Man cleared of rape because he raped the wrong woman

[Galileo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360801/Haydor-Khan-cleared-rape-climbing-wrong-bed.html

Basically, for those who don't want to read the link, the individual concerned got drunk, ended up going back to the wrong hotel room and started having sex with a sleeping woman who he claims he thought to be his girlfriend. When she woke up he grabbed her mobile phone and ran away, but was arrested and then subsequently charged with rape.

He was later cleared of rape by a jury on the basis he was too drunk to realise that he had got into the wrong bed with the wrong woman. The fact he had had sex with a sleeping woman who was not in a position to have given consent has seemingly not been taken into account.

Moreover, the article specifically states that his girlfriend had previously told him that she was not in the mood for sex as she was feeling ill. Therefore, it should already have been assumed that there was a lack of consent on the part of his girlfriend, so even if he'd got into bed with "the right woman" and started having sex with her, it would surely still have been rape.

For me this raises a huge amount of questions.

If a person gets drunk and gets into a car, drives home, hits someone on the way home and kills them, they are held accountable for their actions.

Even if that drunk driver is pulled over and breath-tested, they are charged with driving under the influence and can receive a large fine and a driving ban or both.

So why is it that a drunk man can get into bed with a woman, start having sex with her, and not be held accountable for that?

Yet again a man has got away with rape on the basis that a jury somehow feel that he wasn't responsible for his actions.

And what of the woman he raped? Where is her justice? She was entitled to not have been violated; a man had sex with her against her will, and yet this fact is seemingly irelevant.

And given the girlfriend had explicitly stated she did not want sex earlier in the evening, there was no consent even from the right woman. So why is who the man had sex with important here?

Since when did having non consentual sex with a partner not equal rape?

And since when did consuming enough alcohol that you cannot distinguish whether the woman you are having sex with is actually your girlfriend mean that it's ok to rape a woman.

If a woman gets drunk and is raped, more often than not she is told that it is her fault for getting into such a state that she could not be in a position to give consent or otherwise.

So why is this different for a man?

 

[88chaz88]

I find this very, very difficult to believe.

The fact it's linked from the Daily Mail makes it even harder.

Edit: Here.

He denied her suggestion that he had gone ‘on the prowl’, entering the complainant’s room and had sex with her while she was asleep.

Since he was cleared of rape it suggests that he didn't actually have sex with her while she was asleep, she only claims that.

The Daily Mail is brilliant for twisting stories to make a more sensationalist headline. Especially if it involves anyone with a middle eastern name.

 

[Edith]

I once heard of a judge dropping a rape charge because the victim was wearing skinny jeans, and he reasoned that the rapist couldn't have gotten the pants off of her without help.

I wouldn't trust that claim without proof.

 

[Neuropedia]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/p...-happen-claims-police-officer-86908-22970185/

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...ape-victim-inviting-so-no-jail-116801578.html

 

[Galileo]

I once heard of a judge dropping a rape charge because the victim was wearing skinny jeans, and he reasoned that the rapist couldn't have gotten the pants off of her without help.

no way!

that's disgusting.

I don't think the newspaper would have gotten the story so wrong that the following facts are false.

1. the guy was so drunk that he tried having sex with someone who he thought was his girlfriend.
2. the girl in question certainly didn't want anything to do with a unknown individuals advances.
3. the guy has not been given a sentence because he apparently was too drunk to know he was in the wrong place.

I don't care what anyone says, if you get drunk and do something stupid you're responsible for those actions. drunk driving that results in the halming of another person can land you time in prison, even though it might be small, it still can.

So why not unwanted physical and sexual advances on a person who isn't even in a position to give consent let alone defend herself.

 

[88chaz88]

I don't think the newspaper would have gotten the story so wrong that the following facts are false.

1. the guy was so drunk that he tried having sex with someone who he thought was his girlfriend.

Except this isn't illegal, so yes, this part is probably perfectly true.

2. the girl in question certainly didn't want anything to do with a unknown individuals advances.

So she says. There's a lot of rape cases out there which turn out false. This is a rare case where it was taken so far, but sure the "innocent until proven guilty" saying still applies.

3. the guy has not been given a sentence because he apparently was too drunk to know he was in the wrong place.

The article doesn't state this, only implies it explicitly. In reality he hasn't been given a sentence because he wasn't found guilty of rape, because if he was, he would be sentenced, no matter what the situation was.

Perhaps this article isn't bending the truth in any way and the judge was clearly out of his mind, if so, is there an appeal being made? If not, then it really shows something about the validity of "victim's" claim.

I know just how harsh our rape cases can be, probably better than most.

 

[Neuropedia]

pretty sure forcing sex on anyone, even your girlfriend, and even if you're drunk is illegal. Had he been in the right room, what he done would still have been rape.
most rapes go unreported because women are scared people won't believe them

 

[88chaz88]

pretty sure forcing sex on anyone, even your girlfriend, and even if you're drunk is illegal. Had he been in the right room, what he done would still have been rape.

Correct.

most rapes go unreported because women are scared people won't believe them

Yup, but those that are reported are brutally looked into, very thoroughly, on both sides. It's a very serious claim, yet can be frivalous. The amount of rape claims which get taken back are staggering, yet those that go forward are taken very seriously.

 

[Galileo]

but the fact that he took her mobile phone upon her becoming aware to her situation properly is at least suspicious to me.

\
the fact that he ran away is even more suspicious.

and I'm sorry, 'I had sex with her because I thought she was my girlfriend does not a defense make. As far as I'm concerned he's admiting to the act by even claiming that argument.

