That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Distorting the facts do not make your argument credible. The fingering may have been consensual on her part for all we know. Maybe she passed out during the process of being fingered She can't tell you if it was or not because she doesn't remember. You can not convict or call him a rapist when the facts are this vague. You don't know what happened. Emily Doe doesn't know what happened. And the accused gets the benefit of the doubt unless proved otherwise. It wasn't proved otherwise. So you are out of line calling him a rapist. Distorting the facts only makes what he actually DID do look made up. Don't you get that? That does not help Emily Doe. That does not help victims of sex crimes.

From what I've read it sounds as thought the swedes came upon this guy dry humping her. That is what they were able to get him on.

Actually, a jury of his peers did convict him of sexual assault given the facts available. California Law states that if a person is too drunk to remember what happened the next day, even if still conscious, they are too drunk to provide consent. So the fact of her being that drunk, which you don't seem to dispute, is enough for a conviction. The reason he was not convicted of rape, but only of attempted rape, is not because of any questions around whether she had consented. California law only defines an assault as rape if there is penetration with a penis. Since, in this case, their was evidence penetration with a foreign object (his fingers), and no evidence that he inserted his penis inside of her, he was convicted of sexual assault with a foreign object.

You can argue that California's law should not say that extreme intoxication means that a person cannot provide consent, whatever else they may say or do, but that's an issue to take up with the California legislature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this, but it doesn't seem like rape to me either. It seems like it was a party hook-up by two drunken idiots that went off the rails. He fingered her according to him, with her consent. There was no PIV.

This is silly. In what universe do 2 people have consensual sex behind a dumpster, and then when people come up on you, the first instinct is to RUN LIKE HELL and leave a naked girl behind? Clearly he knew he was doing something wrong. He was scared to death of being caught because he knew he was raping a girl.

He was cool with leaving her behind, half naked with 2 dudes on a bike, in the middle of the night.

But it was just the alcohol right? Right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this, but it doesn't seem like rape to me either. It seems like it was a party hook-up by two drunken idiots that went off the rails. He fingered her according to him, with her consent. There was no PIV.

This is silly. In whati universe do 2 people have consensual sex behind a dumpster, and then when people come up on you, the first instinct is to RUN LIKE HELL and leave a naked girl behind? Clearly he knew he was doing something wrong. He was scared to death of being caught because he knew he was raping a girl.

He was cool with leaving her behind, half naked with 2 dudes on a bike, in the middle of the night.

But it was just the alcohol right? Right.

In the same one. Wasn't very gentlemanly of him, true. Wasn't that ladylike of her, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this, but it doesn't seem like rape to me either. It seems like it was a party hook-up by two drunken idiots that went off the rails. He fingered her according to him, with her consent. There was no PIV.

This is silly. In whati universe do 2 people have consensual sex behind a dumpster, and then when people come up on you, the first instinct is to RUN LIKE HELL and leave a naked girl behind? Clearly he knew he was doing something wrong. He was scared to death of being caught because he knew he was raping a girl.

He was cool with leaving her behind, half naked with 2 dudes on a bike, in the middle of the night.

But it was just the alcohol right? Right.

In the same one. Wasn't very gentlemanly of him, true. Wasn't that ladylike of her, either.

Well, rapists don't always act gentlemanly, that is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Distorting the facts do not make your argument credible. The fingering may have been consensual on her part for all we know. Maybe she passed out during the process of being fingered She can't tell you if it was or not because she doesn't remember. You can not convict or call him a rapist when the facts are this vague. You don't know what happened. Emily Doe doesn't know what happened. And the accused gets the benefit of the doubt unless proved otherwise. It wasn't proved otherwise. So you are out of line calling him a rapist. Distorting the facts only makes what he actually DID do look made up. Don't you get that? That does not help Emily Doe. That does not help victims of sex crimes.

From what I've read it sounds as thought the swedes came upon this guy dry humping her. That is what they were able to get him on.

Actually, a jury of his peers did convict him of sexual assault given the facts available. California Law states that if a person is too drunk to remember what happened the next day, even if still conscious, they are too drunk to provide consent. So the fact of her being that drunk, which you don't seem to dispute, is enough for a conviction. The reason he was not convicted of rape, but only of attempted rape, is not because of any questions around whether she had consented. California law only defines an assault as rape if there is penetration with a penis. Since, in this case, their was evidence penetration with a foreign object (his fingers), and no evidence that he inserted his penis inside of her, he was convicted of sexual assault with a foreign object.

You can argue that California's law should not say that extreme intoxication means that a person cannot provide consent, whatever else they may say or do, but that's an issue to take up with the California legislature.

Now how the hell is a guy supposed to know if a woman is going to black out drunk or not? How did Emily Doe know that this guy wasn't going to black out drunk? If he didn't remember the evening would that mean that she "raped" him too (stuck her tongue in his too drunk mouth). These two didn't know each other from jack. They hadn't spent the evening together, they didn't know how much the other one had drank. They simply hooked up and left the party.

