And if it's hurting, and he doesn't stop, it's not rape.
And if he decides to start slapping you, it's not rape.
If you decide you're not interested any more, ask him to stop, he gets angry and he pins you down and fucks you for the next 15 minutes with you screaming and crying and begging as he slaps and chokes you any time you resist, it's not rape.
Court of Special Appeals, not Court of Appeals. Intermediate appellate court, not actually binding law.
Oftentimes, intermediate courts offer outrageous rulings following the letter of the law specifically to spur the highest court, or the legislature, to change the law to close a loophole.
The specifics of the case make it kind of ridiculous to expect a rape conviction - to quote,
"Q. Did he stop pushing his penis into your vagina?
A. Not right away.
Q. About how long did he continue to put his penis into your vagina?
A. About five or so seconds.
Q. And then what happened?
A. And that's when he just got off me and that's when Mike got in the car. . . .
Jewel testified that appellant continued for five [*6] or ten seconds, but she did not believe that he had ejaculated. She testified that, as the trio proceeded back to McDonald's, appellant asked her to "jack him off," but, although she refused, she did give him her telephone number."
There's a difference between "not rape" and "not sexual assault".
This court isn't creating law. It's applying the specific rule established in Battle v. State, a 1980 Maryland Court of Appeals decision - to quote Battle, "The Court fully and correctly charged all of the elements constituting the crime of rape. The jury was further instructed that consent could be withdrawn at any stage "during the preparatory acts." The general rule may be summarized as follows: Consent must precede the penetration." If the situation this case "creates" were anything like what one keeps hearing it said to be, it would have been true for 26 years now.
Pick and choose. Not really any shortage of reasons to not flip out over this.
She was threatened. The perpetrator had said "I don't want to rape you", which makes consent not exactly freely given.
"Q. [ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY]: And what else did he say?
A. He, after that we sat there for a couple seconds [*5] and he was like so are you going to let me hit it and I didn’t really say anything and he was like I don’t want to rape you. * * * Q. So when Maouloud said I don’t want to rape you, did you respond?
A. Yes. I said that as long as he stops when I tell him to, then -
Q. Now, that he could?
A. Yes. * * *
Q. Did you feel like you had a choice?
A. Not really. I don’t know. Something just clicked off and I just did whatever they said."
> The specifics of the case make it kind of ridiculous to expect a > rape conviction
I agree, based on that statement. That's not the point. The point is the ruling that consent cannot be withdrawn and that there's no requirement to stop.
And I'm not saying this isn't an application of an already-established rule. I'm saying that that rule has not been applied as such in the past, and that the rule is repugnant.
Miss Manners has a healthy grasp of the distinction between matters governed by social courtesies and matters governed by legal restrictions.
I like to think she would view it as a legal matter.
Doubtless she would provide courteous sympathy (in a manner I am not currently in a mood to even *pretend* to approximate) to those--male or female--who have their partners suddenly (in a fashion which might well be described as discourteous, depending on their reasoning) shrug, turn to snow holes or icicles mid-act, and refuse to continue.
I think that is a far cry from saying that continuing to fuck someone after they've told you no is merely a discourtesy.
I am actually much less disgusted by the guy pulling out right after/five or ten seconds after she said stop than I am by everything that happened before that.
It's that whole "she told them to stop and they pinned her down and took turns sticking their cocks and/or fingers in her" thing. Even before he asked if she was going to let him cause he didn't want to rape you[1] she said yes as long as he stopped when she told him to.
And even that is considerably less disturbing, to my mind, than the ruling itself. --- [1] And while I am not going to discuss at length the whole topic of "sometimes you say yes because it's going to happen anyway and if you say no it means you really undeniably get raped and you don't want to have to deal with that", I would just like to shine a little light on that whole disgusting issue for a minute, and consider exactly how much weight you should put on the statement "I don't want to rape you" when it's coming from someone who has already held you down so his friend could have a turn and stuck his fingers up inside you. Thank you. Please proceed.
Bearing in mind I only read the article that was linked to? I don't know where everyone is getting the specifics of the case in question.
I have read enough rape cases where it required a lot of work to fet a conviction that I didn't actually know that consent can be withdrawn at any time - I simply assumed that anyone describing themselves as human would stop after consent was withdrawn - I didn't know it was an actual legal requirement.
I thought this was one of those times when the law sets a lower standard of ethics than would commonly be practiced.
Linked you to the court summary, which can be found off the link thette posted.
> I simply assumed that anyone describing themselves as human would stop after > consent was withdrawn
I'm going to go laugh or cry now. Not at you. Not sure which.
> I didn't know it was an actual legal requirement.
It's not.
Not in Maryland.
