Man cleared of rape because he was too drunk to realise which bed he was in.

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Sorry DM but here.

This guy's girlfriend refused sex, he stumbled into another room "by accident" and started having sex with the woman in the bed there.

He was cleared of rape.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. I imagine he's been cleared because he didn't intend (apparently) to commit a crime. But the fact is that neither woman had consented to sex with him, so whoever he decided to penetrate it would have been rape. He seems to have been cleared on the grounds that if he had walked back into his (non-consenting) girlfriend's room and penetrated her without further ado, that would not have been rape. It obviously would have been.

:( scared and all at once.

What?!!!

Why do people (and especially those in the judiciary) have such a problem with the concept of consent? I truly don't get it.

Well, that's original. There have been cases when the victim was drunk but funnily enough in such cases this tends to be held against her rather than the rapist

I know, Proles.

Excellent point too that if it had been the woman who was "pissed out of her nut" or whatever that it would have still been her fault.

I wonder if he was asked how he established consent.

What the hell? Had his girlfriend consented before he left the room or something?

Okay, just read the article. So his girlfriend SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T consent before he left the room.

WTF was the jury thinking??

Also, in the comments (I know...) in with all the disgusting jokes:

"Is it really possible for a woman to be so sound asleep that she doesn't realise a man is having sex with her? The next time my wife has a headache I'll wait till she's asleep."

Is there going to be an appeal?

How come the judge didn't direct the jury appropriately?

Can we complain about this?

I really feel like any man can rape me and there is no fucking redress

CAn't believe they acquitted him. Even if it had been his GF, she had already said no, it would still have been rape - he was having sex without consent from the other party = rape, regardless of the identity of the woman ergo he should have been found guilty!
Fuckin hell.

Can we appeal to the Home Secretary to have the case re-examined?

The lack of consideration for the victim is just staggering. It's like she is being told "You were raped by this man, but he didn't mean it really, he's a good guy, he had just drunk a bit too much, so he doesn't deserve to face the consequences. Too bad if you suffered, it's not his problem."

And the girlfriend is being told "If you had been raped by this man while he was drunk, it would have been your problem. Too bad if you didn't consent."

Who do we appeal to? Home Sec? Chief Justice? Minister for Equality? All of the above?

I find it difficult to believe that a man who was so drunk that he didn't know what he was doing could get an erection.

FWIW I don't think people who are really drunk don't know what they are doing, it just allows them to liberate their real personality.

Of course it was rape.

Yes, Engelbert. That's exactly it. That is how much consideration the courts have for the rights of women.

I agree with TheCrackFox

disgusting