That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rape culture: When a man is caught IN THE ACT OF ASSAULTING A WOMAN, and people still try to say that deep down, he's not that bad. And she was probably asking for it anyway.

Yeah. And he's being held accountable! What more do you think he deserves - stoning, dismemberment? What more can be done to this guy that hasn't already been done?

He hooked up with a girl and she passed out while they were making out. He didn't rape her, he dry humped her. And while both rape and dry humping an unconscious woman are wrong - most women would agree that there is a pretty darned big difference between the two acts. He didn't rape her, he wasn't convicted of raping her. Or kidnapping her or drugging her or stalking her....

And should pay the price for what he actually DID do. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another rape apologist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something about his eyes...reminds me of Adam Lanza. Very disturbing.

His pupils are constricted. He looks drunk and probably terrified. He didn't seem to realize initially exactly what was going on, but, from a purely selfish level, to begin to imagine everything lost: his swimming career, his degree, the ability to get a job (is he supposed to live in his dad's basement forever?). Terrified.

Whether he's a hardened sexual predator or a dumb kid, it's normal to be scared. It doesn't mean he's Adam Panda.

I tried cases against sexual offenders as a prosecutor. Every single one of them cried. They always cried. Sex offenders are fundamentally weak men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Uh, he didn't come across a passed out woman, carry her behind a dumpster, unclothe her and penetrate her with his penis, and take pictures of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

Stop with the concern trolling.

The effects of date rape and stranger rape are the same for the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, apparently he didn't seem very drunk. That makes this a very different scenario, a very bad one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3633147/He-didn-t-drunk-wasn-t-slurring-Student-chased-Stanford-rapist-describes-attacker-tried-escape-says-check-unconscious-victim-alive.html

That article makes it sound like she walked outside and he jumped her, dragged her behind those dumpsters and attacked her. The swedes saw him humping the unconscious woman behind the dumpsters.

So where did the kissing that these two did come in? I thought Emily admitted to kissing him. Who kisses a man who is jumping, dragging, attacking and humping them behind a dumpster?

I think there are some things missing from that article.

Brock Turner was walking around the fraternity party and kissing random women. He was sort of aggressive, even in front of other people. He'd been kicked out of another party the week before for doing the same thing.

Yep. He was obnoxiously drunk. And when the other women rejected him he moved on and kept looking until he found someone more receptive to his advances.

If you jail every man and woman for hitting on the opposite sex during a frat party you would fill that jail mighty fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Uh, he didn't come across a passed out woman, carry her behind a dumpster, unclothe her and penetrate her with his penis, and take pictures of her.

No, he trolled a party until he found a woman drunk enough to victimize. He walked her out of the party and then victimized her behind a dumpster.

Not much difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

Stop with the concern trolling.

The effects of date rape and stranger rape are the same for the victim.

He didn't RAPE her!!! There is that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, apparently he didn't seem very drunk. That makes this a very different scenario, a very bad one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3633147/He-didn-t-drunk-wasn-t-slurring-Student-chased-Stanford-rapist-describes-attacker-tried-escape-says-check-unconscious-victim-alive.html

That article makes it sound like she walked outside and he jumped her, dragged her behind those dumpsters and attacked her. The swedes saw him humping the unconscious woman behind the dumpsters.

So where did the kissing that these two did come in? I thought Emily admitted to kissing him. Who kisses a man who is jumping, dragging, attacking and humping them behind a dumpster?

I think there are some things missing from that article.

Brock Turner was walking around the fraternity party and kissing random women. He was sort of aggressive, even in front of other people. He'd been kicked out of another party the week before for doing the same thing.

Yep. He was obnoxiously drunk. And when the other women rejected him he moved on and kept looking until he found someone more receptive to his advances.

If you jail every man and woman for hitting on the opposite sex during a frat party you would fill that jail mighty fast.

And he didn't go to jail for kissing random women, nor has anyone said he should. He went to jail for raping an unconscious woman.

The other behavior is just a red flag for a guy who is sexually aggressive enough to concern other students, including other fraternity guys. Not illegal, but creepy and concerning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

Stop with the concern trolling.

The effects of date rape and stranger rape are the same for the victim.

He didn't RAPE her!!! There is that.

He penetrated her unconscious body. That is rape. You are hanging your hat on the technical name of crime in California. If you stick your fingers in someone's body without their permission, you are engaged in rape.

If rape required using a penis by the defendant, then no woman could ever rape a man, and we know that women can rape men.

[Anonymous]

I've been reading some about this, and to be honest, the public reaction shocked me more than the crime (however awful). You people are real pieces of work. First, you state the rape is not okay, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Then you wish the rape on the perpetrator. Well, I guess in your warped little minds rape IS okay. Have a nice day, douchebags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rape culture: When a man is caught IN THE ACT OF ASSAULTING A WOMAN, and people still try to say that deep down, he's not that bad. And she was probably asking for it anyway.

Yeah. And he's being held accountable! What more do you think he deserves - stoning, dismemberment? What more can be done to this guy that hasn't already been done?

He hooked up with a girl and she passed out while they were making out. He didn't rape her, he dry humped her. And while both rape and dry humping an unconscious woman are wrong - most women would agree that there is a pretty darned big difference between the two acts. He didn't rape her, he wasn't convicted of raping her. Or kidnapping her or drugging her or stalking her....

And should pay the price for what he actually DID do. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, he sexually assaulted an unconscious woman. 'Hooks ups' are generally consensual, which this was not. But thanks for proving the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

Stop with the concern trolling.

The effects of date rape and stranger rape are the same for the victim.

He didn't RAPE her!!! There is that.

He penetrated her unconscious body. That is rape. You are hanging your hat on the technical name of crime in California. If you stick your fingers in someone's body without their permission, you are engaged in rape.

If rape required using a penis by the defendant, then no woman could ever rape a man, and we know that women can rape men.

California law is more nuanced than that. Rape requires intent, and proving that he wanted to rape her and not just have sex with her wasn't possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy and the girl were both drunk off their asses. I feel sorry for both of them that they made such bad decisions.

The decision to get drunk is nowhere near the magnitude of the decision to rape someone. Many, MANY men get drunk and do not rape anyone.

Sticking your finger in someone without their permission is not rape. It is sexual assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been reading some about this, and to be honest, the public reaction shocked me more than the crime (however awful). You people are real pieces of work. First, you state the rape is not okay, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Then you wish the rape on the perpetrator. Well, I guess in your warped little minds rape IS okay. Have a nice day, douchebags.

I think it's partly the internet, where people say things they don't mean. But it's also a medieval mindset, which exults in retribution, and is happy at the state of our prisons, with "extra judicial punishment". Horrible, IMO and yours.