That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also why would this guy's ex defend him?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/06/15/stanford-swimmer-brock-turners-ex-girlfriend-defends-him-in-a-letter-to-the-court/

because he never sexually assaulted her?

because she also was in the thrall of the star athlete worship some of you presumably grown ass adults are?

Because she has poor judgement as indicated by her dating a confirmed creeper, drug abuser, n-word spouting, sex offending, failed escape attempting, false statement making dick?

Not really sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The kid was socially awkward around women. That is not atypical for a college freshman to be inexperienced and inexpert when hitting on women. Older guys seem more mature for a reason.

Brock was not walking around attacking girls in secluded places. He wasn't lurking behind bushes waiting for the wounded antelope party stragglers to wander home. Brock wasn't going behind dumpsters to meet women.

If Brock had seemed at all threatening those women would have insisted that Emily leave that party with them. They didn't insist that she leave because Emily seemed fine and they were not afraid of Brock even if they found him to be annoying. They left. Emily opted to stay because ?...well, we don't know why she chose to stay at a party where she didn't know anyone. Where was she planning to sleep that night?

None of these things are requirements for being a rapist or sexual criminal. You apparently think that the only kind of sexual assault is the kind where a stranger comes out of nowhere and attacks a defenseless woman. California law disagrees with you. California law says that a woman can be around a man, and even kiss him, but if she is extremely intoxicated it is a crime for him to penetrate her with his penis or anything else (e.g. fingers). This case is a little more cut-and-dry since she also happened to be unconscious while he continued to hump her (and possibly do other things), but it doesn't matter. Her level of drunkenness means that anything she said or did could not have been construed as consent.

It doesn't matter what you think the law should be, it matters what the law is. If you dislike the law, go to California and get it changed. I like the law, so I'm not going to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, Emily Doe's conduct and her own state of mind is very relevant. Brock is not in trouble because he jumped this woman, dragged her behind a dumpster and violently assaulted her. Brock is in trouble because Emily Doe passed out while they were fooling around and doesn't remember what she may or may not have consented to. And Brock is in trouble because two upstanding young men (the swedes) witnessed Brock 'dry humping' Emily after she was passed out.

So much of this situation is directly related to her blacking out and passing out - not remembering. If Emily had not blacked out/passed out she and Brock would have likely fooled around, adjusted their clothes, walked away from each other and that would have been it. Typical frat party stuff. Hangovers.

But Emily did pass out. And the accusation is that Brock should have known that she was about to pass out. I personally do not think that a kid like Brock had ever been around such a heavy drinker before. He didn't fully appreciate how drunk this woman was and he did not expect her to pass out suddenly like that. His judgement was clouded by inexperience and being drunk himself.

You say that it doesn't matter what Emily was doing herself that night. You seem to believe that once she crossed over the line into black out drinking that she ceased to be responsible for her own actions. It doesn't matter if she walked behind those dumpsters with the intention of fooling around with Brock or not. But I disagree. It does matter. It matters a lot.

It's not about what I believe, it's about what California Law says. And California law says that a person who is as intoxicated as Emily Doe clearly was, is not able to give consent...regardless of her state of consciousness. The law does not require a cold-blooded attacker to jump out of the bushes and grab a sober school girl to make it be sexual assault. The law allows that exactly the circumstances that occurred that night on campus can happen; and if the man begins or continues to fondle, penetrate, etc a severely inebriated person, then he is violating the law.

If you feel that Turner's drunkenness excuses some of his culpability, you are in luck...so did the judge who commuted his sentence from 6 years to 6 mos. A lot of people disagree with that decision, but there you go. The justice you are seeking was exactly what was served. Turner violated the law, and he was convicted of a crime for doing so. The judge felt there were mitigating circumstances due to his level of drunkenness, so he reduced the recommended sentence.

