Ruling on rape allows 'no' any time (MD)

The Washington Times ^ | 4-17-08 | AP

[JZelle]

ANNAPOLIS (AP) — A woman can say "no" at any time during intercourse, and a man can be convicted of rape if he doesn"t stop, Maryland's highest court ruled yesterday.

In the case of a man convicted of rape in 2004, the Court of Appeals decided that a woman can withdraw consent at any time, even after agreeing to sex.

The court ordered a new trial for Maouloud Baby, who was convicted of raping a woman in a car in 2003 when he was 15. His first trial ended in a mistrial.

According to testimony, the 18-year-old woman had just had sex with another man, and Mr. Baby asked whether he could "hit that" also.

Mr. Baby"s high-school classmate, Michael Wilson, pleaded guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to 18 months.

Mr. Baby testified that the woman agreed, as long as he would stop when she told him to. The woman testified that Mr. Baby continued for five to 10 seconds after she asked him to stop.

Mr. Baby was convicted in 2004 after a Montgomery County jury asked the judge whether sex that begins consensually but continues after the woman tells the man to stop constitutes rape. The judge replied that it was "a question that you, as a jury, must decide."

Mr. Baby challenged his conviction, which was overturned by Maryland"s second-highest court. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to a new trial, clarifying that a woman may withdraw consent at any time during sex.

[MartinStyles]

Mr Baby hahahah

[Kozak]

The woman testified that Mr. Baby continued for five to 10 seconds after she asked him to stop.

Oh brother.

[sheana]

According to testimony, the 18-year-old woman had just had sex with another man, and Mr. Baby asked whether he could “hit that” also.

All involved are ‘fine, upstanding’ citizens. barf

[goldstategop]

Foolish is the man who continues sex with a woman after she's changed her mind. If she withdraws consent at any point, its rape.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[TexGuy]

The woman testified that Mr. Baby continued for five to 10 seconds after she asked him to stop.

He asymptotically approached zero ...

[Slicksadick]

Mr. Baby asked whether he could "hit that" also.

[longhorn too]

I think Mr. Baby might have been at the point of no return!

[AntiKev]

It’s all in the inflection. Was it: “No! Don’t! Stop!” or: “No...don’t stop!”. And we’re letting 12 people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty decide the answer to this question?

Okay, this isn’t a laughing matter. But I need some jokes today after the threads on ID vs. evolution.

[ConservaTexan]

An 18 year old woman agrees to have sex with a 15 year old boy, then changes her mind and he gets convicted of rape??? The mind boggles.

[Always Right]

Now does she actually have to say ‘stop’ or does she just have to think ‘stop’?

[JZelle]

So the headline could’ve read, “Woman raped by Baby”

[AppyPappy]

I guess a man should be careful where he puts his body parts then.

[Always Right]

An 18 year old woman agrees to have sex with a 15 year old boy, then changes her mind and he gets convicted of rape??? The mind boggles.

Sounds like statutory rape on her part.

[NonValueAdded]

How fast? Instantly, like the spinning blade on a lawnmower when the safety handle is released? Like the one-count step after the command “Platoon, halt!”? Do we need a two-stroke rule? What is the difference between “don’t! stop” and “don’t” “stop”?

[brytlea]

This would seem to be the prudent answer.
susie

[AndyTheBear]

The woman testified that Mr. Baby continued for five to 10 seconds after she asked him to stop.

Yes, he should have stopped. Heck he should not have even started. She should not have started either. Both are guilty of fornication. Neither are guilty of rape.

[AntiKev]

Touche.

[VeniVidiVici]

What if she asked him to stop and then said it was ok? What if she asked him to stop, then said it was ok, then said to stop again? What if she then took a nap and asked him to start again when he wanted? Does her lack of consent constitute a “yes” or a “no”?

Yes, I’m belittling the decision.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

A man can be convicted even if the woman says “no” afterwards. or thinks she said “no”. Or changes her mind 2 days later.

[bill1952]

If she withdraws consent at any point, its rape.

Bull. Once she agrees to, and is in the middle of the sex act, it is too late.

This is nothing short of the gelding of the American male.
Just turn all guys into raving fags and be done with it.

Sheesh!

[woollyone]

don’t!...stop!...don’t!...stop!
don’t stop!

...is no longer even remotely funny

[driftdiver]

“Just turn all guys into raving fags and be done with it.”

You first as I have no desire.

This isn’t rape and its pure BS for this kids life to be screwed because of it. His mistake was to start it in the first place with a woman like that. At 15 though not many boys would stop once in the situation.

[fr_freak]

Even if we were to assume that it is not a completely asinine position to say that rape can occur in the middle of the act after consent was already given, what is undeniably asinine is the notion that women, especially the young ones, regularly give clear and unambiguous signals. We could very easily have a female, such as the morally misguided one in this story, who testifies that she told the guy to stop in the middle of the act, when all she really said was "I don't know about this" or something to that effect. In her mind she said ,"Stop". Now it is dependent on the guy to be able to interpret whichever words came out of her mouth to determine whether there will be some legal liability.

Just think about how this ruling could be a very, very large weapon with which women can trap and imprison men. If a woman got it into her mind that she wanted to hurt you, whether she's an ex-wife, or ex-girlfriend, or you dissed her best friend at a party five years ago, she can cozy up to you, entice you into the bedroom, give every indication of wanting you to have sex with her, then, at some point during the act, she simply says "Stop" and if you aren't off of her within 5-10 seconds, your butt is going to jail.

