sick for that. I wonder how people like Creek Dog would feel if they were looking at a conviction for something they didn't do.

OF Course this is rape and the guy should also be charged with Impersonating Another.

There is no question that this woman was Raped, none whatsoever!!

California and all thier liberal bleeding hearts should be blown right off the face of the earth. People cannot defend themselves because of the gun laws in commiefornia, and now this liberal crap!!!!!!!!! THE LAWYER whom used this law should have his NUTS cut off and fed to the guy who RAPED the woman!!!!

Let's see. Law on books since 1872 or there abouts and it is somehow a "Liberal Bleeding Hearts" fault that this ARCHAIC law is on the BOOKS!!! For freaking DECADES!!!!

Get your head out of that dark smelly place and get a GRIP!!!

tim just proves that you can't fix stupid

According to legend, that's how King Arthur was conceived.

You do realize King Arthur is fictional, right?

I presume that's why he said "according to legend".

King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries, who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the early 6th century. Wikipedia

BillyBob, you do realize you are quite possibly incorrect, right?

The stories and tales are mostly fictional but King Arthur is very much debated to have been real with some very compelling evidence to suggest it is so. Careful when tossing stones up in the air.

But law is law, and until it is taken off the books, it still has to be upheld. Chill out, its still rape because she was asleep in the beginning, so he is probably not getting off the hook.

The unfortunate part is that there are laws like this that have not seen the light of day in a century plus and almost no one knows they are even still on the books until something like this happens. It is horrid and despicable, I completely feel for the victim, but hopefully it will get changed rapidly and permanently.

The sad part is crap a$$ lawyers who prey on things like this (defending terrorist for free, talking people into suing when it isn't the right thing to do, etc) are probably searching every states laws to see if they can suck some bucks out of the system by "making a name for themselves" getting a rapist off. They don't care the in the least bit about the victims they are screwing over.

A legend is more than a myth. It is considered to probably be historical though not verifiable. The concept of legend is most commonly applied in Chinese history.

Sorry, Tracy - but I have to disagree. Whenever a story like this is reported, everyone jumps to blame the lawyers, judges, liberals, ACLU, etc, etc, etc.

That "crap a$$" lawyer has taken an OATH to do his best for his client - no matter how unsavory that individual or his acts are. It's a critical part of the system that everyone depends on. I wouldn't want him to do otherwise, any more than I'd want a doctor to ignore his oath on a case-by-case basis, depending on who his patient is.

The real blame lies with the lawmakers, not those that use the laws. Instead of (or at least in addition to) writing countless new laws, they should be investigating and cleaning up this old crap once and for all.

OLI - yes, you can. Because every f'ing story on the vine is ONLY about Obama and immigration. If the title or content says otherwise, it's a liberal plot to divert from your pet issue.

I was wondering how long it would take for some wingnut to spin this story into something about President Obama. Get over it loser, we survived 12 years of the Bush Crime Family (20 years if you count the 8 Papi was vice president pulling Ronald the puppet Reagans strings) in which they amassed the largest debt in the history of the world, so I am sure you will survive 4 more years of President Obama, oh yeah and I forgot, 8 years of Hilary.

OLL racist racist racist should be collapsed and barred from making any comments

ONLY a man would respond so ignorantly!

But then again too many men think with their little head long before contemplating a situation with their big head!

The year where they have to enforce laws that are on the books, even if they were written over a hundred years ago. Every state has its share of these dumb laws. Look them up, some are actually pretty funny. Not this one obviously.

If they let a rapist go on an obviously unjust and arcane law such as this, then the justice system has its thumb up its arse.

Lyrica, unfortunately MrBurns is quite correct. The law sucks and is wrong and so out of date as to not be funny, but any ambulance chaser, scum bag, liar---oops, I meant lawyer, can get their clients out by getting a reversal if they don't take the proper corrective action. Pulling that band-aid off hurts in the short term but is the best thing to do in the end.

We can only hope the prosecutor has additional charges to try this alleged scum-biscuit on!