If you feel so strongly that the law in California is wrong or unfair in this regard, then you should go to California and lobby to have it changed to avoid having Turner's fate befall the minority of drunk college guys in the future who fail to notice or care about the difference between a willing partner and a slobbering, incoherent, drunk one. But, as it stands, Turner violated the law that was on the books, and that makes him a criminal.

the judge did not "commute his sentence." he didn't rule as the da would have liked, but he followed the recommendation of the chief probation officer (a lesbian and feminist, by the way). the campaign to remove the judge is being led by one lone professor who is a personal friend of the victim's family, and by thousands of uninformed public who read a headline on buzzfeed. the county bar ass'n, the public defender's office, and even the da's office are all opposing the campaign, and have stated that his ruling was legal and fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the police report given hours after the incident, the defendant makes no mention of asking Emily if she wants to do something sexual and her saying "yes." That statement was only mentioned later.

Also, the defendant is described as "aggressive" and as going around and just walking up to and kissing young women. Two female witnesses were talking to each other and he stepped in between them and started trying to kiss the one and grab her around the waist. She was able to sidestep him and move away from his hands.

Emily was already outside. Could he have still been acting aggressively when he came across her in the outside area? Shortly before the incident witnesses say he was kissing and grabbing a different young woman around the waist without asking for her permission. If I were a juror, I would take this information into account in my deliberations.

Yes, he was "aggressive" because he put his hands on women's waists and tried to kiss them. Then, when they told him No, he left them alone. It made them uncomfortable and was socially awkward, but it's not grabbing women and pulling them, or drugging them. I've occasionally called DCUM posters aggressive when they make certain posts, but I don't mean that I expect them to start physically assaulting anyone at any moment.

Also, in the police report, he doesn't say he asked her and she said Yes, that seems to have been made up by his defense attorney at trial -- but he does say they were making out and seems confused and drunk. It could all be an act, but he had also had a fair amount to drink at that point.

Apparently, he did not let them alone when they said "no." He came back and was trying to kiss one woman a second time and grab her around the waist. She had to "wiggle" away to get away from his hands. What if she had been unable, for whatever reason, to wiggle out of his hands? Would he have stopped kissing her? As a juror, this testimony would have given me a picture of how the defendant was interacting with women at the party that evening and would have entered into my consideration of how he was then interacting with Emily during the incident and whether he was guilty of the charges lodged against him.

I'm not sure where the indication is that this young man was socially awkward. He had at least one girlfriend in high school and many swim team friends. His mother told the judge that she was always getting compliments on how friendly he was at swim meets.

He did tell the police that he was making out with Emily, but no other witnesses interviewed in the police report corroborate that information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the police report given hours after the incident, the defendant makes no mention of asking Emily if she wants to do something sexual and her saying "yes." That statement was only mentioned later.

Also, the defendant is described as "aggressive" and as going around and just walking up to and kissing young women. Two female witnesses were talking to each other and he stepped in between them and started trying to kiss the one and grab her around the waist. She was able to sidestep him and move away from his hands.

Emily was already outside. Could he have still been acting aggressively when he came across her in the outside area? Shortly before the incident witnesses say he was kissing and grabbing a different young woman around the waist without asking for her permission. If I were a juror, I would take this information into account in my deliberations.

Yes, he was "aggressive" because he put his hands on women's waists and tried to kiss them. Then, when they told him No, he left them alone. It made them uncomfortable and was socially awkward, but it's not grabbing women and pulling them, or drugging them. I've occasionally called DCUM posters aggressive when they make certain posts, but I don't mean that I expect them to start physically assaulting anyone at any moment.

Also, in the police report, he doesn't say he asked her and she said Yes, that seems to have been made up by his defense attorney at trial -- but he does say they were making out and seems confused and drunk. It could all be an act, but he had also had a fair amount to drink at that point.

Apparently, he did not let them alone when they said "no." He came back and was trying to kiss one woman a second time and grab her around the waist. She had to "wiggle" away to get away from his hands. What if she had been unable, for whatever reason, to wiggle out of his hands? Would he have stopped kissing her? As a juror, this testimony would have given me a picture of how the defendant was interacting with women at the party that evening and would have entered into my consideration of how he was then interacting with Emily during the incident and whether he was guilty of the charges lodged against him.

