That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[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?

Obviously, the guy was arrested, jailed, convicted, sentenced and put on the sex offender registry. Brock is being held accountable for his actions.

But there is a message in what Emily did here as well. No way is it acceptable for a college graduate to show up at a frat party with younger, less experienced undergrads and allow herself to get so inebriated that she passes out behind a dumpster. Brock or no Brock - that was incredibly poor judgement on her part. I hear so many people minimizing what Emily did. But if that young woman truly was kissing a teenager and if she is the one who led him back behind those dumpsters - that does make a difference as to what Brock's intent was going back there with her.

Obviously if he helped her to stumble back there, she fell down and he took advantage of her - there is NO defending that. But if he thought that she was was kissing him back and making out *with* him and then she suddenly passed out that paints a different picture. A doctor on this thread has said that it would have been impossible.

But I saw enough heavy drinkers in my college and post college years to know that extremely drunk people are capable of doing all sorts of things. They drive cars, they order pizza, they go swimming, they dance topless on bars, they fool around with teenagers at frat parties....

[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

They scraped under his fingernails and found her skin cells there. After finding that evidence, do you really think Turner would say anything other than that she asked for that.

One of the jurors is publicly (but anonymously) protesting the judge's sentencing. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/juror-stanford-sex-assault-case-appalled-sentence-39832289

They listened to voicemail messages she left her boyfriend before being raped and it was clear she was too drunk to consent to anything. I was surprised to read this: He said he expected the predominantly male panel's "quick and decisive finding" of guilt to yield a sentence severe enough to deter future campus sexual assaults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Obviously, the guy was arrested, jailed, convicted, sentenced and put on the sex offender registry. Brock is being held accountable for his actions.

But there is a message in what Emily did here as well. No way is it acceptable for a college graduate to show up at a frat party with younger, less experienced undergrads and allow herself to get so inebriated that she passes out behind a dumpster. Brock or no Brock - that was incredibly poor judgement on her part. I hear so many people minimizing what Emily did. But if that young woman truly was kissing a teenager and if she is the one who led him back behind those dumpsters - that does make a difference as to what Brock's intent was going back there with her.

Obviously if he helped her to stumble back there, she fell down and he took advantage of her - there is NO defending that. But if he thought that she was was kissing him back and making out *with* him and then she suddenly passed out that paints a different picture. A doctor on this thread has said that it would have been impossible.

But I saw enough heavy drinkers in my college and post college years to know that extremely drunk people are capable of doing all sorts of things. They drive cars, they order pizza, they go swimming, they dance topless on bars, they fool around with teenagers at frat parties....

Even if the bolded were true, it should have ended there. Done. Passed out, his ONLY reaction should have been to assist her back to where she would be safe. If he's a total dirtbag, which I think has been established, he could have just left her there. But the point is that he did neither of those two things. He fingered her and dry humped her while unconscious. At that point, it's irrelevant a. what she did prior to being unconscious, and b. how she became unconscious. She's unconscious and he went ahead and touched her without not even consent, but without her knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Interesting that a juror, i.e. someone who heard all of the testimony and got a better picture of what took place than any of us have, is "shocked and appalled" by the sentence.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/14/juror-stanford-sentence-appalled/85855028/

[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?

Yes, for example, let's ask why did he get so drunk that (and this is being charitable now) that he didn't recognize that the woman was unconscious? What kind of person gets that drunk? It's certainly irresponsible behavior at a minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that a juror, i.e. someone who heard all of the testimony and got a better picture of what took place than any of us have, is "shocked and appalled" by the sentence.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/14/juror-stanford-sentence-appalled/85855028/

Interesting? There has been a national outcry including a petition to unseat the judge, related to the "lenient" sentence.

If there are judges who routinely give harsh sentences, then it stands to reason there would be judges who routinely give lighter sentences, as this one does. I'm not outraged by that, but others are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Obviously, the guy was arrested, jailed, convicted, sentenced and put on the sex offender registry. Brock is being held accountable for his actions.

But there is a message in what Emily did here as well. No way is it acceptable for a college graduate to show up at a frat party with younger, less experienced undergrads and allow herself to get so inebriated that she passes out behind a dumpster. Brock or no Brock - that was incredibly poor judgement on her part. I hear so many people minimizing what Emily did. But if that young woman truly was kissing a teenager and if she is the one who led him back behind those dumpsters - that does make a difference as to what Brock's intent was going back there with her.

Obviously if he helped her to stumble back there, she fell down and he took advantage of her - there is NO defending that. But if he thought that she was was kissing him back and making out *with* him and then she suddenly passed out that paints a different picture. A doctor on this thread has said that it would have been impossible.

But I saw enough heavy drinkers in my college and post college years to know that extremely drunk people are capable of doing all sorts of things. They drive cars, they order pizza, they go swimming, they dance topless on bars, they fool around with teenagers at frat parties....

