That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if there is any evidence that Emily led him behind the dumpster, then this is a gross miscarriage of justice.

No it's NOT! The crime he was convicted of was sexually touching and penetrating an unconscious person. It doesn't matter whether she dragged him there herself...once she passed out, she could no longer consent. He was humping and fingering her unconscious body. That's the crime.

If she hit on him, led him to a private place, then it tells me the intent was not to prey. the intent was a drunken hookup. I think it fair to assume he started to finger her when they were both participating actively. It seems impossible to know when he clearly knew she was passed out.

The fact that his fingering her caused severe vaginal lacerations tells me that she was not "turned on". That she was not an eager and willing participant. Her body was not responding sexually to Brock.

It's none of anyone's business, but I surmise Emily was not a virgin. If she had been physically receptive to Brock, her body would have been primed, so to speak, and she would not have suffered lacerations.
He digitally penetrated a dry, non turned on female. She did not want him. She did not invite his advances.
JFC, I can't believe I have to be so explicit, but it seems that's the only way to get the point across.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if there is any evidence that Emily led him behind the dumpster, then this is a gross miscarriage of justice.

No it's NOT! The crime he was convicted of was sexually touching and penetrating an unconscious person. It doesn't matter whether she dragged him there herself...once she passed out, she could no longer consent. He was humping and fingering her unconscious body. That's the crime.

If she hit on him, led him to a private place, then it tells me the intent was not to prey. the intent was a drunken hookup. I think it fair to assume he started to finger her when they were both participating actively. It seems impossible to know when he clearly knew she was passed out.

The fact that his fingering her caused severe vaginal lacerations tells me that she was not "turned on". That she was not an eager and willing participant. Her body was not responding sexually to Brock.

It's none of anyone's business, but I surmise Emily was not a virgin. If she had been physically receptive to Brock, her body would have been primed, so to speak, and she would not have suffered lacerations.
He digitally penetrated a dry, non turned on female. She did not want him. She did not invite his advances.
JFC, I can't believe I have to be so explicit, but it seems that's the only way to get the point across.

where did you read "severe vaginal lacerations"?

[Anonymous]

for starters, in her statement. Lacerations AND abrasions. She did not invite this attack.

[Anonymous]

+1
if you think brock is entitled, wait until you learn about the victim



What in the world does this mean? I know who the victim is, and from what I've read about her, I cannot fathom wtf you are talking about here. Without giving any identifying information about her, can you explain what makes you feel she is entitled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1
if you think brock is entitled, wait until you learn about the victim

What in the world does this mean? I know who the victim is, and from what I've read about her, I cannot fathom wtf you are talking about here. Without giving any identifying information about her, can you explain what makes you feel she is entitled?

No please do not reveal details about this victim. Not appropriate! We already know too much as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he got hosed

I do too. I think this kid is being punished in part for things that happened that were completely out of his control.

Sounds like you and Brock would get along.

His supporters aren't horrible people, in fact, I think they seem like really nice people. I know more about Brock and his family and friends than I know about the victim in this situation. Right now I am finding it unfathomable that this kid chucked so much of his life down the toilet in the span of 7 short minutes. All those early morning and after school swim practices. All those evenings and weekends spent at meets. Becoming one of the best and having a shot at the Olympics and straight A's at school to boot. All that work meaningless now. I understand the disbelief that his parents are feeling. They are reeling.

I feel for the humiliation and hurt that this victim endured that night and afterwards - behind that dumpster and at the hospital and during the trial. She has been through hell. But I do not think that Brock is 100% responsible for the humiliation and hurt that she has endured...I do feel as though he is getting 100% of the blame for it though.

I plan to talk to my own kids about this about the ways that both Emily and Brock screwed up and what they both have lost. It is not o.k. to sexually touch a passed out person or take their picture. It is also not o.k. to get black out drunk to the point where you can not take care of yourself, can't remember what you did or what happened to you and pass out in the dirt with God only who knows nearby.