If you use physical force to have them continue, that may be sexual assault, but it's still not rape. If you don't need to use physical force for whatever reason, then no crime is committed.
(Last I heard, Canada simply has laws against sexual assault and rape was not a separate crime on the books.)
> I thought this was one of those times when the law sets a lower standard > of ethics than would commonly be practiced.
I think that may be what everyone's complaining about.
If you and some Orlando Bloom lookalike start getting it on, and he penetrates you, and it starts hurting and it's not fun and it's painful and unpleasant and you think you might be bleeding and he's just mentioned not getting tested in six years and you want to stop and you tell him so and he doesn't--
--in Maryland--
--then for you it might actually not be just a discourtesy. It might be rape. Because I cannot actually find anything in Maryland law about how it's not rape if men withdraw consent.
I need to remember that the internet does not convey tone.
Can we assume that my use of the word "discourtesy" was used as understatement, and not in such a way as to imply that rape is a simple discourtesy?
Also, can we assume that I fucking get it, and that it's not needful to keep harping on it and maube I replied at 1 in the morning or whatnot and wasn't going through things clearly?
(I would appreciate it greatly if we could assume that I went rather off my rocker after picking up the details of the assault and the law, but given that I did so in your general direction and did so without warning, I understand if I have forfeited any right to claim mitigating circumstances.)
I am sorry. There are some topics it is very hard for me to keep a rational tone about, and even harder to show any charity to other people's tone about. I really do regret that you were in the firing line of my unforgiving and unforgivable snapping, and hope that my apology can at least make a start towards clearing the air.
Meantime, I think I need to go start cooking crow, as I refuse to eat it raw, and I really think some consuming of Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos is now in order on my part.
I think what you did was quite reasonable--you did comment before access to the court summary was available, and it's a pain to find anyting based on the article's information--and really did not deserve the reaction it got.
based on the Article, i would say it more a fault of the law than the judges. it's one of those things where the judge is compelled to rule based on the wording of the law rather than what is actually right.
sooooo......this includes when he only gets off if she dies??? DOES THIS FALL UNDER ASSISTED SUICIDE IF SHE CONSENTED TO THE SEX WHERE SHE IS GONNA BE KILLED?
WHAT IF HE IS INCAPABLE OF FINISHING? DOES THIS MEAN THAT SHE IS HIS SLAVE FOR LIFE????
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 04:21 am (UTC)While it does suck if you're a guy and she changes her mind midway, it would generally be considered courteous to stop.
I'm sure Miss Manners would disagree with the judge.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 04:28 am (UTC)And if he decides to start slapping you, it's not rape.
If you decide you're not interested any more, ask him to stop, he gets angry and he pins you down and fucks you for the next 15 minutes with you screaming and crying and begging as he slaps and chokes you any time you resist, it's not rape.
Gotta love Maryland.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 05:16 am (UTC)Oftentimes, intermediate courts offer outrageous rulings following the letter of the law specifically to spur the highest court, or the legislature, to change the law to close a loophole.
The specifics of the case make it kind of ridiculous to expect a rape conviction - to quote,
"Q. Did he stop pushing his penis into your vagina?
A. Not right away.
Q. About how long did he continue to put his penis into your vagina?
A. About five or so seconds.
Q. And then what happened?
A. And that's when he just got off me and that's when Mike got in the car. . . .
Jewel testified that appellant continued for five [*6] or ten seconds, but she did not believe that he had ejaculated. She testified that, as the trio proceeded back to McDonald's, appellant asked her to "jack him off," but, although she refused, she did give him her telephone number."
There's a difference between "not rape" and "not sexual assault".
This court isn't creating law. It's applying the specific rule established in Battle v. State, a 1980 Maryland Court of Appeals decision - to quote Battle, "The Court fully and correctly charged all of the elements constituting the crime of rape. The jury was further instructed that consent could be withdrawn at any stage "during the preparatory acts." The general rule may be summarized as follows: Consent must precede the penetration." If the situation this case "creates" were anything like what one keeps hearing it said to be, it would have been true for 26 years now.
Pick and choose. Not really any shortage of reasons to not flip out over this.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 06:22 am (UTC)"Q. [ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY]: And what else did he say?
A. He, after that we sat there for a couple seconds [*5] and he was like so are you going to let me hit it and I didn’t really say anything and he was like I don’t want to rape you.
* * *
Q. So when Maouloud said I don’t want to rape you, did you respond?
A. Yes. I said that as long as he stops when I tell him to, then -
Q. Now, that he could?
A. Yes.
* * *
Q. Did you feel like you had a choice?
A. Not really. I don’t know. Something just clicked off and I just did whatever they said."
From the Pandagon discussion thread.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 01:54 pm (UTC)> rape conviction
I agree, based on that statement. That's not the point. The point is the ruling that consent cannot be withdrawn and that there's no requirement to stop.