I'm not sure where the indication is that this young man was socially awkward. He had at least one girlfriend in high school and many swim team friends. His mother told the judge that she was always getting compliments on how friendly he was at swim meets.

He did tell the police that he was making out with Emily, but no other witnesses interviewed in the police report corroborate that information.

In one of those incidents two young women were dancing on a table (one of the women he knew from his hall). Brock jumped up and started to dance behind one of them, putting a hat on her head and his hands on her waist. The woman felt that he was being a little forward and grabby and she got off the table. These 3 were drunk dancing on a table, Brock was openly being silly and having fun and being a bit too forward which made her uncomfortable. I think it's a stretch to call his behavior creepy. Socially awkward? Maybe.

Emily's sister is...Emily's sister. She obviously has a dog in this fight. So her insistence that Brock was being aggressive towards her has to be tempered by the knowledge that she left her sister alone at a party with this "aggressive" guy. I think that it is more accurate to say that Brock was more annoying....and not someone that she would have even remembered had it not been for what happened to Emily that night.

And to cast aspersions on his former girlfriend is completely out of line. WTH??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the police report given hours after the incident, the defendant makes no mention of asking Emily if she wants to do something sexual and her saying "yes." That statement was only mentioned later.

Also, the defendant is described as "aggressive" and as going around and just walking up to and kissing young women. Two female witnesses were talking to each other and he stepped in between them and started trying to kiss the one and grab her around the waist. She was able to sidestep him and move away from his hands.

Emily was already outside. Could he have still been acting aggressively when he came across her in the outside area? Shortly before the incident witnesses say he was kissing and grabbing a different young woman around the waist without asking for her permission. If I were a juror, I would take this information into account in my deliberations.

Yes, he was "aggressive" because he put his hands on women's waists and tried to kiss them. Then, when they told him No, he left them alone. It made them uncomfortable and was socially awkward, but it's not grabbing women and pulling them, or drugging them. I've occasionally called DCUM posters aggressive when they make certain posts, but I don't mean that I expect them to start physically assaulting anyone at any moment.

Also, in the police report, he doesn't say he asked her and she said Yes, that seems to have been made up by his defense attorney at trial -- but he does say they were making out and seems confused and drunk. It could all be an act, but he had also had a fair amount to drink at that point.

Apparently, he did not let them alone when they said "no." He came back and was trying to kiss one woman a second time and grab her around the waist. She had to "wiggle" away to get away from his hands. What if she had been unable, for whatever reason, to wiggle out of his hands? Would he have stopped kissing her? As a juror, this testimony would have given me a picture of how the defendant was interacting with women at the party that evening and would have entered into my consideration of how he was then interacting with Emily during the incident and whether he was guilty of the charges lodged against him.

I'm not sure where the indication is that this young man was socially awkward. He had at least one girlfriend in high school and many swim team friends. His mother told the judge that she was always getting compliments on how friendly he was at swim meets.

He did tell the police that he was making out with Emily, but no other witnesses interviewed in the police report corroborate that information.

In one of those incidents two young women were dancing on a table (one of the women he knew from his hall). Brock jumped up and started to dance behind one of them, putting a hat on her head and his hands on her waist. The woman felt that he was being a little forward and grabby and she got off the table. These 3 were drunk dancing on a table, Brock was openly being silly and having fun and being a bit too forward which made her uncomfortable. I think it's a stretch to call his behavior creepy. Socially awkward? Maybe.

Emily's sister is...Emily's sister. She obviously has a dog in this fight. So her insistence that Brock was being aggressive towards her has to be tempered by the knowledge that she left her sister alone at a party with this "aggressive" guy. I think that it is more accurate to say that Brock was more annoying....and not someone that she would have even remembered had it not been for what happened to Emily that night.

And to cast aspersions on his former girlfriend is completely out of line. WTH??