Lyrica,

No it means that they are properly following a law as it is written. Yes it is a stupid law, but its not the judges fault. He has to follow the law to the letter. That is how we are able to function as a society. Get angry at the law, not the ones who had to abide by it.

Tracy,

I agree with you. Breaking and entering, assault, etc can be stacked on. And if I was the judge or jury, I would go for the highest possible time in jail and harshest punishment to make up for not getting what should have been a rape conviction if the dumb law wasnt on the books.

MrBurns,

I think you and I are pretty close to same thinking on this. It is unfortunate that these laws that are so out of date still exist, but the judge had no choice to follow the letter of the law. If judges were permitted to uphold only the laws they wanted in the way they wanted, then it could easily be chaos and back to the 1800's style justice we would go. Every sheriff would have his own laws and the rights to enforce them, written or not.

Exactly, maintaining rule of law is of utmost importance. If people are dissatisfied with the outcome, which Im sure most are, the best course of action is to call your congressman and tell him that you feel the law should be changed. Many are receptive to doing little things like this that would see almost no resistance, and make a lot of people happy.

MrBurns.

You are deadly accurate with that statement. I would agree that getting this law updated will be done in record or near record time.

I know here in the midwest we have some laws that appear to be really ignorant but if you put yourself back in the time they were written, while still not always right, it makes more sense usually. I believe that people don't understand that at the time this law was written there were different beliefs about women's rights and what constituted rape.

Before anyone starts in, I am not saying the law is right by any means.

Julio Morales

Mr. Burns said, "No it means that they are properly following a law as it is written. Yes it is a stupid law, but its not the judges fault. He has to follow the law to the letter. That is how we are able to function as a society. Get angry at the law, not the ones who had to abide by it."

Exactly! Had the judge not followed the (incredibly asinine) law to the letter, the defence would've pounced and used it in the asshat's favor.

JW101, ok, you got me, Julio and his liar think this law is just, other than that I think almost no one would believe this law to be just. Have to admit I chuckled when I saw your response.

@jdp, you got it, exactly. It isn't the judges following the letter of the laws that is the problem, it is the a$$hat liars that vow to do anything to get their clients off, even when they know it is complete BS. I don't know how some people live with themselves knowing they get scum-biscuits off like this. At least a totally unjust law may get changed to protect the next person.

Good analogy, EngEsq!

EngEsq, only if you're not married!

First off rape is involuntary sex with anyone without consent, and law should be changed to protect all women.

Now then lets play the devils advocate. If this was a man half drunk and half passed out.Someone other then his partner has sex with him that is not a wife or girlfriend, has an climax.Was he raped?

Rape is bad and everything, but while reading this story, I've wandered down a curious line of thought.

If I tell a woman I love her just so I can get her to have sex with me, am I as bad as someone pretending to be someone else in order to get a woman to have sex with him?

Would something like that be considered rape?

What if two adults are drunk, and neither is able to give their consent to have sex, but both have sex with each other any way, who's the rapist in that scenario?

In answer to your question, traffic avenger, yes. Would he want to press charges, though is another matter entirely. I had a boyfriend once who used the I was drunk and don't remember defense after my sister told me he showed up at her house late one night and tried to have sex with her. That defense only dug him a deeper hole because then I wondered how many other women he had sex with while drunk and didn't remember.

If I tell a woman I love her just so I can get her to have sex with me, am I as bad as someone pretending to be someone else in order to get a woman to have sex with him?

Would something like that be considered rape?

yes , some guy. Its called fraud, now is it perfectly ok in this country, yes it is, mostly. But it needs to be that way, there are so many horrific people...woman who have kids for paychecks, woman who claim rape because she realizes he does not give two ...so to keep a balance it needs to be this way...because we know there are pigs and we also know some woman want paybacks..for not loving them...

Now, the other side of the coin is, you have to look at your wife or lover and know that you tell them the same things that you told others so that they would sleep with you...! if your a decent person, this will eventually lead you to depression or worse...its your call.

Traffic avenger fla wrote,

“Now then lets play the devils advocate. If this was a man
half drunk and half passed out.Someone other then his partner has sex with him
that is not a wife or girlfriend, has an climax.Was he raped?”

