That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

He was not drunk to the point of appearing intoxicated or slurring his words according to sober witnesses. Emily on the other hand was unresponsive for hours and same sober witnesses thought she appeared dead. Medically speaking the chance that a few minutes before Emily seemed remotely coherent or capable of consent to the sober are vanishingly small. Clear now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^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.

I may have misunderstood, but when I read through some of the complaint and police report, it seemed to say that they took tests, including a blood test, at 4am. If her BAC was 0.24 at 4am, it would have been higher at 1am, when she passed out. Her BAC then would have been somewhere araound 0.27-0.29. That's getting close to alcohol poisoning.

[Anonymous]

The saddest thing about this case to me is that two men could witness a woman's rape in progress and people still go out of their way to defend and excuse the rapist. "He didn't actually rape her." (Well, no. The witnesses stopped it from happening.) "He's a good kid who made a mistake." (He was raping a woman behind a dumpster.) "She was really drunk." (Rapists usually pick easy targets, and that is often people who are really, really drunk.) "This has ruined his life!" (He ruined his life.)

If people can defend a rapist caught in the act of rape, then there really is no hope for our culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He was not drunk to the point of appearing intoxicated or slurring his words according to sober witnesses. Emily on the other hand was unresponsive for hours and same sober witnesses thought she appeared dead. Medically speaking the chance that a few minutes before Emily seemed remotely coherent or capable of consent to the sober are vanishingly small. Clear now?

His BAC was twice the legal limit, he smelled of alcohol, he stumbled, he was drunk - he was nauseous and there is an indication that he may have had some memory impairment. The police report indicates that he was showing impairment. Emily was 3 times the legal limit which is VERY drunk. People at that level of BAC can pass out suddenly (I looked up the stages). Most people would be stumbling around, falling down and obviously very VERY drunk before they passed out. But is that always the case with very heavy drinkers? Or can heavy drinkers go from appearing drunk to completely unaware of their surroundings very suddenly? Could her BAC have tipped over the line behind those dumpsters?

[Anonymous]

^I mean is it possible for an experienced heavy drinker to suddenly go from appearing drunk but functional to completely unaware of their surroundings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He was not drunk to the point of appearing intoxicated or slurring his words according to sober witnesses. Emily on the other hand was unresponsive for hours and same sober witnesses thought she appeared dead. Medically speaking the chance that a few minutes before Emily seemed remotely coherent or capable of consent to the sober are vanishingly small. Clear now?

His BAC was twice the legal limit, he smelled of alcohol, he stumbled, he was drunk - he was nauseous and there is an indication that he may have had some memory impairment. The police report indicates that he was showing impairment. Emily was 3 times the legal limit which is VERY drunk. People at that level of BAC can pass out suddenly (I looked up the stages). Most people would be stumbling around, falling down and obviously very VERY drunk before they passed out. But is that always the case with very heavy drinkers? Or can heavy drinkers go from appearing drunk to completely unaware of their surroundings very suddenly? Could her BAC have tipped over the line behind those dumpsters?

I'm not disputing that he was legally intoxicatedbut he wasn't drunk enough to be slurring his words apparently and was able to make a nice start on a get away. The fact that Emily was unresponsive for hours suggests she was NOT a habitual heavy drinker, not the reverse. If anything, Brock appearing sober to the swedes suggests he is the one who is acclimated to heavy alcohol. I have taken care of countless intoxicated patients and I'm telling you again-the chances she appeared capable of consent minutes before the swedes intervened are essentially nil. Continue to look for ways she could have been "fine" if you like though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The saddest thing about this case to me is that two men could witness a woman's rape in progress and people still go out of their way to defend and excuse the rapist. "He didn't actually rape her." (Well, no. The witnesses stopped it from happening.) "He's a good kid who made a mistake." (He was raping a woman behind a dumpster.) "She was really drunk." (Rapists usually pick easy targets, and that is often people who are really, really drunk.) "This has ruined his life!" (He ruined his life.)

If people can defend a rapist caught in the act of rape, then there really is no hope for our culture.

There is no doubt and no one is arguing that this girl passed out and Brock was seen dry humping her. He admitted to digitally penetrating her (with her consent) and his admission is probably the prosecution's definitive evidence that Brock is the one who did that. Without his admission and no witness seeing that actually happen it would have been hard to prove that Brock was the one who penetrated her. Emily had evidently been walking around that party VERY drunk for a while with no memory of what she had done or had done to her. W/o Brock's admission I doubt that it would have been clear what had happened to her.