What an insane law. Might as well just come out and say - "In California it is illegal to engage in sexual activity with someone who has consumed alcohol." Because that is pretty much what it boils down to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

I'm not a drunk college student. I certainly did hook up with girls outside at parties back then. That is what drunk people do. The problem here is alcohol, not sexual violence. The guy on Capitol Hill is a violent rapist, this guy Turner is an alcoholic.

[Anonymous]

Contrasting this with the Vanderbilt case. Fascinating how posters are equating them, saying that Turner should properly be convicted and sentenced similarly. The two crimes seem very different, and it makes sense to me that the convictions and sentences would be very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this, but it doesn't seem like rape to me either. It seems like it was a party hook-up by two drunken idiots that went off the rails. He fingered her according to him, with her consent. There was no PIV.

This is silly. In what universe do 2 people have consensual sex behind a dumpster, and then when people come up on you, the first instinct is to RUN LIKE HELL and leave a naked girl behind? Clearly he knew he was doing something wrong. He was scared to death of being caught because he knew he was raping a girl.

He was cool with leaving her behind, half naked with 2 dudes on a bike, in the middle of the night.

But it was just the alcohol right? Right.

If they went behind that dumpster and had the impression that they couldn't be seen...I can see how the guy would have ran if he heard two guys yelling at him and coming at him.

Why did they go behind the dumpster? Probably because that is where they could have privacy. Couldn't go back to his dorm (dorm rules? roommate?) and they sure as heck couldn't go back to her parents' house. Couldn't afford a hotel room. No car. So behind the dumpster it was.

They were both drunk off their arses, she passed out and the swedes came along and saw him humping a passed out girl. The cops were call...and things snowballed into a trial. That is my guess.

[Anonymous]

One more thing, I hear a lot about his life of privilege. His father is a military engineer, it looks like they are middle class/upper middle class, i don't see much affluence or wealth which is being used against them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

Not the PP.

Ask the girl.

Turner got a lighter sentence because of the following:

(1) He has no priors
(2) There is no indication of him drugging her
(3) There is no indication of him dragging her behind the dumpster
(4) She was too drunk to even remember what happened so there is no record
(5) He was too drunk to realize when or if she passed out.

I am a woman. I truly do not understand women who think they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and then blame men when things go badly. Stop pretending that she was sober, he was sober, and that he threatened her, dragged her behind a dumpster, and assaulted her. Stick with the facts and only the facts, like the judge did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

Not the PP.

Ask the girl.

Turner got a lighter sentence because of the following:

(1) He has no priors
(2) There is no indication of him drugging her
(3) There is no indication of him dragging her behind the dumpster
(4) She was too drunk to even remember what happened so there is no record
(5) He was too drunk to realize when or if she passed out.

I am a woman. I truly do not understand women who think they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and then blame men when things go badly. Stop pretending that she was sober, he was sober, and that he threatened her, dragged her behind a dumpster, and assaulted her. Stick with the facts and only the facts, like the judge did.

I am a woman too and I agree with the above posted message. The whole incident is unfortunate but the girl is taking zero responsibility for her actions.

[Anonymous]

Just read that prospective jurors are refusing to serve under Judge Persky, the Judge who gave the 6 month sentence:

http://jezebel.com/prospective-jurors-refuse-to-serve-under-aaron-persky-1781618871

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

Not the PP.

Ask the girl.

Turner got a lighter sentence because of the following:

(1) He has no priors
(2) There is no indication of him drugging her
(3) There is no indication of him dragging her behind the dumpster
(4) She was too drunk to even remember what happened so there is no record
(5) He was too drunk to realize when or if she passed out.

I am a woman. I truly do not understand women who think they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and then blame men when things go badly. Stop pretending that she was sober, he was sober, and that he threatened her, dragged her behind a dumpster, and assaulted her. Stick with the facts and only the facts, like the judge did.

That's a nice theory but he wasn't too drunk to try to run away when he got caught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

Not the PP.

Ask the girl.

Turner got a lighter sentence because of the following:

(1) He has no priors
(2) There is no indication of him drugging her
(3) There is no indication of him dragging her behind the dumpster
(4) She was too drunk to even remember what happened so there is no record
(5) He was too drunk to realize when or if she passed out.

I am a woman. I truly do not understand women who think they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and then blame men when things go badly. Stop pretending that she was sober, he was sober, and that he threatened her, dragged her behind a dumpster, and assaulted her. Stick with the facts and only the facts, like the judge did.

I am a woman too and I agree with the above posted message. The whole incident is unfortunate but the girl is taking zero responsibility for her actions.

You didn't read her statement if you think she's taking zero responsibility for her actions.