There are lots of lessons to learn from this. But, yes, I can feel great empathy for both sides.

I do not feel ANY empathy for Brock's situation or his parents. They raised this pig.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/10/why-parents-see-their-kids-in-the-stanford-attacker-not-his-victim/

I have a son and a daughter. And I feel empathy only for the victim.

I don't subscribe to the Post. What are they saying about this family? From what I've read they are a typical Midwest family with midwest values who brought their kids up to work hard and do their best. They don't have tons of money, their own parents were of modest means. Their friends seem nice. They did cub scouts and swim team and had Brock's girlfriends over for dinner at least once a week. They were involved and in touch and Brock was a dedicated athlete and straight A student who liked and got along with people who liked him right back.

He had only been away at college for 4 months when this all happened. Before that he had been caught with a beer by campus cops...hardly a major crime. How was he bad person? How were his parents bad people?

+1
if you think brock is entitled, wait until you learn about the victim

Goddamn her for expecting to go to a party without getting raped and for complaining when she does. Entitled bitch.

[Anonymous]

Nobody raped her.
Brock should file a lawsuit against media outlets that call him a rapist.

[Anonymous]

He is convicted of sexually assaulting her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody raped her.
Brock should file a lawsuit against media outlets that call him a rapist.

Again, his crime meets the federal definition of "rape," hence the appropriate use of the word. I guess all the headlines could call him "Brock Allen Turner, Stanford Sex Criminal," but I sense you don't think what he did was a crime at all, so you probably don't like that, either.

[Anonymous]

Just a reminder, the jury did not base its verdict on the victim's statement, they based it on the evidence.

All you rape apologists (or maybe it is just a single active sock puppet) that are asserting the evidence is insufficient and we just don't know are ignoring the verdict. This is not Duke LAX and it is not the Rolling Stone rape story where the process of gathering evidence undermined those cases. If you are looking for an analogy, this is a lot closer to George Huguely.

The evidence gathering is over, the prosecution presented its case and the jury found that Brock Turner sexually assaulted an unconscious woman. The end. It is appalling what he did and no shaming of the victim can change the truth of what he did to an UNCONSCIOUS woman and what that says about him as a human being.

Not moving.
Not consenting.
Not able to defend herself.
UNCONSCIOUS

It was so clearly unlawful and obscene that complete strangers stopped to intervene and chased him down. Do you know how rare that is?

[Anonymous]

Dirtbag. Entitled. Rapist. Hated. Convicted.

And now...not an Olympic swimmer! I love that justice was served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder, the jury did not base its verdict on the victim's statement, they based it on the evidence.

All you rape apologists (or maybe it is just a single active sock puppet) that are asserting the evidence is insufficient and we just don't know are ignoring the verdict. This is not Duke LAX and it is not the Rolling Stone rape story where the process of gathering evidence undermined those cases. If you are looking for an analogy, this is a lot closer to George Huguely.

The evidence gathering is over, the prosecution presented its case and the jury found that Brock Turner sexually assaulted an unconscious woman. The end. It is appalling what he did and no shaming of the victim can change the truth of what he did to an UNCONSCIOUS woman and what that says about him as a human being.

Not moving.
Not consenting.
Not able to defend herself.
UNCONSCIOUS

It was so clearly unlawful and obscene that complete strangers stopped to intervene and chased him down. Do you know how rare that is?

Yes. The jury reached a verdict and Brock Turner is guilty and has been sentenced to jail. He is likely going to appeal.

I only very recently heard about this case and I will agree that to have actual witnesses to the sexual assault and to have them chase the guy down and hold him until the cops got there is very rare. Brock was clearly seen doing something that alarmed two unbiased bystanders enough that they sprung into action. That says something.

