That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think that they were fooling around and he had hoped to have sex with her - that was his intent. Then she passed out. He was aroused and was getting himself off by dry humping her. I don't think he had any intentions of raping her unconscious body. He wouldn't have wasted time dry humping her if he was going to rape her. But in CA if the victim doesn't remember what happened....it is assault. Ironically, if she had remained conscious they probably would have had sex....which could have gotten him a rape charge because she blacked out and didn't remember what happened. Thus the intent to rape...

It was a mess of a night alright.

There's no IF anymore, there is only what he did. There's no speculation about what he would have done if she had behaved differently, there is only what he DID TO HER while she was passed out.

I asked a question upthread that none of the rape apologists want to answer: if he'd been found sitting on top of a passed out person slapping her face back and forth, would that be okay to you? If he'd stuck foreign objects into her mouth, instead of an orifice where you assume she derived pleasure from it? Would you still view that as the results of her actions, or speculate that she'd invited him to slap her face while she was unconscious?

Yes, your hypotheticals are different. Was he fingering her for his sexual gratification, or for (what he thought was) hers? Slapping her, doing other things to her, are different.

No. They're not. Both scenarios are assault on an unconscious person. He didn't insert things into her vagina for her, he did it TO her.

What if slapping her face gave him an erection? Attaching clamps to her nipples? Burning her with a lit cigarette? There are some people out there who find sexual gratification in such acts. Would you be questioning this victim if she said she did not? Do you fantasize about humping a naked woman behind a dumpster? Do you think any woman would fantasize about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok. I am wondering how it is known that he fingered her. And before anyone gets hysterical, I am not trying to cast doubt. I'm just curious as how that can be determined. She obviously doesn't remember anything, the men on the bikes saw him dry humping her. Is manual penetration something that can be determined from a medical exam especially if she was not a virgin. And no I am not victim blaming, I'm just assuming that since she was 23 years old and had a boyfriend she was not a virgin.

She had debris from the scene inside of her and there was some evidence (small abrasions?) inside of her. Nothing is very clear. Maybe Brock admitted to fingering her? Emily Doe doesn't know what happened and the swedes saw him dry humping her.

I haven't read his statement to police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think that they were fooling around and he had hoped to have sex with her - that was his intent. Then she passed out. He was aroused and was getting himself off by dry humping her. I don't think he had any intentions of raping her unconscious body. He wouldn't have wasted time dry humping her if he was going to rape her. But in CA if the victim doesn't remember what happened....it is assault. Ironically, if she had remained conscious they probably would have had sex....which could have gotten him a rape charge because she blacked out and didn't remember what happened. Thus the intent to rape...

It was a mess of a night alright.

There's no IF anymore, there is only what he did. There's no speculation about what he would have done if she had behaved differently, there is only what he DID TO HER while she was passed out.

I asked a question upthread that none of the rape apologists want to answer: if he'd been found sitting on top of a passed out person slapping her face back and forth, would that be okay to you? If he'd stuck foreign objects into her mouth, instead of an orifice where you assume she derived pleasure from it? Would you still view that as the results of her actions, or speculate that she'd invited him to slap her face while she was unconscious?

Yes, your hypotheticals are different. Was he fingering her for his sexual gratification, or for (what he thought was) hers? Slapping her, doing other things to her, are different.

No. They're not. Both scenarios are assault on an unconscious person. He didn't insert things into her vagina for her, he did it TO her.

What if slapping her face gave him an erection? Attaching clamps to her nipples? Burning her with a lit cigarette? There are some people out there who find sexual gratification in such acts. Would you be questioning this victim if she said she did not? Do you fantasize about humping a naked woman behind a dumpster? Do you think any woman would fantasize about that?

By "things", you mean fingers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

If only that were the case. Not convicted is not the same as did not do it. The witnesses would beg to differ with you.

[Anonymous]

And he admitted penetration took place.in his statement to the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If Emily Doe had come to after the swedes arrived on the scene and realized that this guy that she had been making out with had continued to dry hump her even after she had passed out, she would have been humiliated and pissed off at him. But I can about guarantee that she would have not called the cops, gone and done the rape kit exams, had photos taken of her naked body. No way would she have wanted to read about this in the paper.

She would have told Brock off in no uncertain terms and that would have been it. Maybe they would have both learned their lesson right then and there. Two lives spared and able to move on.

The reason this got as far as it did is because she blacked out drunk and awoke in the hospital not knowing wth had happened to her. She could have been gang raped for all she knew. HIV!! And once the sex crime investigation started to take place...that was it. No turning back.

You literally have no idea what she would have done if she had woken up. And you are completely, totally missing the point. The fact that she was blackout drunk is what makes this assault. Conscious or not, her level of intoxication prevented her from being capable of giving consent. That is California law; the one that was used to convict Turner of sexual assault. You, and a host of posters here, seem to have an argument with the letter of the law. Well, I guess, good thing for you you don't live in California. Because irrespective of what you think it should be, the law says that penetrating a woman with your fingers, regardless of her level of consciousness, is a *crime* if she is so drunk she can't remember what happened. None of the other circumstances are relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And he admitted penetration took place.in his statement to the police.

He also said he thought she was awake, the whole encounter took about 5 minutes, and he didn't know that he ran when the Swedes tackled him. We're selectively believing part and disbelieving part of what he said to the police. That's fine, but we should be aware of what we're doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think that they were fooling around and he had hoped to have sex with her - that was his intent. Then she passed out. He was aroused and was getting himself off by dry humping her. I don't think he had any intentions of raping her unconscious body. He wouldn't have wasted time dry humping her if he was going to rape her. But in CA if the victim doesn't remember what happened....it is assault. Ironically, if she had remained conscious they probably would have had sex....which could have gotten him a rape charge because she blacked out and didn't remember what happened. Thus the intent to rape...