I am no rape apologist btw. There are just some puzzling things about all of this. I think a society that jumps in with pitchforks and baseball bats without even questioning what all happened here is..not a great society to live in. It is o.k. to ask questions. It is o.k. to try and understand HOW this happened to Emily. It is o.k. to try to understand wtf was going through Brock's mind to do what he did. Even with this conviction - it is o.k. to still have questions as to WHY this happened the way it happened.

You prefer to think that this kid was a sociopathic serial rapist in the making who would have done this at some point to some girl. Maybe you are right. But it is also possible that this was more of a perfect storm of events that led to a bizarre and unlikely conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He was not drunk to the point of appearing intoxicated or slurring his words according to sober witnesses. Emily on the other hand was unresponsive for hours and same sober witnesses thought she appeared dead. Medically speaking the chance that a few minutes before Emily seemed remotely coherent or capable of consent to the sober are vanishingly small. Clear now?

His BAC was twice the legal limit, he smelled of alcohol, he stumbled, he was drunk - he was nauseous and there is an indication that he may have had some memory impairment. The police report indicates that he was showing impairment. Emily was 3 times the legal limit which is VERY drunk. People at that level of BAC can pass out suddenly (I looked up the stages). Most people would be stumbling around, falling down and obviously very VERY drunk before they passed out. But is that always the case with very heavy drinkers? Or can heavy drinkers go from appearing drunk to completely unaware of their surroundings very suddenly? Could her BAC have tipped over the line behind those dumpsters?

I'm not disputing that he was legally intoxicatedbut he wasn't drunk enough to be slurring his words apparently and was able to make a nice start on a get away. The fact that Emily was unresponsive for hours suggests she was NOT a habitual heavy drinker, not the reverse. If anything, Brock appearing sober to the swedes suggests he is the one who is acclimated to heavy alcohol. I have taken care of countless intoxicated patients and I'm telling you again-the chances she appeared capable of consent minutes before the swedes intervened are essentially nil. Continue to look for ways she could have been "fine" if you like though.

Is it normal for a young woman, who after making a last minute decision to go to a "dumb party", would then prime herself with 4 shots of whiskey pre party? What level of intoxication would that have put her at right from the get go and why would the women that knew her feel that she was "fine" enough to be left alone? Why would her own mother drop her off on a college campus after drinking 4 shots of whiskey? Because Emily seemed "fine" - that's why. Emily admitted to being a party animal in college. She had drank that much before, her tolerance level had just gone down which is why she passed out this time...

Question is not whether YOU as a medical professional have seen that BAC in a heavy drinker but whether or not this 19 year old kid would have understood that Emily was THAT drunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He was not drunk to the point of appearing intoxicated or slurring his words according to sober witnesses. Emily on the other hand was unresponsive for hours and same sober witnesses thought she appeared dead. Medically speaking the chance that a few minutes before Emily seemed remotely coherent or capable of consent to the sober are vanishingly small. Clear now?

His BAC was twice the legal limit, he smelled of alcohol, he stumbled, he was drunk - he was nauseous and there is an indication that he may have had some memory impairment. The police report indicates that he was showing impairment. Emily was 3 times the legal limit which is VERY drunk. People at that level of BAC can pass out suddenly (I looked up the stages). Most people would be stumbling around, falling down and obviously very VERY drunk before they passed out. But is that always the case with very heavy drinkers? Or can heavy drinkers go from appearing drunk to completely unaware of their surroundings very suddenly? Could her BAC have tipped over the line behind those dumpsters?

I'm not disputing that he was legally intoxicatedbut he wasn't drunk enough to be slurring his words apparently and was able to make a nice start on a get away. The fact that Emily was unresponsive for hours suggests she was NOT a habitual heavy drinker, not the reverse. If anything, Brock appearing sober to the swedes suggests he is the one who is acclimated to heavy alcohol. I have taken care of countless intoxicated patients and I'm telling you again-the chances she appeared capable of consent minutes before the swedes intervened are essentially nil. Continue to look for ways she could have been "fine" if you like though.

Is it normal for a young woman, who after making a last minute decision to go to a "dumb party", would then prime herself with 4 shots of whiskey pre party? What level of intoxication would that have put her at right from the get go and why would the women that knew her feel that she was "fine" enough to be left alone? Why would her own mother drop her off on a college campus after drinking 4 shots of whiskey? Because Emily seemed "fine" - that's why. Emily admitted to being a party animal in college. She had drank that much before, her tolerance level had just gone down which is why she passed out this time...

