That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently he was cognizant enough to send a nude pic to the swim bros. Swedes saw something way off. He ran when confronted. This is not a case of drunk hook up. This is rape.

Sorry, PP above. This is the second quote I wanted to capture above.
+1000!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently he was cognizant enough to send a nude pic to the swim bros. Swedes saw something way off. He ran when confronted. This is not a case of drunk hook up. This is rape.

First, it isn't even clear that the picture being talked about is of Emily. Second, if a picture was taken of Emily it is not clear who took it.

Nice rumor though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you like some tea? Google it PP. You clearly need a cup of tea.

You are so clever!! Hahaha! I understand what consent is. Emily *appeared* to be capable of consent to Brock when he was kissing her and fooling around *with* her. When she passed out he switched to dry humping which is consistent with what the swedes saw.

According to Brock, that is. Why in the world should we take his word? And, by the way-appearing convincingly capable of consent and being unresponsive in that time frame not medically possibly under typical circumstances. Source: I'm a physician, you insufferable dumbasses.

Why did her sister say that Emily appeared fine before she left the party to walk her drunk friend back to her dorm? Why leave her own sister there if she was that drunk?

I don't understand how Emily went from standing/dancing/kissing to passed at cold with the span of 30 minutes either. I don't know how she walked behind the dumpsters. But apparently she did. And within 7 minutes she was out cold and would not wake up for another 3 hours. But she did.

A. Time passed.

B. Seriously drunk and sloppy dancing can occur and it can be perfectly obvious that someone is incoherent. She was, in fact, leaving incoherent phone messages at this point.

I'm telling you it is medically extraordinarily unlikely she appeared remotely capable of consent and the difference between his level of intoxication and hers cannot be overstated. If you would like to understand further perhaps you should go to medical school rather than talking out your ass.

[Anonymous]

104 pages about this? Facts are clear. He is a dirtbag. History of aggression and substance abuse. He ran from two guys who saw him on top of unconscious victim. What part of this is subject to debate. What if she was your daughter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:60+ pages of heartbreaking letters in support of brock: http://paloaltoonline.com/media/reports/1465602931.pdf. he is a kind and gentle soul loved by many. there are far fewer letters in support of the victim (her own being the longest), and several come across as insincere or having an axe to grind. the sister's friend actually complains that she's lost her joy in partying and drinking.

Link doesn't work. Would love to read his mother's letter of support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much has been said about what the victim taking responsibility for her part in this and the likely consequences of her"irresponsible behavior." Well guess what! In addition to the legal ramifications, all of this (internet chatter, name in the press, most of the free world hating him) is the consequence Brock should have expected for HIS behavior.

What did he think was going to happen? Get drunk, assault a drunk woman behind a dumpster, you're running the risk of being public enemy number one. When are college men going to understand that snd start taking responsibility for themselves rather than blaming the Internet for their behavior?

You are assuming that he went behind that dumpster with the intent to sexually assault a woman that he knew would pass out soon. If he did that - he is a horrible scumbag. If she walked back there to pee, pulled down her underwear, toppled over and passed out and Brock took advantage of her - he is a predator.

But if he and Emily were dancing/kissing and he walked behind that dumpster with the intent to fool around with a girl who also appeared to want to fool around with him and she passed out in the process, that it is a little different - especially if he wasn't aware that she passed out (this all happened within a 7 minute time frame).

I don't know that you can take him running away from the swedes as a sure sign of his guilt. He had two guys yelling and running at him (was one of them her boyfriend?!?!) - he didn't know who they were. So he ran. There are just too many unanswered questions. The facts are too vague to know exactly what happened that night.

All we do know is that Brock has no history - zero - of ever doing anything like this. And we also know that Emily was no newbie to the frat party/hook up scene. If these two were dancing/kissing inside it is more likely that there was intent to fool around than an intent to rape her. And she passed out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:104 pages about this? Facts are clear. He is a dirtbag. History of aggression and substance abuse. He ran from two guys who saw him on top of unconscious victim. What part of this is subject to debate. What if she was your daughter?

Call me crazy but I think that the facts matter. What actually happened does matter. I would not want my child to be sexually assaulted by some predatory monster. If that happened I would not rest until that monster was behind bars. But I would also not want my child's actions (black out drinking and passing out while fooling around with a younger, less experienced person) to be the direct cause of that person's ruin - that would only make my own child's situation worse and compound the mistakes made that night.

Brock has no history of hurting women - none - and his party drinking/hook up history was pretty minimal given that he had only been on campus for 4 months (and he was not a member of this frat). Emily had 4 years of frat party experience under her belt.

[Anonymous]

I'm a lawyer so should probably know the answer to this but why didn't the police question Justin buck about the picture? Seems like a missed opportunity to make the case much stronger. Interesting that he didn't write a letter of support for Brock.

[Anonymous]

8:47 you are an idiot. Facts matter, of course, but the facts are clear.

[Anonymous]

He was a groping, sexually aggressive guy. His father wrote a letter that reeks of entitled jerk. He ran from the guys who saw him on top of an unconscious woman. In my opinion, as the mother of twenty year old sons, only an entitled jerk of a dad could support this kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:104 pages about this? Facts are clear. He is a dirtbag. History of aggression and substance abuse. He ran from two guys who saw him on top of unconscious victim. What part of this is subject to debate. What if she was your daughter?