Even if the bolded were true, it should have ended there. Done. Passed out, his ONLY reaction should have been to assist her back to where she would be safe. If he's a total dirtbag, which I think has been established, he could have just left her there. But the point is that he did neither of those two things. He fingered her and dry humped her while unconscious. At that point, it's irrelevant a. what she did prior to being unconscious, and b. how she became unconscious. She's unconscious and he went ahead and touched her without not even consent, but without her knowledge.

It is the very short time frame - the time in between them walking behind those dumpsters, starting to fool around and her passing out and the swedes coming along, roughly 7 minutes - that makes it unclear to me who did what to whom when. The swedes say that they saw him dry humping her, not fingering her. What does that mean? I don't know. But it stands to reason that if she was stupidly and very drunkenly on board going behind those dumpsters and then passing out in the middle of it that she could have appeared willing to be fingered to Brock.

Neither one of them had any business going behind those dumpsters together. It was wrong of them both to go back there - she had no business kissing that drunk teenager and he had no business humping her when she passed out. I am not excusing what Brock did. But I am not about to give the green light to this woman for her appalling behavior, either. It is not right to blame the victim or shame her for being sexually assaulted. But we can most certainly call her out for her own extremely bad behavior.

She describes her decision to go to that "dumb" party as a silly, goofy thing to do. Having 4 shots of whiskey and drinking cups of vodka until you are practically comatose is not funny. And it is not up to to a room full of drunk (yet still functional) younger kids to watch out for your drunk azz and make sure that you are making good decisions for yourself. She does not seem to get that. And people seem to be giving her a pass for that.

I have not heard the drunken messages that she left but I can say that I have seen people who wouldn't have been able to even dial their phones much less leave a message - dancing and kissing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Obviously, the guy was arrested, jailed, convicted, sentenced and put on the sex offender registry. Brock is being held accountable for his actions.

But there is a message in what Emily did here as well. No way is it acceptable for a college graduate to show up at a frat party with younger, less experienced undergrads and allow herself to get so inebriated that she passes out behind a dumpster. Brock or no Brock - that was incredibly poor judgement on her part. I hear so many people minimizing what Emily did. But if that young woman truly was kissing a teenager and if she is the one who led him back behind those dumpsters - that does make a difference as to what Brock's intent was going back there with her.

Obviously if he helped her to stumble back there, she fell down and he took advantage of her - there is NO defending that. But if he thought that she was was kissing him back and making out *with* him and then she suddenly passed out that paints a different picture. A doctor on this thread has said that it would have been impossible.

But I saw enough heavy drinkers in my college and post college years to know that extremely drunk people are capable of doing all sorts of things. They drive cars, they order pizza, they go swimming, they dance topless on bars, they fool around with teenagers at frat parties....

But the outcome you expect when you drink too much is to have a hangover. Not to be the victim of a sexual assault. And that SHOULD be the expected outcome. Saying, "I agree, this guy's horrible, but she shouldn't have had so much to drink..." minimizes how horrific his actions truly were. She was not at fault in any way here. He is a predator, who took advantage of someone in a vulnerable situation.

Also, you realize that he's the one claiming that she did all of those things he thought meant she was into it, right? And he only made those claims after he found out that she didn't remember? Personally, I'm gonna really question the word of a dude who was caught in the act of assaulting someone. Especially when he says, "No, no, she was totally into it! I totally didn't rape her!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Obviously, the guy was arrested, jailed, convicted, sentenced and put on the sex offender registry. Brock is being held accountable for his actions.

But there is a message in what Emily did here as well. No way is it acceptable for a college graduate to show up at a frat party with younger, less experienced undergrads and allow herself to get so inebriated that she passes out behind a dumpster. Brock or no Brock - that was incredibly poor judgement on her part. I hear so many people minimizing what Emily did. But if that young woman truly was kissing a teenager and if she is the one who led him back behind those dumpsters - that does make a difference as to what Brock's intent was going back there with her.

Obviously if he helped her to stumble back there, she fell down and he took advantage of her - there is NO defending that. But if he thought that she was was kissing him back and making out *with* him and then she suddenly passed out that paints a different picture. A doctor on this thread has said that it would have been impossible.

But I saw enough heavy drinkers in my college and post college years to know that extremely drunk people are capable of doing all sorts of things. They drive cars, they order pizza, they go swimming, they dance topless on bars, they fool around with teenagers at frat parties....

Even if the bolded were true, it should have ended there. Done. Passed out, his ONLY reaction should have been to assist her back to where she would be safe. If he's a total dirtbag, which I think has been established, he could have just left her there. But the point is that he did neither of those two things. He fingered her and dry humped her while unconscious. At that point, it's irrelevant a. what she did prior to being unconscious, and b. how she became unconscious. She's unconscious and he went ahead and touched her without not even consent, but without her knowledge.

It is the very short time frame - the time in between them walking behind those dumpsters, starting to fool around and her passing out and the swedes coming along, roughly 7 minutes - that makes it unclear to me who did what to whom when. The swedes say that they saw him dry humping her, not fingering her. What does that mean? I don't know. But it stands to reason that if she was stupidly and very drunkenly on board going behind those dumpsters and then passing out in the middle of it that she could have appeared willing to be fingered to Brock.