For that matter, she doesn't even have to say "Stop". She could simply claim to have said "stop" at some point, well after the fact. It is your word against hers. She can get you to have sex with her, then tell the police the next day that she said "stop" and you didn't. Women have been known to claim rape the next day once they regret their actions. This ruling just makes it that much easier.

So, I suppose the moral of story here is: don't have sex in Maryland.

[CPOSharky]

Is it rape if the check bounces?

[MissEdie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't she be charged with Statutory Rape considering his age?

[Mr. Quarterpanel]

Look, the only way to stay on the right side of the law....Is to videotape the act.

Yeah! Videotape the act, and then show it to all your friends, so they will see that she never said to stop! Also post the video on the web where anyone and everyone can see it!! Then everyone will know that she never said to stop!

There! See? Problem solved in less than 50 posts.

I should be a lawyer. I’ll send you my bill.

[weegee]

How about AFTER the fact? Like a day or week or 2 years?

[weegee]

You’d think SHE’D be on trial for statutory rape or corrupting a minor.

[weegee]

I think there has been at least one case of “invasion of privacy” or some similar charge against a guy who had such a video camera setup at his house/apartment. And I don’t think he was posting his efforts.

[lesser_satan]

Oh, but you don’t understand the Feminazi definition of rape, which is any heterosexual act the woman later regretted, didn’t enjoy, didn’t get multiple orgasms from, etc, etc, etc. All hetero sex is rape, and all men (and apparently boys too) are rapists according to them. Homo sex is OK though, as long as a priest isn’t involved, in which case you sue and call the Pope a Nazi.

[A_perfect_lady]

That’s insane! Once you let someone start that sort of thing, you really have to let them finish.

[weegee]

So, I suppose the moral of story here is: don't have sex... outside of a committed relationship.

[MrB]

oh, but wait!

Our leftist avant garde folk tell us that sex outside of marriage is the ONLY WAY TO GO!

Gosh, considering all the problems sex outside of marriage causes, you’d think there’d be a rule written down somewhere about it that we could refer to.

[JZelle]

I remember a Van Halen song about just that!

[weegee]

Some schools have had elaborate paper forms for couples to use before proceeding to escalated expressions of passion.

If a woman withdraws consent, shouldn’t she be required to submit the back out claus in writing?

At what point does she violate a trust (more than implied)? This is more complicated coupling than a handshake.

[weegee]

If you are “stuck” like two dogs, does that count too?

[Cyman]

It took me 3 years to figure out fat was the so called compliment “phat”. Now what exactly does “stop” mean shouted out by your partner while in the self absorbed act of copulation. Someone needs to axe that question.

[alarm rider]

So, when Mr. Baby goes to a family reunion, he addresses the participants as fellow babies?

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

This almost sounds like a hoax. She was 18, he was 15. Why on earth didn’t his lawyer counter-sue her for statutory rape?

[lesser_satan]

I suspect asking her to sign a contract beforehand would tend to dampen the mood a bit. Although in this case there probably wasn’t much of a mood to begin with, considering he asked the other guy if he could hit it (presumably within earshot of her).

[Centurion2000]

Mr. Baby testified that the woman agreed, as long as he would stop when she told him to. The woman testified that Mr. Baby continued for five to 10 seconds after she asked him to stop.

Mr. Baby was convicted in 2004 after a Montgomery County jury asked the judge whether sex that begins consensually but continues after the woman tells the man to stop constitutes rape. The judge replied that it was "a question that you, as a jury, must decide."

Remind me never ever to have sex with anyone in Maryland ever again.

[thulldud]

Bedides which, the guy is 15. He’d be charged with possession of “kiddie porn”. Then he’d REALLY be in trouble.

[Aloysius88]

I’m not trying to get all theological on you guys, but there is already a publicly recognized piece of paper that declares when it is o.k. to have sex. It is called a marriage license. This guy’s case, although somewhat absurd, is morally equivalent to going into a clearly designated minefield, getting your parts blown up and then arguing that the actual location of the particular mine should be more precisely marked.

[Fireone]

I have been getting screwed by the IRS for years,
even though I yell “stop”.
Can I charge them with rape?

[Larry Lucido]

You are indeed a perfect lady!

[CPOSharky]

I’m not trying to get all theological on you guys, but there is already a publicly recognized piece of paper that declares when it is o.k. to have sex. It is called a marriage license.

There have been cases of the husband being convicted of raping his wife.

[Hyzenthlay]

The ‘no at any time’ thing sounds reasonable. What’s unreasonable is the ‘must stop instantaneously’ bit... sex doesn’t seem to be the kind of activity that can really be stopped the instant one party says no - like if you tell someone “Get out of there now!” you don’t expect them to instantly teleport themselves outside, but to head for a way out as fast as possible. Plus, if the conversation went something like “Stop!” “What?” “Stop!” “Oh, OK” then it could easily have been 5-10 seconds with the guy not having any bad intentions at all.

[NonValueAdded]

This is more complicated coupling than a handshake.

hey, that's not your hand! (how did that old joke go?) :)

[Ouderkirk]

Good grief, five or ten seconds longer? So why not measure it in nanoseconds. 1 x 10^-9 sec