At the same time I've found myself a bit puzzled by the timeline of events and how quickly this college grad/veteran party goer went from being coherent/standing to completely passed out in an outdoor public place with so much happening to her and around her. And she remained like that for hours. Completely unresponsive. I remember seeing some pretty drunk people at parties. I don't remember ever seeing anyone completely unresponsive like that for hours at a time. So many bizarre circumstances in this case - it does make you pause a bit and wonder wth was happening. Obviously the jury has heard all of the evidence, sorted it all out and they found him guilty.

From an appeal standpoint I don't know what the grounds will be assuming that there will even be an appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder, the jury did not base its verdict on the victim's statement, they based it on the evidence.

All you rape apologists (or maybe it is just a single active sock puppet) that are asserting the evidence is insufficient and we just don't know are ignoring the verdict. This is not Duke LAX and it is not the Rolling Stone rape story where the process of gathering evidence undermined those cases. If you are looking for an analogy, this is a lot closer to George Huguely.

The evidence gathering is over, the prosecution presented its case and the jury found that Brock Turner sexually assaulted an unconscious woman. The end. It is appalling what he did and no shaming of the victim can change the truth of what he did to an UNCONSCIOUS woman and what that says about him as a human being.

Not moving.
Not consenting.
Not able to defend herself
It was so clearly unlawful and obscene that complete strangers stopped to intervene and chased him down. Do you know how rare that is?

Yes. The jury reached a verdict and Brock Turner is guilty and has been sentenced to jail. He is likely going to appeal.

I only very recently heard about this case and I will agree that to have actual witnesses to the sexual assault and to have them chase the guy down and hold him until the cops got there is very rare. Brock was clearly seen doing something that alarmed two unbiased bystanders enough that they sprung into action. That says something.

She could have been drugged. Testing for date rape drugs is not mandatory in Santa Clara County.

At the same time I've found myself a bit puzzled by the timeline of events and how quickly this college grad/veteran party goer went from being coherent/standing to completely passed out in an outdoor public place with so much happening to her and around her. And she remained like that for hours. Completely unresponsive. I remember seeing some pretty drunk people at parties. I don't remember ever seeing anyone completely unresponsive like that for hours at a time. So many bizarre circumstances in this case - it does make you pause a bit and wonder wth was happening. Obviously the jury has heard all of the evidence, sorted it all out and they found him guilty.

From an appeal standpoint I don't know what the grounds will be assuming that there will even be an appeal.

[Anonymous]

^I would think that in this case they would have almost had to have tested her blood for drugs - simply because she was so completely out of it - just to be able to medically treat her appropriately at the hospital. Being that out of it is pretty serious - she could have died.

I didn't see indication of drug tests, I did see where it was indicated in the paperwork that there was no illegal drug use at the fraternity. I took that to mean that Brock or someone else at the fraternity had not drugged this girl.

[Anonymous]

I keep thinking back to what my own drinking experience was as a 4 month college freshman. Back then my tolerance was 3 beers. More than that and I would get sh*t faced and throw up. There was a limit to how drunk my body would allow myself to get. I was inexperienced and thought that it worked like that for everyone.

At that age, I had zero experience with black outs or passing out. I didn't do that and neither did my friends. So I don't know that I would have recognized or appreciated just how drunk Emily was at that party - especially if she was walking/talking/dancing/kissing. I don't know that I would have realized that she was about to pass out or that she would soon become completely unaware of her surroundings. Her own sister was an upperclassman and felt comfortable leaving Emily alone at that party (I don't know the time frame but maybe an hour before this happened?).

Does an extremely heavy drinker show signs of alcohol impairment differently than a less experienced drinker does? I think that they do. BAC is the same for a heavy drinker, but their tolerance level for high a BAC is different. Brock had socialized with Emily earlier that night - she was talking and making sense. If he later ran into her inside the party and they were dancing/kissing to loud music would it have been obvious to a drunker Brock that Emily had also gotten drunker, not just drunker but black out/pass out drunk?

I really don't know the answer to that question.