I did not use the word "creepy," not sure where you saw that. And no aspersions cast on former girlfriend at all, just making the point that the defendant must have had some social skills, since he did have a girlfriend in high school. He had good enough social skill to maintain a relationship. He was clearly not completely socially awkward if he had a girlfriend. His mother wrote about how well-liked he was and that he always shook hands all around after a race.

The incident with Emily's sister was witnessed by others at the party. If I were a juror and heard about that situation, I would be wondering if he would have let go of her if she had been unable to pull away herself. What if she were weakened for whatever reason? It would make me wonder if this is how his interaction with Emily began, but she was unable to walk away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the police report given hours after the incident, the defendant makes no mention of asking Emily if she wants to do something sexual and her saying "yes." That statement was only mentioned later.

Also, the defendant is described as "aggressive" and as going around and just walking up to and kissing young women. Two female witnesses were talking to each other and he stepped in between them and started trying to kiss the one and grab her around the waist. She was able to sidestep him and move away from his hands.

Emily was already outside. Could he have still been acting aggressively when he came across her in the outside area? Shortly before the incident witnesses say he was kissing and grabbing a different young woman around the waist without asking for her permission. If I were a juror, I would take this information into account in my deliberations.

Yes, he was "aggressive" because he put his hands on women's waists and tried to kiss them. Then, when they told him No, he left them alone. It made them uncomfortable and was socially awkward, but it's not grabbing women and pulling them, or drugging them. I've occasionally called DCUM posters aggressive when they make certain posts, but I don't mean that I expect them to start physically assaulting anyone at any moment.

Also, in the police report, he doesn't say he asked her and she said Yes, that seems to have been made up by his defense attorney at trial -- but he does say they were making out and seems confused and drunk. It could all be an act, but he had also had a fair amount to drink at that point.

Apparently, he did not let them alone when they said "no." He came back and was trying to kiss one woman a second time and grab her around the waist. She had to "wiggle" away to get away from his hands. What if she had been unable, for whatever reason, to wiggle out of his hands? Would he have stopped kissing her? As a juror, this testimony would have given me a picture of how the defendant was interacting with women at the party that evening and would have entered into my consideration of how he was then interacting with Emily during the incident and whether he was guilty of the charges lodged against him.

I'm not sure where the indication is that this young man was socially awkward. He had at least one girlfriend in high school and many swim team friends. His mother told the judge that she was always getting compliments on how friendly he was at swim meets.

He did tell the police that he was making out with Emily, but no other witnesses interviewed in the police report corroborate that information.

In one of those incidents two young women were dancing on a table (one of the women he knew from his hall). Brock jumped up and started to dance behind one of them, putting a hat on her head and his hands on her waist. The woman felt that he was being a little forward and grabby and she got off the table. These 3 were drunk dancing on a table, Brock was openly being silly and having fun and being a bit too forward which made her uncomfortable. I think it's a stretch to call his behavior creepy. Socially awkward? Maybe.

Emily's sister is...Emily's sister. She obviously has a dog in this fight. So her insistence that Brock was being aggressive towards her has to be tempered by the knowledge that she left her sister alone at a party with this "aggressive" guy. I think that it is more accurate to say that Brock was more annoying....and not someone that she would have even remembered had it not been for what happened to Emily that night.

And to cast aspersions on his former girlfriend is completely out of line. WTH??

So Brock's ex is off the table for criticism, but Emily and her sister are fair game?

Also, none of what the PP listed about the ex-girlfriend counts as "aspersions." Seems like fairly innocuous stuff to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kid was socially awkward around women. That is not atypical for a college freshman to be inexperienced and inexpert when hitting on women. Older guys seem more mature for a reason.

Brock was not walking around attacking girls in secluded places. He wasn't lurking behind bushes waiting for the wounded antelope party stragglers to wander home. Brock wasn't going behind dumpsters to meet women.