Question is not whether YOU as a medical professional have seen that BAC in a heavy drinker but whether or not this 19 year old kid would have understood that Emily was THAT drunk.

I am not saying it would have been obvious to me as a medical professional. It would be obvious to a tipsy layperson, my first grader, probably also my dog. A juror just released a statement saying they did not believe she would have been capable of consent based on the very slurred and incoherent phone messages she was leaving some time before the assault. Again-it is medically extraordinarily unlikely that she appeared remotely capable of consent even to that poor little lamb Brock. It's not even a close call.

[Anonymous]

Emily stated that she wasn't a party animal but that she was "social" and had blacked out 4 or 5 times previously.

Both parties exercised very poor judgment, but his poor judgment is a crime and hers isn't.

That's really the bottom line. If we want men to understand it's not okay to take advantage of very drunk women, then people like Brock need to be prosecuted.

If you think he's being treated unfairly, then likely so do many others, and he will be able to find work, make friends, date again, etc.

But to find him not guilty when witnesses saw him dry humping an unconscious person would have really sent a bad message to men, some of whom think unconscious women are fair game.

OTOH, the guilty verdict is also saying (to some) that getting blackout drunk is AOK--that women should not have to take reasonable steps to protect themselves. Maybe Emily should have acknowledged her own stupidity, but I'm sure she didn't want to talk about that, given that Brock and his posse were placing 100% of his actions on alcohol and promiscuity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The saddest thing about this case to me is that two men could witness a woman's rape in progress and people still go out of their way to defend and excuse the rapist. "He didn't actually rape her." (Well, no. The witnesses stopped it from happening.) "He's a good kid who made a mistake." (He was raping a woman behind a dumpster.) "She was really drunk." (Rapists usually pick easy targets, and that is often people who are really, really drunk.) "This has ruined his life!" (He ruined his life.)

If people can defend a rapist caught in the act of rape, then there really is no hope for our culture.

You've articulated what I find the most frustrating about this case. It doesn't matter what the case entails - it's always going to come down to what SHE did. Over 100 pages of why was SHE drunk? Why didn't SHE take steps to defend herself?

Why didn't HE not rape her?

Why does our fucked up society fall all over itself to defend a guy who was caught in the act? And fall all over itself some more to drag a rape victim through the mud?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The saddest thing about this case to me is that two men could witness a woman's rape in progress and people still go out of their way to defend and excuse the rapist. "He didn't actually rape her." (Well, no. The witnesses stopped it from happening.) "He's a good kid who made a mistake." (He was raping a woman behind a dumpster.) "She was really drunk." (Rapists usually pick easy targets, and that is often people who are really, really drunk.) "This has ruined his life!" (He ruined his life.)

If people can defend a rapist caught in the act of rape, then there really is no hope for our culture.

You've articulated what I find the most frustrating about this case. It doesn't matter what the case entails - it's always going to come down to what SHE did. Over 100 pages of why was SHE drunk? Why didn't SHE take steps to defend herself?

Why didn't HE not rape her?

Why does our fucked up society fall all over itself to defend a guy who was caught in the act? And fall all over itself some more to drag a rape victim through the mud?

He was tried and convicted. How can you generate a 100 pages about that, it's done. I suppose we could (and have) speculate about what he would have done uninterrupted (would he have noticed and stopped, would he have continued and left her there, continued and taken her somewhere safe afterward?). But that's about it. What else is there to say? He shouldn't have done it. He did, and now he's a convicted felong and a registered sex offender (he also lost his chance to go swim in Rio, which might be a relief anyway).

Also, we're mostly women on this site, and we naturally put ourselves in her shoes, and wonder what to tell our daughters. We also wonder what to tell our sons, beyond don't rape girls and don't drink too much, be moral and a good person.

[Anonymous]

"There is no doubt and no one is arguing that this girl passed out and Brock was seen dry humping her. He admitted to digitally penetrating her (with her consent) and his admission is probably the prosecution's definitive evidence that Brock is the one who did that. Without his admission and no witness seeing that actually happen it would have been hard to prove that Brock was the one who penetrated her. Emily had evidently been walking around that party VERY drunk for a while with no memory of what she had done or had done to her. W/o Brock's admission I doubt that it would have been clear what had happened to her. "

What did he perceive as consent? Was she not drunk past the ability to make informed consent at that time? If she was into him and enjoying the experience, his groping would not have caused abrasions and lacerations. My belief is she did not give consent. And apparently the jury agrees with me.
He is a convicted felon.

