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.

And to remove her clothes, clumsily, and so that her necklace was wrapped around her neck, and she was bare.

NO WOMAN GOES BEHIND A DUMPSTER voluntarily, in any situation.

He is going down, and will be the poster child for a culture shift against the rape culture.

Get your lawyers ready, Brock, and while you're at it, a new passport if you can. This is going to be an epic case and you will never escape your "20 minutes of action".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently there is a better side of Brock Turner than the one that the hysterical femi-Nazis have portrayed here with no compassion. May your own children make similar errors of judgment some day, so that we can also taunt and ridicule you when they are arrested, crash or OD.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3636575/Ex-girlfriend-Stanford-rapist-expresses-anger-God-instilling-pain-Brock-Turner-s-undeserving-soul-letter-judge.html

I think it speaks volumes that his former girlfriends have such a high opinion of him.

Yup. It means that he is an opportunist and wanted to rape some stranger who was not having dinners with his family on a regular basis. It also means that these girls did not know him at all, and they do not realize how lucky they were that he did not rape them.

This is a case where this man was not an innocent who got into a bad situation. Like the unsuspecting tourist in Saudi Arabia in whose luggage someone slipped in drugs and now no one belives him and he is langusihing in a foreign jail. No. This man was caught raping an unconscious woman behind a DUMPSTER. Her vagina had dirt and pine needles inside. Her life was shattered by his action.

He should be made to suffer, and other would be rapists should remember what the consequence can be. Yes, the justice system failed in giving him a stiffer jail system. But, I am beyong happy that everything in his life is messed up now. And yes, he should not be allowed to coach his future child's team ever because he is a convicted sex offender. But, neither should his dad be allowed to coach his future grandchild's sports team, because this is an arrogant jerk who made his son entitled and a pig in the first place.

Her vagina was lacerated. He "fingered" her hard enough to lacerate her vagina.

Palestinian in comparison to what will happen to him in jail, I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And to remove her clothes, clumsily, and so that her necklace was wrapped around her neck, and she was bare.

NO WOMAN GOES BEHIND A DUMPSTER voluntarily, in any situation.

He is going down, and will be the poster child for a culture shift against the rape culture.

Get your lawyers ready, Brock, and while you're at it, a new passport if you can. This is going to be an epic case and you will never escape your "20 minutes of action".

Simmer down and put away that pitchfork. The guy has already been convicted!

No woman would pass out outside behind a dumpster but Emily did. She walked herself back there and passed out. And it wasn't the first time that she had been behind that dumpster that night with her sister. So to say that no woman goes behind a dumpster voluntarily is not true in this particular situation.

[Anonymous]

For everyone saying he had zero history of this-- he did. Trial included the testimony of another girl her had gotten aggressive with at a party the prior week. Lots of touching and grabbing after she told him to go away. He's a serious sicko.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And to remove her clothes, clumsily, and so that her necklace was wrapped around her neck, and she was bare.

NO WOMAN GOES BEHIND A DUMPSTER voluntarily, in any situation.

He is going down, and will be the poster child for a culture shift against the rape culture.

Get your lawyers ready, Brock, and while you're at it, a new passport if you can. This is going to be an epic case and you will never escape your "20 minutes of action".

Simmer down and put away that pitchfork. The guy has already been convicted!

No woman would pass out outside behind a dumpster but Emily did. She walked herself back there and passed out. And it wasn't the first time that she had been behind that dumpster that night with her sister. So to say that no woman goes behind a dumpster voluntarily is not true in this particular situation.

Sorry! Figurative pitchfork is logical consequence of his action and if he didn't want it he shouldn't have gone behind the dumpster.

[Anonymous]

Why does it matter that he never raped before? He was 20 not 50! There's no history at that age. There is a first for every scumbag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For everyone saying he had zero history of this-- he did. Trial included the testimony of another girl her had gotten aggressive with at a party the prior week. Lots of touching and grabbing after she told him to go away. He's a serious sicko.

That was actually introduced at trial? I thought that info of a past pattern wouldn't have been admissible unless it was used to impeach the defendant's testimony but Brock didn't testify so how were they able to introduce that at trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter that he never raped before? He was 20 not 50! There's no history at that age. There is a first for every scumbag.