Neither one of them had any business going behind those dumpsters together. It was wrong of them both to go back there - she had no business kissing that drunk teenager and he had no business humping her when she passed out. I am not excusing what Brock did. But I am not about to give the green light to this woman for her appalling behavior, either. It is not right to blame the victim or shame her for being sexually assaulted. But we can most certainly call her out for her own extremely bad behavior.

She describes her decision to go to that "dumb" party as a silly, goofy thing to do. Having 4 shots of whiskey and drinking cups of vodka until you are practically comatose is not funny. And it is not up to to a room full of drunk (yet still functional) younger kids to watch out for your drunk azz and make sure that you are making good decisions for yourself. She does not seem to get that. And people seem to be giving her a pass for that.

I have not heard the drunken messages that she left but I can say that I have seen people who wouldn't have been able to even dial their phones much less leave a message - dancing and kissing.

He ADMITTED to fingering her. But wait, he's now a "drunk teenager?" Are you kidding me?? He's not a victim in any way shape or form, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even going there. And a jury, who listened to every single piece of evidence, was not "unclear about who did what to whom." A jury, whose job it was to determine whether there was guilt after hearing the evidence, unanimously agreed that he was guilty. Who the hell are you to second guess what they determined, after being privy to all of the information, not just what's online to read?

You obviously didn't read her impact statement if you don't think she's taking accountability for her actions. Don't worry, she's paying a steep price for her "extremely bad behavior." I mean, shame on her for preying upon this poor drunk teenager.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Obviously, the guy was arrested, jailed, convicted, sentenced and put on the sex offender registry. Brock is being held accountable for his actions.

But there is a message in what Emily did here as well. No way is it acceptable for a college graduate to show up at a frat party with younger, less experienced undergrads and allow herself to get so inebriated that she passes out behind a dumpster. Brock or no Brock - that was incredibly poor judgement on her part. I hear so many people minimizing what Emily did. But if that young woman truly was kissing a teenager and if she is the one who led him back behind those dumpsters - that does make a difference as to what Brock's intent was going back there with her.

Obviously if he helped her to stumble back there, she fell down and he took advantage of her - there is NO defending that. But if he thought that she was was kissing him back and making out *with* him and then she suddenly passed out that paints a different picture. A doctor on this thread has said that it would have been impossible.

But I saw enough heavy drinkers in my college and post college years to know that extremely drunk people are capable of doing all sorts of things. They drive cars, they order pizza, they go swimming, they dance topless on bars, they fool around with teenagers at frat parties....

But the outcome you expect when you drink too much is to have a hangover. Not to be the victim of a sexual assault. And that SHOULD be the expected outcome. Saying, "I agree, this guy's horrible, but she shouldn't have had so much to drink..." minimizes how horrific his actions truly were. She was not at fault in any way here. He is a predator, who took advantage of someone in a vulnerable situation.

Also, you realize that he's the one claiming that she did all of those things he thought meant she was into it, right? And he only made those claims after he found out that she didn't remember? Personally, I'm gonna really question the word of a dude who was caught in the act of assaulting someone. Especially when he says, "No, no, she was totally into it! I totally didn't rape her!"

I don't think the point should be to minimize the dangers of very heavy drinking. It call lead to all kinds of terrible outcomes, not just bad hangovers. You could get hit by a car, fall into a river and drown, fall off a rooftop, get alcohol poisoning and die, choke on your own vomit, etc. This does not minimize what he did. But to me a hangover is the expected outcome of drinking too much, not getting blackout drunk. There is an "expected risk" to that. But that has nothing to do with the crime at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that a juror, i.e. someone who heard all of the testimony and got a better picture of what took place than any of us have, is "shocked and appalled" by the sentence.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/14/juror-stanford-sentence-appalled/85855028/

Just finished reading the juror's letter. More evidence that BAT is a total predator , loser, and thank-goodness convicted felon.
Kudos to that juror for taking his job seriously.
Interesting that the jury was predominantly men, and they had no problem finding BAT guilty.

[Anonymous]

Why is everyone acting like the victim was some old lady adult and the predator was a little boy? He was a MAN at age 19 and she was 23. BOTH young adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone acting like the victim was some old lady adult and the predator was a little boy? He was a MAN at age 19 and she was 23. BOTH young adults.

He was a freshman who had been at school 4 months, she had already been to college and graduated. Not a little boy and an old lady, but still words apart in life experiences.

Think back to when you were a year out of college, working, with a steady SO. A college freshmen was so young, in comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone acting like the victim was some old lady adult and the predator was a little boy? He was a MAN at age 19 and she was 23. BOTH young adults.

Because for the victim blamers and rape apologists, it gives them a measure of comfort, like an old cougar was practically preying on the teenager!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is everyone acting like the victim was some old lady adult and the predator was a little boy? He was a MAN at age 19 and she was 23. BOTH young adults.

Yes, It is another disgusting attempt to blame the victim. Calling him a "teenager" to make him seem less culpable for his actions or was lured by this "older" woman. It's bullshit.
So horrified by the people defending him or blaming the victim.