![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beautifulduckweedThe Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently made a decision regarding Maouloud Baby v. State of Maryland, wherein they said "Once you say yes to sex, he's in--no changing your minds, you filthy harlots." Which is fucked up in any number of ways, but once you read the details of what happened, the What the Fucking Fuck quotient rises pretty dramatically. To wit:
1. The victim, Jewel L., who was 18 years old at the time of the incident, was fooling around in the back seat of the car with two boys, Maouloud Baby (who was 16 at the time) and a friend of his, Mike. At one point, Baby removed her pants and Mike was sitting on her, attempting to stick his cock in her mouth.
2. She told them to stop, and Mike indeed stopped waving his dick in her face. Instead, the pair moved so she was on top of Mike, during which time Baby restrained her while Mike tried to enter her. While trying to get inside her, he "accidentally" sodomized her instead. Whoopses! Those crazy kids and their terrible aim.
3. Baby exited the car at one point, and Mike had sex with Jewel. After Mike was done, Baby returned to the car and told Jewel it was his turn, but he didn't want to rape her. Jewel said he could do it, as long as he stopped when she told him to.
4. At this point, Jewel testified that she felt like she didn't really have a choice in saying no, so she said yes. Now, this is me inserting some commentary here, but dude, a couple of boys had just restrained her while taking her clothing off and attempting to force her to give one of them a blowjob, and one of them "accidentally" stuck his dick up her ass while one of them was restraining her. I'm shocked, shocked that she felt like she had no choice but to consent at this point.
5. Baby penetrated her, and Jewel felt pain, so she told him to stop, and attempted to push him off her. He didn't stop until 5 to 10 seconds later. That doesn't sound like a lot of time, but count it off in your head.
Yeah.
6. After the incident, she gave Baby her phone number, hugged Mike, met her best friend and was quiet about it for a few hours before breaking down and telling somebody what had happened.
Under current Maryland law, once consent is given for sexual intercourse and intercourse has begun, it cannot be withdrawn, so if somebody manages to coerce a "yes" from the victim, they're pretty-much scot-free in terms of rape charges (however, if I'm not mistaken, they may still be charged for sexual assault). It doesn't matter if, say, you find out during the act that the guy has an STD, or that it really, really hurts, or you've discovered he's not using a rubber, or any of that. No number of nos can reverse that initial yes.
I don't have any words right now to describe how disgusted I feel, though the word "stab" features quite prominently in my mind.
1. The victim, Jewel L., who was 18 years old at the time of the incident, was fooling around in the back seat of the car with two boys, Maouloud Baby (who was 16 at the time) and a friend of his, Mike. At one point, Baby removed her pants and Mike was sitting on her, attempting to stick his cock in her mouth.
2. She told them to stop, and Mike indeed stopped waving his dick in her face. Instead, the pair moved so she was on top of Mike, during which time Baby restrained her while Mike tried to enter her. While trying to get inside her, he "accidentally" sodomized her instead. Whoopses! Those crazy kids and their terrible aim.
3. Baby exited the car at one point, and Mike had sex with Jewel. After Mike was done, Baby returned to the car and told Jewel it was his turn, but he didn't want to rape her. Jewel said he could do it, as long as he stopped when she told him to.
4. At this point, Jewel testified that she felt like she didn't really have a choice in saying no, so she said yes. Now, this is me inserting some commentary here, but dude, a couple of boys had just restrained her while taking her clothing off and attempting to force her to give one of them a blowjob, and one of them "accidentally" stuck his dick up her ass while one of them was restraining her. I'm shocked, shocked that she felt like she had no choice but to consent at this point.
5. Baby penetrated her, and Jewel felt pain, so she told him to stop, and attempted to push him off her. He didn't stop until 5 to 10 seconds later. That doesn't sound like a lot of time, but count it off in your head.
Yeah.
6. After the incident, she gave Baby her phone number, hugged Mike, met her best friend and was quiet about it for a few hours before breaking down and telling somebody what had happened.
Under current Maryland law, once consent is given for sexual intercourse and intercourse has begun, it cannot be withdrawn, so if somebody manages to coerce a "yes" from the victim, they're pretty-much scot-free in terms of rape charges (however, if I'm not mistaken, they may still be charged for sexual assault). It doesn't matter if, say, you find out during the act that the guy has an STD, or that it really, really hurts, or you've discovered he's not using a rubber, or any of that. No number of nos can reverse that initial yes.
I don't have any words right now to describe how disgusted I feel, though the word "stab" features quite prominently in my mind.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 01:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 03:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 07:33 am (UTC)Ugh.
*hug*
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 03:11 am (UTC)VIGILANTE JUSTICE TIME!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 07:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 05:41 am (UTC)The conviction on that charge was entirely about the seconds that elapsed between her withdrawl of consent and his cessation of sex.
She had been talking with them about getting a hotel room to have sex, parks the car and makes out with them. They comply with her various boundary requests and stopped doing various things when asked (in a scummy and manipulative manner, but they did stop). As the incident progressed, she wound up having sex with one (consenting), and then gave verbal conset to have sex with the other until it hurt, at which point she asked him to stop and he did, in a few seconds (not five to ten, "five or so" were her words, and in high stress situations that more likely means "3"), and stops without ejaculation.
The only real point of contention there is the verbal exchange, where he said "I don't want to rape you." The prosecutor failed to establish contextual parameters there (it could have meant one of two things, "I will fuck you, but don't want it to be rape, so you better consent or else," or "I want to fuck you, but not if it is going to be rape, so is it ok yes or no?"). She said yes, and while she was very likely not truly consenting, the prosecution simply did not establish that a) the consent was not legit, and b) the defendant understood that the consent was not legit. In fact, the consnet itself was not challenged, only the removal of said consent.
That would not stand up in most courts as rape 1. The guy is scum (he actually used the phrase "hit it" when asking for sex. That alone should be a death penalty offense), and he is plainly guilty of several charges, but "rape in the first degree" would be very hard to convict with this set of facts. Sexual battery, sure. And whatever "sexual offense" is in Maryland, I can buy.
The guy is scum, and I am not defending him. Just commenting on the legality. Still, I just know I will get ten e-mails accusing me of defending that guy, or blaming the victim, or a ton of other crap I didn't do here. Ah well.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 07:32 am (UTC)As for complying with her various boundary requests--I'd say they were pretty damn nominal. I find it interesting that those two guys have to restrain her so much, because that word crops up an awful lot in the case summary.
Also, I just can't get over the accidental sodomy. How do you accidentally fuck someone up the ass without lube? Seriously, now.
I'd say her consent was rather iffy in any case. But on the other hand, I don't have all the details of what went on, and her versions vs. theirs.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 06:24 pm (UTC)I agree the law is fucked up. If I had to hazard a guess, it was probably written that way when people thought men were nothing but rutting animals that would be incapable of stopping once the thrusting began, and wrote the law to indemnify them in such cases.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-03 12:39 pm (UTC)