If he was passed out, how could he even perform sex? Women and men have different parts that work differently just ask your doctor or parents.

Some Guy - no, telling a woman you love her and then having consenual sex is not rape and it's nowhere near pretending to be someone else with a woman who is sleeping and having sex with her - do you really need this explained to you?

Someguy wrote:

“Would something like that be considered rape?

“What if two adults are drunk, and neither is able to give
their consent to have sex, but both have sex with each other any way, who's the
rapist in that scenario?”

How can a guy be so drunk he can’t give consent but he still can perform??? It could be that his judgment is impaired, but if he can perform then he is responsible for his actions. If she did not consent and was passed out, I would say he is in BIG trouble.

no, telling a woman you love her and then having consenual sex is not rape and it's nowhere near pretending to be someone else with a woman who is sleeping and having sex with her - do you really need this explained to you?

What I was trying to get across is what level of deception constitutes rape?

It's a-ok to trick a woman into having sex with you, but when you start impersonating other people is where the line is drawn?

I'm not commenting on this case in particular, which is obviously rape because she was drunk and asleep.

Gossamer Wings,

And the ignorant feminist shows her face. Actually yes Gossamer, men can "perform" while passed out. I guess you have never heard of a wet dream before? And even if he is drunk to the point of passing out, he can still perform. Ask your doctor since you obviously didnt, you are completely wrong. But it must be a man's fault right? Moronic statement of the year. And its only January 4th. Congrats!!!

WTF are you talking about? It is the man's fault, he tricked her. End of story. And by the way, men are usually fast asleep when they have wet dreams so your point is rubbish.

LJ_51,

Obviously you have reading comprehension problems, so allow me to make my point even easier to understand. Men are completely capable of becoming hard while drunk, passed out, incoherent, or while being raped. Ask actual doctors and not Miss Wings up there.

2. I was replying to her saying that when two drunk people have sex, it must be a mans fault since he has to be coherent enough to perform, which is completely not true. It is the same thing as saying woman cant orgasm while being raped. Both are completely made up falsehoods. So I was pointing out her obvious as day hypocrisy that she assumes it must be a man's fault when both are drunk. I was not addressing the story, where I have, again plain as day, said that I believe he raped her.

I dont see how you are able to function while being so lacking in reading skills.

I think we have to be a little cautious with the both parties were drunk situation. It could certainly happen that they were equally intoxicated, both unable to consent, neither had planned ahead of time that they were going to take advantage of someone, and would honestly both equally fit the definition of having been raped, at which point you'd have to seemingly charge both or neither.

However, we need to be careful because there are people that use this as a cover to intentionally rape others. They go out and have a few drinks for one of two reasons: to give themselves liquid courage so that they don't feel the inhibitions/moral objection to raping someone, and secondly so that others see that they were drinking (and would think that they are drunker than they really are), and would back them up that it wasn't intentional-both parties were equally unable to consent. It's pretty easy to trick people into thinking you are drinking more than you actually are- if I wanted to go to a party, but didn't want to drink, I would do this so that I wasn't hassled every minute by someone wondering why I didn't have a drink in my hand (you either get just one and sip on it all evening-everyone assumes it's a different one every time they see you, or you get a solo cup and just fill it with water). I used this to just be able to have a nice time without being pressured constantly to be binge drinking every weekend-I could easily see somebody doing this for more nefarious purposes.

So to apply to this article, we know that one party had been drinking-don't know if the other was or not, but the additional circumstances that we know about (he impersonated her boyfriend, she had been unconscious/possibly too drunk to consent) clear up the ambiguity-it was rape. Had she known who he was, had he also been drunk past the point of consent, had they both been conscious, it'd be a lot more murky.

Some Guy - it's not about any level of "deception"...the best I can do is give my thought on it this way:

If my woman has a dude tell her he loves her and she agrees to have sex with him - in the view of my relationship, I put that blame on her and would be leaving her (I don't blame the guy at all, unless he's a friend, and that would then become ex-friend, of mine).

If we had people over and there was drinking and then she went to bed and some guy went in our room and she's crashed and he pretends he's me and 'rapes' her - in my view of my relationship, I'd want to kill him and put no blame on her.