And I'm not saying this isn't an application of an already-established rule. I'm saying that that rule has not been applied as such in the past, and that the rule is repugnant.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 04:20 pm (UTC)I like to think she would view it as a legal matter.
Doubtless she would provide courteous sympathy (in a manner I am not currently in a mood to even *pretend* to approximate) to those--male or female--who have their partners suddenly (in a fashion which might well be described as discourteous, depending on their reasoning) shrug, turn to snow holes or icicles mid-act, and refuse to continue.
I think that is a far cry from saying that continuing to fuck someone after they've told you no is merely a discourtesy.
I am actually much less disgusted by the guy pulling out right after/five or ten seconds after she said stop than I am by everything that happened before that.
It's that whole "she told them to stop and they pinned her down and took turns sticking their cocks and/or fingers in her" thing. Even before he asked if she was going to let him cause he didn't want to rape you[1] she said yes as long as he stopped when she told him to.
(Court summary, should you be interested.)
And even that is considerably less disturbing, to my mind, than the ruling itself.
---
[1] And while I am not going to discuss at length the whole topic of "sometimes you say yes because it's going to happen anyway and if you say no it means you really undeniably get raped and you don't want to have to deal with that", I would just like to shine a little light on that whole disgusting issue for a minute, and consider exactly how much weight you should put on the statement "I don't want to rape you" when it's coming from someone who has already held you down so his friend could have a turn and stuck his fingers up inside you.
Thank you. Please proceed.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 04:44 pm (UTC)I have read enough rape cases where it required a lot of work to fet a conviction that I didn't actually know that consent can be withdrawn at any time - I simply assumed that anyone describing themselves as human would stop after consent was withdrawn - I didn't know it was an actual legal requirement.
I thought this was one of those times when the law sets a lower standard of ethics than would commonly be practiced.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 04:58 pm (UTC)> I simply assumed that anyone describing themselves as human would stop after
> consent was withdrawn
I'm going to go laugh or cry now. Not at you. Not sure which.
> I didn't know it was an actual legal requirement.
It's not.
Not in Maryland.
If you use physical force to have them continue, that may be sexual assault, but it's still not rape. If you don't need to use physical force for whatever reason, then no crime is committed.
(Last I heard, Canada simply has laws against sexual assault and rape was not a separate crime on the books.)
> I thought this was one of those times when the law sets a lower standard
> of ethics than would commonly be practiced.
I think that may be what everyone's complaining about.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 05:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 04:53 pm (UTC)If you and some Orlando Bloom lookalike start getting it on, and he penetrates you, and it starts hurting and it's not fun and it's painful and unpleasant and you think you might be bleeding and he's just mentioned not getting tested in six years and you want to stop and you tell him so and he doesn't--
--in Maryland--
--then for you it might actually not be just a discourtesy. It might be rape. Because I cannot actually find anything in Maryland law about how it's not rape if men withdraw consent.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 05:27 pm (UTC)Can we assume that my use of the word "discourtesy" was used as understatement, and not in such a way as to imply that rape is a simple discourtesy?
Also, can we assume that I fucking get it, and that it's not needful to keep harping on it and maube I replied at 1 in the morning or whatnot and wasn't going through things clearly?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 07:12 pm (UTC)(I would appreciate it greatly if we could assume that I went rather off my rocker after picking up the details of the assault and the law, but given that I did so in your general direction and did so without warning, I understand if I have forfeited any right to claim mitigating circumstances.)
I am sorry. There are some topics it is very hard for me to keep a rational tone about, and even harder to show any charity to other people's tone about. I really do regret that you were in the firing line of my unforgiving and unforgivable snapping, and hope that my apology can at least make a start towards clearing the air.
Meantime, I think I need to go start cooking crow, as I refuse to eat it raw, and I really think some consuming of Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos is now in order on my part.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 10:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 12:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 11:52 am (UTC)If the readership is confused; Pretty much any insanity that comes out of Maryland comes out of that county.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-03 04:17 am (UTC)(Silver Spring native.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 12:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 04:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-02 08:44 pm (UTC)LOOPHOLE ALERT!!!!
Date: 2006-11-03 12:48 am (UTC)DOES THIS FALL UNDER ASSISTED SUICIDE IF SHE CONSENTED TO THE SEX WHERE SHE IS GONNA BE KILLED?
WHAT IF HE IS INCAPABLE OF FINISHING? DOES THIS MEAN THAT SHE IS HIS SLAVE FOR LIFE????
THE BASTARDS!!!!!!!