That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, people hook up and engage in sex acts for a reason. And certainly most hookups are consensual with both people wanting to do what they are doing. I think that Emily Doe likely engaged in sexual activity with Brock Turner. Neither one of these people were sober enough or knew each other well enough to accurately gauge the level of drunkeness - not just of each other, but of themselves. They underestimated just how hammered they were.

All of that violent stuff that you mention would be unwanted no matter what. Not the same thing.

"You think" that this is what "likely" happened and yet a jury of people who actually sat through the trial and heard all the testimony and reviewed all the evidence unanimously found to the contrary. Or were you in fact present for the trial?

DP. PP's post and his conviction are not in conflict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only crime we know for sure he committed was dry humping a passed out drunk girl. Six months in jail and a lifetime of being branded as a sex offender does not seem too lenient a punishment for that.

Why do you keep leaving out the part about digital penetration? That's what he was convicted of

Because she doesn't remember it and he admits it. But he said that occurred while she was awake. Not that it matters in California law - she doesn't remember so it's assault.

Witnesses saw him dry humping her passed out body. So his statement matches up with what the swedes say they saw.

Why is it so important to you to dispute the results of the court conviction? There will be an appeal, why don't we wait and see how that goes.
I'm not sure why you are so defensive of what Brock did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only crime we know for sure he committed was dry humping a passed out drunk girl. Six months in jail and a lifetime of being branded as a sex offender does not seem too lenient a punishment for that.

Why do you keep leaving out the part about digital penetration? That's what he was convicted of

Because she doesn't remember it and he admits it. But he said that occurred while she was awake. Not that it matters in California law - she doesn't remember so it's assault.

Witnesses saw him dry humping her passed out body. So his statement matches up with what the swedes say they saw.

Why is it so important to you to dispute the results of the court conviction? There will be an appeal, why don't we wait and see how that goes.
I'm not sure why you are so defensive of what Brock did.

Not PP but this is a good point - the press is representing not all the facts but some of facts. There was contrition in Turner's statement and he has articulated how his life if forever changed by this event.

[Anonymous]

She very well could have been conscious for everything - the fingering and other foreplay. She could've passed out during the dry humping. He may not have even realized she was passed out at that point ....just saying.

[Anonymous]

"Not PP but this is a good point - the press is representing not all the facts but some of facts. There was contrition in Turner's statement and he has articulated how his life if forever changed by this event."

could be, but it's hard to know what is genuine remorse for what he did vs. how he has now screwed up his life.
The court conviction stands, regardless, thank god

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one who thinks that even if she was passed out while he digitally penetrated her, that is not serious enough of a crime to warrant the 6 year jail sentence the prosecution was after?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that even if she was passed out while he digitally penetrated her, that is not serious enough of a crime to warrant the 6 year jail sentence the prosecution was after?

No I'm sure you're not! There are some on this very forum who think the 6 months is way too much. (not me, though)

But why do you care what anyone else thinks?

[Anonymous]

When do they plan to appeal? Can't wait

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that even if she was passed out while he digitally penetrated her, that is not serious enough of a crime to warrant the 6 year jail sentence the prosecution was after?

No I'm sure you're not! There are some on this very forum who think the 6 months is way too much. (not me, though)

But why do you care what anyone else thinks?

Because the recent posts have to do with whether or not she was conscious during the penetration and although that is certainly extremely significant, I actually think that even if she wasn't a six month jail term and registering as a sex offender for life is a punishment that fits the crime of fingering a passed out drunk girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She very well could have been conscious for everything - the fingering and other foreplay. She could've passed out during the dry humping. He may not have even realized she was passed out at that point ....just saying.

Why run then? Just tell them..."oh shit...she must have just passed out. Is she ok???" Doesn't add up that he alert enough to to flee but not alert enough to realize she wasn't moving at all. Also he was on top of her. He knew she wasn't responsive if 2 guys on bikes could tell from a distance.

He was treating he like his sexual play thing and not a human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that even if she was passed out while he digitally penetrated her, that is not serious enough of a crime to warrant the 6 year jail sentence the prosecution was after?

No I'm sure you're not! There are some on this very forum who think the 6 months is way too much. (not me, though)

But why do you care what anyone else thinks?

Because the recent posts have to do with whether or not she was conscious during the penetration and although that is certainly extremely significant, I actually think that even if she wasn't a six month jail term and registering as a sex offender for life is a punishment that fits the crime of fingering a passed out drunk girl.

It matters because, according to the California law that Turner was found in violation of, whether she was conscious and/or so intoxicated she couldn't remember what happened after the fact is the entire determinant of whether a crime was committed. California law says that a person who is drunk to the point of blacking out and/or unconscious is incapable of giving consent. It doesn't matter if they consented to anything previously, or suggested they might have been interested in anything previously. People have a right to stop sexual activity at any point during a sexual encounter...this can't happen if they are drunk or severely intoxicated. As a result, California law says those people cannot give consent, and engaging in sex acts with them is a crime. It's not actually all that complicated. You might not agree with the law, but the law itself is pretty clear.