BURNS

A bit touchy aren't you????

"And the ignorant feminist shows her face. Actually yes Gossamer, men can "perform" while passed out. I guess you have never heard of a wet dream before? And even if he is drunk to the point of passing out, he can still perform. Ask your doctor since you obviously didnt, you are completely wrong. But it must be a man's fault right? Moronic statement of the year. And its only January 4th. Congrats!!!"

That is why I had that little ???? It means it was a question, not a statement. I would want a doctor to answer the question. I'm technical and a professional would convince me. No emotional drama needed.

Dont worry wings, I use these boards to have fun some times. Im not actually angry at you, and I have no idea if your a feminist or not. So dont take me too seriously when I get like this. :)

All Im trying to point out as both men and women are able to perform while intoxicated, passed out, asleep, or while being raped.

Burns-to add to what you are saying, I think that's one thing that is really hard on rape victims, as in, they didn't want to, but their body responded. Some probably wonder if that means they wanted it, or enjoyed it, or it wasn't actually rape, and for that reason don't report it.

Arousal is not a condition for consent. This about it in reverse: many people consent to sexual activities, but have problems or difficulty with arousal. (Viagra would not exist otherwise!) If someone has sex, but doesn't orgasm, that in no way means that it was automatically rape. Arousal and consent are two separate things-either can occur without the other happening (as well as both or neither).

This means that we should be careful to protect both females and males. I have two boys and the more we learn the better world we can make it for both sons and daughters.

Wings gets the gold star.

The best thing we can do is try and teach kids what is acceptable and what is not. Keep them educated from as early an age as you can from drugs (all of them) to sex.

Even rape, or sex, both boys and girls, need to understand the difference between the two, even the use of protection is something they should understand at an early age.

The question of laws pertaining to rape, in this day and age, should be something we should not even have to discuss on the Internet.

Enjoy the weekend.

We need a group to go through the laws of each state and work on getting rid of crap like this.

Each State should have their own commission to review the laws of their state and make recommendations for which no longer suit society. It is sort of the same thing the US Congress should do for Federal Law. It is what Congress should do for Tax law...but no that isn't going to happen fra at least another four years. They have to pay back their voting blocks.

A better thing to do is revise state laws to make men and woman equal in every respect. To define ANY crime done to ANY gender as having the SAME punishment and make it mandatory that those laws are enforced impartially.

This would take care of crimes and certain domestic problems all at the same time. It could be applied to rape,unequal treatment at work, custody and so much more.

If you want to move into 2013, you move to make laws that apply to all people regardless of gender and you make no exception for treatment of or punishment of any given gender.

In this case, i am happy the judges decided to not attempt to legislate from the bench. They made the right call in so much as having their hands tied by a law that is outdated and they made the proper recommendation.

QE137,

Everyone treated equally, like what we were founded on? Now there is a concept. Should already be the case, but then when will politicians like Obama be able to campaign?

Everyone treated equally, like what we were founded on? Now there is a concept. Should already be the case. but then when will politicians like Obama be able to campaign?

There. Fixed it for you, Burns.

jdp,

Once he stops wanting people treated differently under the law, then it'll be a fix. And during the fiscal cliff, he spent most of his time campaigning. He's a great celebrity, and a horrible politician.

Respectfully, Mr. Burns, I think the same can be said for most politicians anymore. However, this isn't the point of this particular thread.

Now, back to the topic at hand, I absolutely agree with your posts on this story. A good day to you, Sir :)

Good day to you too sir. And I know this story is not about Obama. Simply venting. And I happen to be libertarian, so I feel disgusted with about 99% of all politicians. Obama just grinds my gears more than anyone else.

In my municipality there's been a law on the books since the late 1800's that mandates a fine for cursing in public.

If that were to be enforced we would have a huge surplus in the budget!

(There's also a law that says you can spit in the street but not the sidewalk, you get a fine if you do.)

In San Francisco, it is illegal to walk down any public street if you are deemed ugly.

