Lmao another woman said Franken groped her
| Olive locus | 11/20/17 | | Olive locus | 11/20/17 | | Vibrant Hell Circlehead | 11/20/17 | | Aromatic bawdyhouse alpha | 11/20/17 | | Submissive titillating hominid | 11/20/17 | | big jap dingle berry | 11/20/17 | | umber nighttime chad | 11/20/17 | | big jap dingle berry | 11/20/17 | | Flatulent maize dog poop boistinker | 11/20/17 | | big jap dingle berry | 11/20/17 | | Vibrant Hell Circlehead | 11/20/17 | | Olive locus | 11/20/17 | | purple laughsome set | 11/20/17 | | thriller cerise genital piercing gay wizard | 11/20/17 | | Olive locus | 11/20/17 | | Flatulent maize dog poop boistinker | 11/20/17 | | big jap dingle berry | 11/20/17 | | Concupiscible nibblets | 11/20/17 | | Flatulent maize dog poop boistinker | 11/20/17 | | Concupiscible nibblets | 11/20/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 20th, 2017 10:55 AM Author: big jap dingle berry
One weird trick:
Minnesota statutes state that "intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the buttocks" is not considered criminal sexual conduct.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/index.html
Highlights:
Franken groped victim's ass while taking picture at State Fair in 2010. Victim told her husband immediately, then posted about it on Facebook. Libs?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3803457&forum_id=2#34730399)
|
Date: November 20th, 2017 11:21 AM Author: Flatulent maize dog poop boistinker
the statute actually does say this. xo Minnesota legislature
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.3451
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3803457&forum_id=2#34730553) |
|
Date: November 20th, 2017 11:33 AM Author: big jap dingle berry
Sexual contact also includes the intentional removal or attempted removal of clothing covering the complainant's intimate parts or undergarments, and the nonconsensual touching by the complainant of the actor's intimate parts, effected by the actor, if the action is performed with sexual or aggressive intent.
QUESTION: consider the language "the intentional removal or attempted removal of clothing covering the complainant's intimate parts or undergarments, and the nonconsensual touching by the complainant of the actor's intimate parts,"
The statute expressly includes nonconsensual in its definition of the second part of this sentence. Therefore the legislature deliberately chose to criminalize "the intentional removal or attempted removal of clothing covering the complainant's intimate parts or undergarments" WITHOUT regard to consent. So if ur wife greets you in the bedroom with a trench coat over lingerie, and you remove her trench coat, you are guilty of criminal sexual conduct and should report to Somali prison.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3803457&forum_id=2#34730633) |
|
|