If Brock had seemed at all threatening those women would have insisted that Emily leave that party with them. They didn't insist that she leave because Emily seemed fine and they were not afraid of Brock even if they found him to be annoying. They left. Emily opted to stay because ?...well, we don't know why she chose to stay at a party where she didn't know anyone. Where was she planning to sleep that night?

Post number 947 that attempts to blame the wome who was sexually assaulted rather than the one who committed the crime. Grow up.

PP, you can't change the minds of these people. They will continue to be sympathetic towards Brock.

This case aside, original PP of this quote, do you honestly think rapists and sexual predators are ones that only fit the mold of people who attack in secluded places, lurk in bushes, are obviously threatening? If only it were that easy. And I hope you don't spread the message to women and girls in your life that this is the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the police report given hours after the incident, the defendant makes no mention of asking Emily if she wants to do something sexual and her saying "yes." That statement was only mentioned later.

Also, the defendant is described as "aggressive" and as going around and just walking up to and kissing young women. Two female witnesses were talking to each other and he stepped in between them and started trying to kiss the one and grab her around the waist. She was able to sidestep him and move away from his hands.

Emily was already outside. Could he have still been acting aggressively when he came across her in the outside area? Shortly before the incident witnesses say he was kissing and grabbing a different young woman around the waist without asking for her permission. If I were a juror, I would take this information into account in my deliberations.

Yes, he was "aggressive" because he put his hands on women's waists and tried to kiss them. Then, when they told him No, he left them alone. It made them uncomfortable and was socially awkward, but it's not grabbing women and pulling them, or drugging them. I've occasionally called DCUM posters aggressive when they make certain posts, but I don't mean that I expect them to start physically assaulting anyone at any moment.

Also, in the police report, he doesn't say he asked her and she said Yes, that seems to have been made up by his defense attorney at trial -- but he does say they were making out and seems confused and drunk. It could all be an act, but he had also had a fair amount to drink at that point.

Apparently, he did not let them alone when they said "no." He came back and was trying to kiss one woman a second time and grab her around the waist. She had to "wiggle" away to get away from his hands. What if she had been unable, for whatever reason, to wiggle out of his hands? Would he have stopped kissing her? As a juror, this testimony would have given me a picture of how the defendant was interacting with women at the party that evening and would have entered into my consideration of how he was then interacting with Emily during the incident and whether he was guilty of the charges lodged against him.

I'm not sure where the indication is that this young man was socially awkward. He had at least one girlfriend in high school and many swim team friends. His mother told the judge that she was always getting compliments on how friendly he was at swim meets.

He did tell the police that he was making out with Emily, but no other witnesses interviewed in the police report corroborate that information.

In one of those incidents two young women were dancing on a table (one of the women he knew from his hall). Brock jumped up and started to dance behind one of them, putting a hat on her head and his hands on her waist. The woman felt that he was being a little forward and grabby and she got off the table. These 3 were drunk dancing on a table, Brock was openly being silly and having fun and being a bit too forward which made her uncomfortable. I think it's a stretch to call his behavior creepy. Socially awkward? Maybe.

Emily's sister is...Emily's sister. She obviously has a dog in this fight. So her insistence that Brock was being aggressive towards her has to be tempered by the knowledge that she left her sister alone at a party with this "aggressive" guy. I think that it is more accurate to say that Brock was more annoying....and not someone that she would have even remembered had it not been for what happened to Emily that night.

And to cast aspersions on his former girlfriend is completely out of line. WTH??

So Brock's ex is off the table for criticism, but Emily and her sister are fair game?

Also, none of what the PP listed about the ex-girlfriend counts as "aspersions." Seems like fairly innocuous stuff to me.

Yes, Brock's ex is off the table for criticism. That HS girlfriend had NOTHING to do with that party or anything to do with what happened that night. She can verify that Brock treated her respectfully when they were dating a year before this. She can also verify that she has a high opinion of Brock and still considers him important enough to write the judge a letter.