According to another news source, this Romeo was a friend of her brother's who was visiting, along with other friends of her brother. Yes, she has a boyfriend, and she and he fell asleep in her room, but her BF later left. Her brother stepped outside for a smoke, and Julio stepped in. It's clearly deliberate on his part. Do a little research before you start hurling counter-accusations.

Might want to adjust your tinfoil hat Richard, it's possible for two men to be in the same house under many different circumstances. Roomies, relatives, boarders, etc.

But you can only be convicted by laws on the books. We cant change every law to fit every situation. Relax, he is being retried because she was asleep in the beginning, so he's still going to jail. Get off your soapbox.

Fran,

Almost no one is saying the overturning of the conviction is right, including the judge who overturned it. Since it was in the court of appeals, I would have to assume the scum-biscuit's liar (aka morale's lawyer) appealed on the basis of the existance of this law and the appeals court judge can not just decide it doesn't matter whether he wants to uphold the law or not. He really had his hand forced based on the facts of the law as it is written as MrBurns said. Now lets hope there are additional charges or there is a way to re-try the scum-biscuit.

But even if she were lying in this case, that does not settle the question of this law. And how would you like it if some woman that you thought was your wife initiated sex with you while you were sleeping off a bender, then called you later and said, "I'm pregnant, I'm having it, and I'm taking you to court for child support!" Would you feel violated? Because in my book, that would be equally a crime (but I don't think it is under the law).

If that happened to me I would probably visit her in the hospital after her accidental fall down the stairs several times. As for the law yeah it sucks and the lawyers that used it are scumbags. I still say she is lying.

AW JOE, you probably think every woman is lying, and that rape is OK. Hopefully, you try that with Laura Bobbitt, maybe she cut your junk off. Then we could all laugh at you. And short horn would be your real name, even though it might be that now.

Joe,

When you have any facts whatsoever to back up your claim, then you might be taken seriously. The court obviously heard all the facts and decided he did the actions. The issue is whether the actions are a crime under the (stupid) law.

No Sally I do not think that. I also think Ms Bobbitt should have been locked away but women hold her and her violent actions is high regard. I think in this case she is lying. How can you not know its not someone you have been with? He could not possibly had the same exact body type and moves in bed as her BF. So I call BS and you want be mutilated?

Don't try to think Joe, you're not a thinker.

Joe,

We don't need people like you in this country. Pushing someone down the stairs is a crime.

Jed I clearly stated it was my opinion.

Udonnubro - I actually get paid quite a bit to think for 8+ hours a day

Gossamer what makes you think I am in your blessed country? I never said I would push her down the stairs I said she had several accidental falls in the hypothetical scenario.

I never said I would push her down the stairs I said she had several accidental falls in the hypothetical scenario.

Stop, just stop. You are clearly 16 and the more you type the dumber you look.

Clearly I am 16 because.....A sixteen year old has no idea who the Bobbits are. But if it make you feel good call me 16 and dismiss my valid opinion because it does not mesh with yours.

Funny how women rally around Bobbit, but are outraged that anyone can disagree with them in this situation. Sexism exists with both genders, and this mini thread has shown women are just as guilty. But yeah, still rape.

Joe

If you are not in this country good, don't bother ever coming.

MR Burn

"Funny how women rally around Bobbit, but are outraged that anyone can disagree with them in this situation. Sexism exists with both genders, and this mini thread has shown women are just as guilty. But yeah, still rape."

How so?? Please explain?? If you mean Bobbit, yes two wrongs don't make a right. if you mean the passed out comment please enlighten us. I'm a female electrical engineer and favor being technical.

Gossamer with whiny liberal pu55ies populating that country not a chance. Keep taking rights away from the citizens good idea.

Gossamer Wings,

I dont see what being a female electrical engineer has to do with anything. You just want to prove that you are just as smart as a man or something? Ok, cool, congrats.

Look at SallyAnns comment, someone disagrees with her, so she thinks it would be funny if he got his dick chopped off. Hell, the show with Sharon Osbourne, I forget the title, had all the women laughing at the guy who got his dick chopped off, but then said it would be horrible if a guy did it to a woman (her breast that is). Simply pointing out the double standard many women seem to take, and you did earlier on this page. I still think she was raped if that is what you are crying about.