 

[88chaz88]

but the fact that he took her mobile phone upon her becoming aware to her situation properly is at least suspicious to me.

\
the fact that he ran away is even more suspicious.

and I'm sorry, 'I had sex with her because I thought she was my girlfriend does not a defense make. As far as I'm concerned he's admiting to the act by even claiming that argument.

He's not denying he had sex with her, nor that he thought she was his girlfriend. He's denying that she was asleep.

Having sex with someone then stopping does not equal rape.

Anyway, is there an appeal made? Because if she was asleep, what this guy did was illegal, and should get 5 years at least.

 

[Neuropedia]

I know many women who have taken their claim back because they did not want to go on trial. I have not known any one to make a false claim. I'm sure it happens, but it's far more likely that a victim will lie and say they weren't raped, than someone will lie and say they were.

Having sex with someone who is unconscious is also rape, as they are not able to give consent

 

[88chaz88]

I know many women who have taken their claim back because they did not want to go on trial.

Well boo-fuckity-hoo.

I have not known any one to make a false claim. I'm sure it happens, but it's far more likely that a victim will lie and say they weren't raped, than someone will lie and say they were.

Because I'm sure the first person they'd tell would be you. No offence to you personally, but if someone makes a frivalous rape claim and takes it back, they're clearly not going to shout it to the world.

Having sex with someone who is unconcsious is also rape, as they are not able to give consent

How have I not made it clear by now that I agree with this?

 

[Chessie]

I'm sorry, and I know this is just my own case but I've consumed at one time or another copious quantities of both alcohol and drugs (rarely together and neither one frequently but it's happened) and during none of my experiences involving either of those did I ever have sex with someone without knowing precisely who I was on top of/under/between.

I realize alcohol does mess about with inhibitions but unless this is a person with an IQ in the single digits I can't think that, short of the individual he was doing this to being identical in nearly every way to his lover, he was actually in ANY way unaware of who he was fucking.

 

[88chaz88]

I'm sorry, and I know this is just my own case but I've consumed at one time or another copious quantities of both alcohol and drugs (rarely together and neither one frequently but it's happened) and during none of my experiences involving either of those did I ever have sex with someone without knowing precisely who I was on top of/under/between.

I realize alcohol does mess about with inhibitions but unless this is a person with an IQ in the single digits I can't think that, short of the individual he was doing this to being identical in nearly every way to his lover, he was actually in ANY way unaware of who he was fucking.

Although that's beside the point. He could have been bumming Santa Claus by mistake and it would be considered rape (assuming that Santa was against being bummed).

The issue here is if he was in fact having sex with this woman in her sleep. Something the article is quick to avoid it seems.

 

[Galileo]

know many women who have taken their claim back because they did not want to go on trial. I have not known any one to make a false claim. I'm sure it happens, but it's far more likely that a victim will lie and say they weren't raped, than someone will lie and say they were.

I know many young people who have been raped or sexually abused, and I am 100% sure that every single claim I know of is real and the psychological damage to these men and women is real.


It's something that is very difficult to fake, and where exactly is the motivation for someone to lie?

 

[This]

Many women are vindictive and will claim rape if a man pisses them off, I'm not saying that's the case in this particular instance. In fact I'm sure it's not. But to write it off in general I think is a bit ignorant (something about a lacrosse team comes to mind.) I don't think we can make judgments without really knowing the whole story or hearing the trial and while you're right about drunk people being held accountable for their actions while driving it is actually a different sentence if you are sober and intentionally mow down a pedestrian than if you are drunk and do it on accident, the first is first degree murder the second is involuntary manslaughter.

 

[not sure]

Many women are vindictive and will claim rape if a man pisses them off, I'm not saying that's the case in this particular instance. In fact I'm sure it's not. But to write it off in general I think is a bit ignorant (something about a lacrosse team comes to mind.) I don't think we can make judgments without really knowing the whole story or hearing the trial and while you're right about drunk people being held accountable for their actions while driving it is actually a different sentence if you are sober and intentionally mow down a pedestrian than if you are drunk and do it on accident, the first is first degree murder the second is involuntary manslaughter.

Yup. You are a cop.

 

[aeon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360801/Haydor-Khan-cleared-rape-climbing-wrong-bed.html

Basically, for those who don't want to read the link, the individual concerned got drunk, ended up going back to the wrong hotel room and started having sex with a sleeping woman who he claims he thought to be his girlfriend. When she woke up he grabbed her mobile phone and ran away, but was arrested and then subsequently charged with rape.

He was later cleared of rape by a jury on the basis he was too drunk to realise that he had got into the wrong bed with the wrong woman. The fact he had had sex with a sleeping woman who was not in a position to have given consent has seemingly not been taken into account.

Seemingly, yes, given the article

 

[aeon]

Yup. You are a cop.

I don

 

[DevilDoll]

I know many women who have taken their claim back because they did not want to go on trial. I have not known any one to make a false claim. I'm sure it happens, but it's far more likely that a victim will lie and say they weren't raped, than someone will lie and say they were.

Having sex with someone who is unconscious is also rape, as they are not able to give consent

I know many young people who have been raped or sexually abused, and I am 100% sure that every single claim I know of is real and the psychological damage to these men and women is real.


It's something that is very difficult to fake, and where exactly is the motivation for someone to lie?

I have known many women who have cried rape. They usually do it for attention. Or they regret the act afterwards and call it rape to save face. There are many many reasons women make these claims. It happens more often than you know. I have seen men's name's slandered and dragged through the mud just so a girl could save her "reputation" or not upset the boyfriend she cheated on. It's situations like this that keep women who have actually been raped from coming forward.