As far as the socially awkward side goes...Brock was brand new to fraternity parties and meeting new girls. It is one thing to be the HS swim star known and loved by everyone and quite different to be the new kid at Stanford where he was just one bright star among the many high achieving standouts. At home - he could be a little quiet but kids knew who he was. At Stanford, it took more effort to meet people. That is understandable. Small fish, Big Pond.

[Anonymous]

Ugh, these rape apologists are not going to be swayed from their inhuman perspectives by DCUM posters trying to talk sense into them. They seem to delight in defending the perpetrator and shaming the victim - I wouldn't bother conversing with them on the subject any further, just let this thread die so they can crawl back under their rocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kid was socially awkward around women. That is not atypical for a college freshman to be inexperienced and inexpert when hitting on women. Older guys seem more mature for a reason.

Brock was not walking around attacking girls in secluded places. He wasn't lurking behind bushes waiting for the wounded antelope party stragglers to wander home. Brock wasn't going behind dumpsters to meet women.

If Brock had seemed at all threatening those women would have insisted that Emily leave that party with them. They didn't insist that she leave because Emily seemed fine and they were not afraid of Brock even if they found him to be annoying. They left. Emily opted to stay because ?...well, we don't know why she chose to stay at a party where she didn't know anyone. Where was she planning to sleep that night?

None of these things are requirements for being a rapist or sexual criminal. You apparently think that the only kind of sexual assault is the kind where a stranger comes out of nowhere and attacks a defenseless woman. California law disagrees with you. California law says that a woman can be around a man, and even kiss him, but if she is extremely intoxicated it is a crime for him to penetrate her with his penis or anything else (e.g. fingers). This case is a little more cut-and-dry since she also happened to be unconscious while he continued to hump her (and possibly do other things), but it doesn't matter. Her level of drunkenness means that anything she said or did could not have been construed as consent.

It doesn't matter what you think the law should be, it matters what the law is. If you dislike the law, go to California and get it changed. I like the law, so I'm not going to do that.

And I do not think that Brock had ever been around such a heavy drinker before. Emily had a tolerance level that was unfamiliar territory to Brock. He didn't know that she was THAT drunk. Her sister didn't know that Emily was THAT drunk and her sister apparently had her act together enough to help another girl get back to the dorm. But Emily blacked out right after she left.

Emily herself says that she did not realize that she was that drunk. Why would Brock have appreciated that Emily was about to pass out mid make out? I don't think that he had any idea in the world that she was going to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kid was socially awkward around women. That is not atypical for a college freshman to be inexperienced and inexpert when hitting on women. Older guys seem more mature for a reason.

Brock was not walking around attacking girls in secluded places. He wasn't lurking behind bushes waiting for the wounded antelope party stragglers to wander home. Brock wasn't going behind dumpsters to meet women.

If Brock had seemed at all threatening those women would have insisted that Emily leave that party with them. They didn't insist that she leave because Emily seemed fine and they were not afraid of Brock even if they found him to be annoying. They left. Emily opted to stay because ?...well, we don't know why she chose to stay at a party where she didn't know anyone. Where was she planning to sleep that night?

None of these things are requirements for being a rapist or sexual criminal. You apparently think that the only kind of sexual assault is the kind where a stranger comes out of nowhere and attacks a defenseless woman. California law disagrees with you. California law says that a woman can be around a man, and even kiss him, but if she is extremely intoxicated it is a crime for him to penetrate her with his penis or anything else (e.g. fingers). This case is a little more cut-and-dry since she also happened to be unconscious while he continued to hump her (and possibly do other things), but it doesn't matter. Her level of drunkenness means that anything she said or did could not have been construed as consent.

It doesn't matter what you think the law should be, it matters what the law is. If you dislike the law, go to California and get it changed. I like the law, so I'm not going to do that.

And I do not think that Brock had ever been around such a heavy drinker before. Emily had a tolerance level that was unfamiliar territory to Brock. He didn't know that she was THAT drunk. Her sister didn't know that Emily was THAT drunk and her sister apparently had her act together enough to help another girl get back to the dorm. But Emily blacked out right after she left.