I think all of you people probably wouldn't consider the gang rape at the end of "Saturday Night Live" to be an assault either, because she said earlier in the movie she wanted it even though she was clearly protesting while it happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that even if she was passed out while he digitally penetrated her, that is not serious enough of a crime to warrant the 6 year jail sentence the prosecution was after?

No I'm sure you're not! There are some on this very forum who think the 6 months is way too much. (not me, though)

But why do you care what anyone else thinks?

Because the recent posts have to do with whether or not she was conscious during the penetration and although that is certainly extremely significant, I actually think that even if she wasn't a six month jail term and registering as a sex offender for life is a punishment that fits the crime of fingering a passed out drunk girl.

It matters because, according to the California law that Turner was found in violation of, whether she was conscious and/or so intoxicated she couldn't remember what happened after the fact is the entire determinant of whether a crime was committed. California law says that a person who is drunk to the point of blacking out and/or unconscious is incapable of giving consent. It doesn't matter if they consented to anything previously, or suggested they might have been interested in anything previously. People have a right to stop sexual activity at any point during a sexual encounter...this can't happen if they are drunk or severely intoxicated. As a result, California law says those people cannot give consent, and engaging in sex acts with them is a crime. It's not actually all that complicated. You might not agree with the law, but the law itself is pretty clear.

I think all of you people probably wouldn't consider the gang rape at the end of "Saturday Night Live" to be an assault either, because she said earlier in the movie she wanted it even though she was clearly protesting while it happened.

Um...Saturday Night Live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that even if she was passed out while he digitally penetrated her, that is not serious enough of a crime to warrant the 6 year jail sentence the prosecution was after?

No I'm sure you're not! There are some on this very forum who think the 6 months is way too much. (not me, though)

But why do you care what anyone else thinks?

Because the recent posts have to do with whether or not she was conscious during the penetration and although that is certainly extremely significant, I actually think that even if she wasn't a six month jail term and registering as a sex offender for life is a punishment that fits the crime of fingering a passed out drunk girl.

It matters because, according to the California law that Turner was found in violation of, whether she was conscious and/or so intoxicated she couldn't remember what happened after the fact is the entire determinant of whether a crime was committed. California law says that a person who is drunk to the point of blacking out and/or unconscious is incapable of giving consent. It doesn't matter if they consented to anything previously, or suggested they might have been interested in anything previously. People have a right to stop sexual activity at any point during a sexual encounter...this can't happen if they are drunk or severely intoxicated. As a result, California law says those people cannot give consent, and engaging in sex acts with them is a crime. It's not actually all that complicated. You might not agree with the law, but the law itself is pretty clear.

I think all of you people probably wouldn't consider the gang rape at the end of "Saturday Night Live" to be an assault either, because she said earlier in the movie she wanted it even though she was clearly protesting while it happened.

Fever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that even if she was passed out while he digitally penetrated her, that is not serious enough of a crime to warrant the 6 year jail sentence the prosecution was after?

No I'm sure you're not! There are some on this very forum who think the 6 months is way too much. (not me, though)

But why do you care what anyone else thinks?

Because the recent posts have to do with whether or not she was conscious during the penetration and although that is certainly extremely significant, I actually think that even if she wasn't a six month jail term and registering as a sex offender for life is a punishment that fits the crime of fingering a passed out drunk girl.

It matters because, according to the California law that Turner was found in violation of, whether she was conscious and/or so intoxicated she couldn't remember what happened after the fact is the entire determinant of whether a crime was committed. California law says that a person who is drunk to the point of blacking out and/or unconscious is incapable of giving consent. It doesn't matter if they consented to anything previously, or suggested they might have been interested in anything previously. People have a right to stop sexual activity at any point during a sexual encounter...this can't happen if they are drunk or severely intoxicated. As a result, California law says those people cannot give consent, and engaging in sex acts with them is a crime. It's not actually all that complicated. You might not agree with the law, but the law itself is pretty clear.

I think all of you people probably wouldn't consider the gang rape at the end of "Saturday Night Live" to be an assault either, because she said earlier in the movie she wanted it even though she was clearly protesting while it happened.

Um...Saturday Night Live?

I think PP means "Saturday Night Fever"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It matters because, according to the California law that Turner was found in violation of, whether she was conscious and/or so intoxicated she couldn't remember what happened after the fact is the entire determinant of whether a crime was committed. California law says that a person who is drunk to the point of blacking out and/or unconscious is incapable of giving consent. It doesn't matter if they consented to anything previously, or suggested they might have been interested in anything previously. People have a right to stop sexual activity at any point during a sexual encounter...this can't happen if they are drunk or severely intoxicated. As a result, California law says those people cannot give consent, and engaging in sex acts with them is a crime. It's not actually all that complicated. You might not agree with the law, but the law itself is pretty clear.

I think all of you people probably wouldn't consider the gang rape at the end of "Saturday Night Live" to be an assault either, because she said earlier in the movie she wanted it even though she was clearly protesting while it happened.

Um...Saturday Night Live?

I think PP means "Saturday Night Fever"

Yes, that's what I meant. Mistyped.