Oklahoma Court in AWFUL Rape Ruling
May 4, 2016
Sometimes the court system shocks you just as much as the crime itself. Such is the case with the Oklahoma court ruling that declares oral sex is not rape if the victim is unconscious or inebriated. The court dismissed a case involving allegations that a 17-year-old boy sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl who was reportedly unconscious. What you read is right even though it’s wrong. Not only did a court of law heinously fail a victim seeking justice, but it also infected the public opinion of what’s morally appropriate and acceptable.
The girl was drinking at a park in Tulsa, Oklahoma in the United States when she became seriously wasted. According to witnesses, the girl had to be carried to the boy’s car. One person who rode in the car for a short period of time said that the victim “slipped in and out of consciousness during the car ride.” For the record, every single person who has over indulged in alcohol or recreational drugs in public has been this girl at one point or another.
In the naiveté of reckless abandonment and youth, we’re often left to rely on a homie to help us walk when we can’t. In that moment when you’re out of your wits, you’re fragile and utterly vulnerable. One would hope that this 16-year-old would would have had a sister to walk with her but no, she was with someone that she thought was a homie. Now, a legit homie would see you’re incoherent and they’d take care of you. In that moment of wicked inebriation, you’re seriously susceptible to those who seek to compromise you. It was in that fragile state that this 16-year-old was taken advantage of and after which she discovered dude wasn’t a homie, he was a fucking predator.
‘OK’ court ruling oral sex is not rape if victim is inebriated is not OK!
The 17-year-old boy in this allegation drove the girl back to her relatives home, dropped her off and then bailed the scene of the crime. At which point, her relatives took her to the hospital where she blew an alcohol content of above .34. After having a sexual assault exam it was determined that she had the boy’s DNA present near her mouth and the back of her leg. When asked, the girl said she didn’t have any memories of leaving the park. Her testimony is backed by the testimonies of those who saw her being carried to the boy’s car.
We’ve all been there. Someone reminds you about something you said or did after a night of painting the town red and although you may have temporarily forgotten you begin to have a shadow of a memory or you may just accept that it’s highly likely. But listen, if you don’t recollect anything then that’s officially called a ‘black out.’ Real talk, it doesn’t matter if a light somewhere in the house looks like it’s on, if someone cannot answer the door, no one is home. Thus, prosecutors in Tulsa County threw handcuffs on that 17-year-old charging him with forcible oral sodomy.
The trial judge dismissed this case affirming that prosecutors could not apply the law to the victim because she was inebriated or unconscious. The court reasoned that while the statute listed several circumstances that constitute force, while it was quiet on incapacitation due to the fact that the victim was drinking alcohol.
“Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation,” the decision read.
This verdict is a perversion of the legal system and a rape of justice.
The Tulsa County District Attorney, Benjamin Fu says
“The plain meaning of forcible oral sodomy, of using force, includes taking advantage of a victim who was too intoxicated to consent. I don’t believe that anybody, until that day, believed that the state of the law was that this kind of conduct was ambiguous, much less legal. And I don’t think the law was a loophole until the court decided it was.”
Focusing on why the victim was unable to consent puts the victim at fault and it’s not ethical or morally just to place ANY shame or guilt on rape victims.
Dear horny drunk dudes: For your information, if a broad is ‘slipping in and out of consciousness’, if she needs help walking to the car, if she mutters something incoherently after you ask if she’s game to get frisky then NO that’s NOT consent NOR an invitation and if you think it is, think twice. This 17-year-old dude, his defense lawyer, the Oklahoma court system and anyone else who’s confused on how to interpret consent needs to sit the fuck down, remember being inebriated and vulnerable and then watch this video.
There are some serious gaps in the way that laws are written allowing cases like this one to simply fall through the cracks. RING A DING DING DONG OKLAHOMA! Consider this a freaking wake up call to get to work on altering your laws regarding sexual assault. This day and age is too enlightened to be making and defending crimes and laws that confine us to living within the dark ages of reason.
This 17-year-olds defense lawyer claims that his client being charged with ‘forcible sodomy’ was just not right; instead he should be charged with ‘unwanted touching.’ Your honor and people of the court of public opinion, both of these allegations sound eerily similar, seriously dark and severely twisted. Yet this 17-year-old dude walks away uncharged, unpunished and onto a college campus next year to sign up and rush for a frat.
While Oklahoma has a rape statue that protects victims who are intoxicated during their alleged consent, it only applies to vaginal and anal intercourse not oral. WTF! REALLY? A law that ensures protection of only two holes: the asshole and the va-jay-jay?! What about the other holes of the human body that can be perpetrated without consent? Dear Oklahoma Court System, How about a rape statute that protects all the holes on the body and doesn’t provide room for loopholes in regards to preventing sexual assault convictions?! Sincerely, 2016
Interested in another cartoon that further explains the concept of consent? Watch this video that explains sexual consent and how consent is like a cup of coffee.