This reminds me somewhat of the Ryan Diviney case. He got into a sports argument in a parking lot near his school (WVU) and the kids he was arguing with had been drinking. One sucker punched him and Ryan fell to the ground. Another kid (college student who had been drinking), then kicked him in the head (witnesses say, "punted him like a football')
His kicker's defense was that he had been drinking and thus was not responsible for his actions. I say, if someone will kick a guy when they are down when drunk, they would have also done this while sober. Ryan has been in a coma for years cared for by his dad. The kicker, Austin Vantrease, served his sentence and is now on parole. What's sickening is Austin's family continues to defend him and blame Ryan for what happened. Not a case of rape, but parenting gone bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120104553.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"There is no doubt and no one is arguing that this girl passed out and Brock was seen dry humping her. He admitted to digitally penetrating her (with her consent) and his admission is probably the prosecution's definitive evidence that Brock is the one who did that. Without his admission and no witness seeing that actually happen it would have been hard to prove that Brock was the one who penetrated her. Emily had evidently been walking around that party VERY drunk for a while with no memory of what she had done or had done to her. W/o Brock's admission I doubt that it would have been clear what had happened to her. "

What did he perceive as consent? Was she not drunk past the ability to make informed consent at that time? If she was into him and enjoying the experience, his groping would not have caused abrasions and lacerations. My belief is she did not give consent. And apparently the jury agrees with me.
He is a convicted felon.

This reminds me somewhat of the Ryan Diviney case. He got into a sports argument in a parking lot near his school (WVU) and the kids he was arguing with had been drinking. One sucker punched him and Ryan fell to the ground. Another kid (college student who had been drinking), then kicked him in the head (witnesses say, "punted him like a football')
His kicker's defense was that he had been drinking and thus was not responsible for his actions. I say, if someone will kick a guy when they are down when drunk, they would have also done this while sober. Ryan has been in a coma for years cared for by his dad. The kicker, Austin Vantrease, served his sentence and is now on parole. What's sickening is Austin's family continues to defend him and blame Ryan for what happened. Not a case of rape, but parenting gone bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120104553.html

He initially said he he thought she consented because she was rubbing his back. He later said he asked her if he could finger her, and she said "yeah." The whole statement is pretty ridiculous sounding. I'm sure it's the defense his lawyer cooked up, but you're still supposed to tell the truth. I'm sure it wasn't pleasant for Emily to admit she'd been blackout drunk many times before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"There is no doubt and no one is arguing that this girl passed out and Brock was seen dry humping her. He admitted to digitally penetrating her (with her consent) and his admission is probably the prosecution's definitive evidence that Brock is the one who did that. Without his admission and no witness seeing that actually happen it would have been hard to prove that Brock was the one who penetrated her. Emily had evidently been walking around that party VERY drunk for a while with no memory of what she had done or had done to her. W/o Brock's admission I doubt that it would have been clear what had happened to her. "

What did he perceive as consent? Was she not drunk past the ability to make informed consent at that time? If she was into him and enjoying the experience, his groping would not have caused abrasions and lacerations. My belief is she did not give consent. And apparently the jury agrees with me.
He is a convicted felon.

This reminds me somewhat of the Ryan Diviney case. He got into a sports argument in a parking lot near his school (WVU) and the kids he was arguing with had been drinking. One sucker punched him and Ryan fell to the ground. Another kid (college student who had been drinking), then kicked him in the head (witnesses say, "punted him like a football')
His kicker's defense was that he had been drinking and thus was not responsible for his actions. I say, if someone will kick a guy when they are down when drunk, they would have also done this while sober. Ryan has been in a coma for years cared for by his dad. The kicker, Austin Vantrease, served his sentence and is now on parole. What's sickening is Austin's family continues to defend him and blame Ryan for what happened. Not a case of rape, but parenting gone bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120104553.html

He initially said he he thought she consented because she was rubbing his back. He later said he asked her if he could finger her, and she said "yeah." The whole statement is pretty ridiculous sounding. I'm sure it's the defense his lawyer cooked up, but you're still supposed to tell the truth. I'm sure it wasn't pleasant for Emily to admit she'd been blackout drunk many times before.

His whole story changed when he found out she didn't remember. He had free rein to make up whatever suited him best, so of course she now "consented." His first story didn't involve consent, though. Hmmmm. I wonder why.