Joe -- considering she had been drinking (and possibly her boyfriend) and was also probably in that semi-sleep state, I consider it highly possible that she wouldn't be able to recognize such differences.

Raina while possible I dont buy it.

I do agree the law has to go

Burns

"I dont see what being a female electrical engineer has to do with anything. You just want to prove that you are just as smart as a man or something? Ok, cool, congrats."

Burn you make false assumptions. It means I'm analytical in thinking.

Thats Mr Burns to you wings. ;)

Again, dont take me too seriously. I actually think its pretty cool. I had friends who were engineer majors, and they didnt have too many girls in their class. Slowly the tides are turning, but still mostly a mans profession. Then again my dad is a teacher which use to be a woman's profession so all things equal I guess.

The court obviously heard all the facts and decided he did the actions. The issue is whether the actions are a crime under the (stupid) law. They decided she was asleep in which the actions are considered rape. Additionally, even if they decided she wasn't asleep, they issue would be consent. She thought it was her boyfriend, but when she saw him, realized it wasn't and stopped the activity. She didn't consent to the activity with that particular guy, so yes, it was rape. The issue is the applicability of this stupid law.

Not everyone is the same, opinionated high horse. If the girl was a particularly deep sleeper, or slow to wake, she wouldn't be thinking clearly. If she'd been drinking the night before, she'd be even more muddled, and who expects to go to bed with their boyfriend and wake up getting poked by someone else? I mean, really.

Goodness knows plenty of us can't function before our first cup of coffee.

Also, the dude in question was apparently a friend of her boyfriend's, which could mean he knew him well enough to do a credible impression. As long as their body types were close enough, I could see the trick working.

Unless it has happened to you, don’t judge. What a horrible experience and good for her to speak up, most women this happens to are too embarrassed. This is not an isolated incidence, happens more than you would think, I know from experience and there is no way for you to even imagine the level of gutwrenching emotions that follow. How dare you make such an assumption, I'm sure other rape victims actually assisted in penetration...you are as disgusting to me as the offender.

Sweetie, if you were capable of reading words of more than two sentences, you'd understand that this is a statute left on the books from 1872.

This, folks, is the stunted intellectual capacity of what's left of the Republican party in this nation. Don't let your children end up like this.

Activist judges set precendent all the time. The appeal could have been lost, that law could have been ignored in favor of some overriding legal concern. I stand by my statement.

Lol, another braindead GOPuke post. Gotta love it.

Crankysmurf: Judges are sworn to uphold the law- -not "ignore it" so as to do what the public thinks is "right." This court remanded the case for retrial on the rape charge. However, he was only sentenced to 3 years so he is likely on parole and this whole thing will be over and done with when the appeal becomes final.

Until 2011 it existed in Idaho as well, if you read the article you would know that. You would probably be absolutely amazed how many places laws as dumb or dumber to exist. People just forget about them being on the books until something stupid happens to bring them out.

Read the article dope.

You realize marital rape is still legal in many places all over the world right Buster? And you can take a young girl, marry her, rape her, then divorce her, and you are in the clear in some of those countries. Cali has its problems, but we are not the mecca of female abuse.

And yes I used the word mecca for a reason.

I see what you did there MrB!!!

I got a good chuckle from it as well.

Actually, the point here is that this country was pretty messed up in 1872 (when this law was created) when a woman could be legally raped by her husband. Did you catch that the assumption in creating this law was she would, of course, consent to her husband, so if it wasn't her husband, only then could it be rape? Spousal rape was only recognized as such well into the 20th Century as a matter of fact.

The law was from 1872. Should they fix it the country would be going in the correct direction. This gives you an idea what it was like to live in the 1800s.

In the book Your Erroneous Zones, Dwayne Dyer states somewhere (more towards the earlier chapters) that we should recognize the uselessness of some of the laws that have been made, and the futility of following every single rule.

How is the "curbing of rape in this country" hurt by feminists? How are they self promoting? How do you know someone didn't try to or hasn't already changed the law in Idaho?