Call me crazy but I think that the facts matter. What actually happened does matter. I would not want my child to be sexually assaulted by some predatory monster. If that happened I would not rest until that monster was behind bars. But I would also not want my child's actions (black out drinking and passing out while fooling around with a younger, less experienced person) to be the direct cause of that person's ruin - that would only make my own child's situation worse and compound the mistakes made that night.

Brock has no history of hurting women - none - and his party drinking/hook up history was pretty minimal given that he had only been on campus for 4 months (and he was not a member of this frat). Emily had 4 years of frat party experience under her belt.

Yes, you are crazy, because facts and common sense don't seem to trouble you much. He assaulted her. You, curiously, blame her. And you imply that she is ruining his life by not being a willing enough victim. That is sick. You are crazy.

And you'd be upset your hypothetical kid ruined a sexual predator's life? Yeah, sure you would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you like some tea? Google it PP. You clearly need a cup of tea.

You are so clever!! Hahaha! I understand what consent is. Emily *appeared* to be capable of consent to Brock when he was kissing her and fooling around *with* her. When she passed out he switched to dry humping which is consistent with what the swedes saw.

According to Brock, that is. Why in the world should we take his word? And, by the way-appearing convincingly capable of consent and being unresponsive in that time frame not medically possibly under typical circumstances. Source: I'm a physician, you insufferable dumbasses.

Why did her sister say that Emily appeared fine before she left the party to walk her drunk friend back to her dorm? Why leave her own sister there if she was that drunk?

I don't understand how Emily went from standing/dancing/kissing to passed at cold with the span of 30 minutes either. I don't know how she walked behind the dumpsters. But apparently she did. And within 7 minutes she was out cold and would not wake up for another 3 hours. But she did.

A. Time passed.

B. Seriously drunk and sloppy dancing can occur and it can be perfectly obvious that someone is incoherent. She was, in fact, leaving incoherent phone messages at this point.

I'm telling you it is medically extraordinarily unlikely she appeared remotely capable of consent and the difference between his level of intoxication and hers cannot be overstated. If you would like to understand further perhaps you should go to medical school rather than talking out your ass.

And maybe you as a physician could have recognized her intoxication level better than an underage drunken college kid did. Maybe he was drunk and she was drunk - there was no ill will on either part but things got out of hand fast.

When her sister left not that long before this Emily seemed fine. Maybe your trained eye would have seen that Emily was not fine. Obviously the judgement was not the best that night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:104 pages about this? Facts are clear. He is a dirtbag. History of aggression and substance abuse. He ran from two guys who saw him on top of unconscious victim. What part of this is subject to debate. What if she was your daughter?

Call me crazy but I think that the facts matter. What actually happened does matter. I would not want my child to be sexually assaulted by some predatory monster. If that happened I would not rest until that monster was behind bars. But I would also not want my child's actions (black out drinking and passing out while fooling around with a younger, less experienced person) to be the direct cause of that person's ruin - that would only make my own child's situation worse and compound the mistakes made that night.

Brock has no history of hurting women - none - and his party drinking/hook up history was pretty minimal given that he had only been on campus for 4 months (and he was not a member of this frat). Emily had 4 years of frat party experience under her belt.

Yes, you are crazy, because facts and common sense don't seem to trouble you much. He assaulted her. You, curiously, blame her. And you imply that she is ruining his life by not being a willing enough victim. That is sick. You are crazy.

And you'd be upset your hypothetical kid ruined a sexual predator's life? Yeah, sure you would.

If this kid preyed on this girl and attacked her then he deserves the title of "predator". If this kid kissed and danced *with* this girl and fooled around *with* this girl and she passed out during the process - that is different.

[Anonymous]

The person who posted the last couple of posts in support of Turner must be a dad, of a son, who is a jerk. Tell us who you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you like some tea? Google it PP. You clearly need a cup of tea.

You are so clever!! Hahaha! I understand what consent is. Emily *appeared* to be capable of consent to Brock when he was kissing her and fooling around *with* her. When she passed out he switched to dry humping which is consistent with what the swedes saw.

According to Brock, that is. Why in the world should we take his word? And, by the way-appearing convincingly capable of consent and being unresponsive in that time frame not medically possibly under typical circumstances. Source: I'm a physician, you insufferable dumbasses.

Why did her sister say that Emily appeared fine before she left the party to walk her drunk friend back to her dorm? Why leave her own sister there if she was that drunk?

I don't understand how Emily went from standing/dancing/kissing to passed at cold with the span of 30 minutes either. I don't know how she walked behind the dumpsters. But apparently she did. And within 7 minutes she was out cold and would not wake up for another 3 hours. But she did.

A. Time passed.

B. Seriously drunk and sloppy dancing can occur and it can be perfectly obvious that someone is incoherent. She was, in fact, leaving incoherent phone messages at this point.

I'm telling you it is medically extraordinarily unlikely she appeared remotely capable of consent and the difference between his level of intoxication and hers cannot be overstated. If you would like to understand further perhaps you should go to medical school rather than talking out your ass.

And maybe you as a physician could have recognized her intoxication level better than an underage drunken college kid did. Maybe he was drunk and she was drunk - there was no ill will on either part but things got out of hand fast.

When her sister left not that long before this Emily seemed fine. Maybe your trained eye would have seen that Emily was not fine. Obviously the judgement was not the best that night.

My point was that it would not have been subtle. Not even a tiny, little, itty bit subtle. Not even for a somewhat drunk (not even slurring) and seriously idiotic swimmer. Please don't bring up her sister again as it had been some time since she'd seen her and she's subsequently been leaving incoherent voicemails.