It was a mess of a night alright.

There's no IF anymore, there is only what he did. There's no speculation about what he would have done if she had behaved differently, there is only what he DID TO HER while she was passed out.

I asked a question upthread that none of the rape apologists want to answer: if he'd been found sitting on top of a passed out person slapping her face back and forth, would that be okay to you? If he'd stuck foreign objects into her mouth, instead of an orifice where you assume she derived pleasure from it? Would you still view that as the results of her actions, or speculate that she'd invited him to slap her face while she was unconscious?

Yes, your hypotheticals are different. Was he fingering her for his sexual gratification, or for (what he thought was) hers? Slapping her, doing other things to her, are different.

No. They're not. Both scenarios are assault on an unconscious person. He didn't insert things into her vagina for her, he did it TO her.

What if slapping her face gave him an erection? Attaching clamps to her nipples? Burning her with a lit cigarette? There are some people out there who find sexual gratification in such acts. Would you be questioning this victim if she said she did not? Do you fantasize about humping a naked woman behind a dumpster? Do you think any woman would fantasize about that?

By "things", you mean fingers?

Fingers and other items, Yes. He was convicted of penetrating her, which means there was evidence that he penetrated her. You want to equivocate about what he put inside her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And he admitted penetration took place.in his statement to the police.

He also said he thought she was awake, the whole encounter took about 5 minutes, and he didn't know that he ran when the Swedes tackled him. We're selectively believing part and disbelieving part of what he said to the police. That's fine, but we should be aware of what we're doing.

He also claimed not to remember what happened until he learned the victim didn't remember at which point he changed his story to she consented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think that they were fooling around and he had hoped to have sex with her - that was his intent. Then she passed out. He was aroused and was getting himself off by dry humping her. I don't think he had any intentions of raping her unconscious body. He wouldn't have wasted time dry humping her if he was going to rape her. But in CA if the victim doesn't remember what happened....it is assault. Ironically, if she had remained conscious they probably would have had sex....which could have gotten him a rape charge because she blacked out and didn't remember what happened. Thus the intent to rape...

It was a mess of a night alright.

There's no IF anymore, there is only what he did. There's no speculation about what he would have done if she had behaved differently, there is only what he DID TO HER while she was passed out.

I asked a question upthread that none of the rape apologists want to answer: if he'd been found sitting on top of a passed out person slapping her face back and forth, would that be okay to you? If he'd stuck foreign objects into her mouth, instead of an orifice where you assume she derived pleasure from it? Would you still view that as the results of her actions, or speculate that she'd invited him to slap her face while she was unconscious?

Yes, your hypotheticals are different. Was he fingering her for his sexual gratification, or for (what he thought was) hers? Slapping her, doing other things to her, are different.

No. They're not. Both scenarios are assault on an unconscious person. He didn't insert things into her vagina for her, he did it TO her.

What if slapping her face gave him an erection? Attaching clamps to her nipples? Burning her with a lit cigarette? There are some people out there who find sexual gratification in such acts. Would you be questioning this victim if she said she did not? Do you fantasize about humping a naked woman behind a dumpster? Do you think any woman would fantasize about that?

By "things", you mean fingers?

Fingers and other items, Yes. He was convicted of penetrating her, which means there was evidence that he penetrated her. You want to equivocate about what he put inside her?

Just fingers is different than fingers and twigs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And he admitted penetration took place.in his statement to the police.

He also said he thought she was awake, the whole encounter took about 5 minutes, and he didn't know that he ran when the Swedes tackled him. We're selectively believing part and disbelieving part of what he said to the police. That's fine, but we should be aware of what we're doing.

There was evidence that he penetrated her. There was evidence that she was unconscious. There were witness to the assault. A jury heard their testimony, considered the evidence, and made a decision. What YOU are doing is selectively believing and disbelieving. Fortunately, your opinion isn't worth jack shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And he admitted penetration took place.in his statement to the police.

He also said he thought she was awake, the whole encounter took about 5 minutes, and he didn't know that he ran when the Swedes tackled him. We're selectively believing part and disbelieving part of what he said to the police. That's fine, but we should be aware of what we're doing.

It's a statement against interest. The rest isn't. The law doesn't treat a statement against interest the same as a statement that exonerates a defendant. That's because he has every reason to lie to excuse his behavior and no reason to admit to a crime. It is common for defendants to mix lies with truth. It's a sign of being guilty as hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok. I am wondering how it is known that he fingered her. And before anyone gets hysterical, I am not trying to cast doubt. I'm just curious as how that can be determined. She obviously doesn't remember anything, the men on the bikes saw him dry humping her. Is manual penetration something that can be determined from a medical exam especially if she was not a virgin. And no I am not victim blaming, I'm just assuming that since she was 23 years old and had a boyfriend she was not a virgin.

Was her age disclosed? I think she was older that 23.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. I am wondering how it is known that he fingered her. And before anyone gets hysterical, I am not trying to cast doubt. I'm just curious as how that can be determined. She obviously doesn't remember anything, the men on the bikes saw him dry humping her. Is manual penetration something that can be determined from a medical exam especially if she was not a virgin. And no I am not victim blaming, I'm just assuming that since she was 23 years old and had a boyfriend she was not a virgin.

Was her age disclosed? I think she was older that 23.

She wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids, don't drink or do drugs outside the safety of your homes.

Parents, let kids drink and explore at home. Just grin and bear it. This shit ain't worth your principles.

Because that goes so well. No, parents do not need to be hosting drinking parties at their houses.

How would you prepare them for drinking culture then? Or is it better to shelter them and let them figure it out on their own in college?

How in the hell does parents letting kids drink and explore at home prepare them for the drinking culture?