He was 19. I agree that he was inexperienced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter that he never raped before? He was 20 not 50! There's no history at that age. There is a first for every scumbag.

He was 19. I agree that he was inexperienced.

At raping. Super glad that he may not have the opportunity to become an "experienced" rapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter that he never raped before? He was 20 not 50! There's no history at that age. There is a first for every scumbag.

He was 19. I agree that he was inexperienced.

At raping. Super glad that he may not have the opportunity to become an "experienced" rapist.

He wasn't convicted of rape. But I agree that it is good that the swedes interrupted him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For everyone saying he had zero history of this-- he did. Trial included the testimony of another girl her had gotten aggressive with at a party the prior week. Lots of touching and grabbing after she told him to go away. He's a serious sicko.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For everyone saying he had zero history of this-- he did. Trial included the testimony of another girl her had gotten aggressive with at a party the prior week. Lots of touching and grabbing after she told him to go away. He's a serious sicko.

+100

He may have a history of coming onto girls at parties - who were awake, thinking, talking, socializing and able to say "no". He does not have a history of stalking and preying on passed out or soon to be passed out women. But go ahead and distort the truth to fit your theory that he would have become a serial rapist if given half a chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter that he never raped before? He was 20 not 50! There's no history at that age. There is a first for every scumbag.

He was 19. I agree that he was inexperienced.

He's had girlfriends before. Unless they were platonic, I presume he was sexually active

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For everyone saying he had zero history of this-- he did. Trial included the testimony of another girl her had gotten aggressive with at a party the prior week. Lots of touching and grabbing after she told him to go away. He's a serious sicko.

+100

He may have a history of coming onto girls at parties - who were awake, thinking, talking, socializing and able to say "no". He does not have a history of stalking and preying on passed out or soon to be passed out women. But go ahead and distort the truth to fit your theory that he would have become a serial rapist if given half a chance.

Considering he sexually assaulted an unconscious woman - and met the federal definition of rape, if not California's, I wouldn't pretend he's so lily white. Considering the sad number of rape defenders on this board, I think it's safe to suggest there are not a few men who do this serially and think nothing of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am a female former frat party veteran who can see shades of gray in this story. I've read the police reports, the victim's statement and impact statement, as well as, some of the letters written on behalf of Brock.

I had never heard of this case until this thread. I feel bad for Emily but I think that this girl has an out of control problem with alcohol and a tolerance level that would kill a horse. 4 shots of whiskey pre party is A LOT of alcohol for a girl. Passing out drunk outside to the point where you are unresponsive is a serious problem. Blacking out and having no memory of what you did or what happened to you is a serious problem.

I do not think that a kid like Brock had ever dealt with or seen this level of drinking in a peer. I don't know that it can be assumed that he would have known or understood the level of her impairment. I also think that he was not treating Emily with respect when he went behind that dumpster with her. I would be extremely sad and upset if my son ever treated a girl the way Brock treated Emily that night - kissing and fooling around with her without even getting her name. I would be sad for him to treat himself in such a degrading way - laying down in those disgusting pine needles with a girl. I think that both of these young people were drunk beyond reason that night.

I do not see Brock as the cold blooded predator that some of you do. And I do not see Emily as the hapless victim. I think that their judgement was impaired by alcohol and bad things happened that they both deeply regret. If Brock was aware that Emily was passed out and he touched her passed out body that is really bad and he deserves to be punished for it.

The jury convicted him of sexual assault with attempt to rape of an unconscious person. They found that he was aware that she was passed out.

The rest of what you are saying ("shades of gray") is just you projecting.

The jury sat through that trial, saw all of the evidence presented at the time, got instructions from the judge and they convicted Brock. But there is going to be an appeal. Maybe there is new evidence? Maybe a new witness? Maybe there was a mistake in the jury instructions or in the police investigation?

We'll have to see. But it doesn't sound like this is over quite yet.

None of that comes in on a direct appeal. The only at issue during an appeal that can come in is a defect in the procedure of the trial.