Emily herself says that she did not realize that she was that drunk. Why would Brock have appreciated that Emily was about to pass out mid make out? I don't think that he had any idea in the world that she was going to do that.

Because she was incoherent and slurring as per juror statement. There is only Brock's word that she consented to anything. Even if that is true the jury apparently felt strongly that a reasonable person would have known she was not capable of consent. And that's before she became unresponsive, ffs! I'm curious why you think you understand the situation so much better than the jury. But the good news is whatever warped perspective you have or are teaching your son-the law is clear, no matter how much it ruffles your puritanical feathers. (And as an aside-your understanding of tolerance is ass backwards. Brock had been drinking but appeared to sober witnesses to be quite unaffected=high tolerance. Emily had been drinking (yes, a lot) but was entirely unresponsive for hours which is extremely unusual=low tolerance.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kid was socially awkward around women. That is not atypical for a college freshman to be inexperienced and inexpert when hitting on women. Older guys seem more mature for a reason.

Brock was not walking around attacking girls in secluded places. He wasn't lurking behind bushes waiting for the wounded antelope party stragglers to wander home. Brock wasn't going behind dumpsters to meet women.

If Brock had seemed at all threatening those women would have insisted that Emily leave that party with them. They didn't insist that she leave because Emily seemed fine and they were not afraid of Brock even if they found him to be annoying. They left. Emily opted to stay because ?...well, we don't know why she chose to stay at a party where she didn't know anyone. Where was she planning to sleep that night?

Post number 947 that attempts to blame the wome who was sexually assaulted rather than the one who committed the crime. Grow up.

PP, you can't change the minds of these people. They will continue to be sympathetic towards Brock.

This case aside, original PP of this quote, do you honestly think rapists and sexual predators are ones that only fit the mold of people who attack in secluded places, lurk in bushes, are obviously threatening? If only it were that easy. And I hope you don't spread the message to women and girls in your life that this is the case.

No but this incident occurred behind a dumpster and I do not think that it can be assumed that Brock went behind that dumpster looking for prey. I think that they went back there together, started to fool around and Emily simply passed out. No warning. Just fooling around one minute and out like a light the next.

The people who knew her and left her at that party alone said she was o.k. But she blacked out right after they left. How do you go from fine to black out drunk that fast? But Emily says she did. Obviously, she is not as obviously drunk as most people would be being black out drunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, these rape apologists are not going to be swayed from their inhuman perspectives by DCUM posters trying to talk sense into them. They seem to delight in defending the perpetrator and shaming the victim - I wouldn't bother conversing with them on the subject any further, just let this thread die so they can crawl back under their rocks.

Rape apologist. This thread must have been agonizing to read, when every other post is by an inhuman rape apologist.

When posts noting that there's a difference between sexual assault and rape are posted by enablers, posts trying to make sense of the events and how they played out are posted by anti-feminists -- it must confirm your worldview that DCUM is an evil place with thoughtless monsters.

We think of ourselves as humans who condemn Turner's actions, and who also want to understand how it happened. Not as rape apologists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, these rape apologists are not going to be swayed from their inhuman perspectives by DCUM posters trying to talk sense into them. They seem to delight in defending the perpetrator and shaming the victim - I wouldn't bother conversing with them on the subject any further, just let this thread die so they can crawl back under their rocks.

Rape apologist. This thread must have been agonizing to read, when every other post is by an inhuman rape apologist.

When posts noting that there's a difference between sexual assault and rape are posted by enablers, posts trying to make sense of the events and how they played out are posted by anti-feminists -- it must confirm your worldview that DCUM is an evil place with thoughtless monsters.

We think of ourselves as humans who condemn Turner's actions, and who also want to understand how it happened. Not as rape apologists.

Yeah, I know. How offensive of Brock take this to trial, he was supposed to settle and spare Emily that grief. Entitled jerk wanted a trial anyway.