That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
If you are hanging your hat on his lack of intent to rape, then you are mistaken. He was also convicted of sexual assault with intent to rape, along with the two counts of penetration with a foreign object. He had the intent to rape her. |
Anonymous
BTW, the incident will be reported to the FBI which will label it a rape in the FBI crime database and it will go into the rape statistics. It was a rape. |
Anonymous
| Have not read through this thread, but are there any witnesses that saw Brock and the woman leave the party together? Has it been established that he came across her passed out body and he decided to assault her? |
Anonymous
Under California law. Under the FBI definition, it is rape. |
Anonymous
Not according the FBI and most other states. |
Anonymous
Nope. Big difference between finding a woman passed out on a couch, carrying her to your room and having your way with her passed out body and meeting a woman kissing/dancing her, going outside, walking behind a dumpster and having her pass out while making out. In the first instance you are talking about a predator, in the other you are talking about a drunk guy who went with a drunk woman to fool around and didn't have the good sense or decency to stop touching her when she passed out. If you think those two scenarios are The Same, you have a mighty twisted view of sexuality. If this woman had even gone behind those dumpsters to barf and he blind sided her back there - that would have been an attack. But if she willingly walked back there with him, even heavily intoxicated....that was not an attack even though it turned into an assault when she passed out and he continued to touch her. Still not rape. |
Anonymous
Ok forgive me for being blunt but as vile as it is, most people don't view a man sticking his finger in a woman without consent to be as bad as if it were a penis |
Anonymous
He was seen dry humping her, not penetrating her. She could have been conscious when the penetration occurred. We don't know what happened because she doesn't remember. He was not convicted of rape because the facts are not clear. |
Anonymous
And not according to the generally understood meaning of rape. Well, before it changed and it became "rape is rape". There seems to be no reason, anymore, to have both rape and sexual assault when they have become the same thing. |
Anonymous
And most women would never undergo an invasive rape kit exam if they knew that they had only been fingered and dry humped. And they wouldn't have humiliating crime photos taken of their naked body that would be splayed out for all to see at a trial. In this case, the victim was her own worst enemy. I feel for her, I really do. And I understand how this could have happened and I do feel sympathy for her. But blaming the young man for these intrusive, invasive exams....I don't think she can do that. She got herself black out drunk. She can't blame him for her own drinking. Especially since it wasn't the first time she had blacked out like that. |
Anonymous
PP, listen to yourself. Do you think that it makes a difference whether he penetrates her with his penis or his fingers? There is a difference under the law in California, but other states do not make that distinction. DC doesn't, for example. It's truly mind-boggling to me that you seem to think that what he did isn't "rape" and that that should make it better. |
Anonymous
I guess sticking your finger into a drunk person's ear is rape if they don't remember it happening the next day? |
Anonymous
Not the poster you quoted, but yes I see a BIG difference between being penetrated by a penis as opposed to a finger. Both are crimes, but the first is much more serious than the later. |
Anonymous
It explains why Sweden has a huge rape problem, according to the statistics. (I don't agree with this, myself Equating any and all sexual contact or assault with rape. It seems to trivialize the word and minimize it.) |
Anonymous
It is not clear when the penetration took place. He was convicted of the penetration because CA law says that if the victim doesn't remember the penetration it is a sexual assault. The victim may have been awake and actively making out with this guy when the penetration occurred. He was caught dry humping her. He wasn't convicted of rape for a reason. He didn't rape her. |