That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[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.

If you want to understand how it happened, he decided that he wanted to have sex with her, her consent or ability to consent be damned, and he began to do so. That is what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you want to understand how it happened, he decided that he wanted to have sex with her, her consent or ability to consent be damned, and he began to do so. That is what happened.

Okay. See how we civilly discussed what happened without calling each other rape apologists?

[Anonymous]

Google "Take Blackouts Seriously" by Donal Sweeney, MD.

It explains how Emily could have appeared more sober to Brock than she really was. And it also explains how she may have acted in ways that would normally be out of character for her.

[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.

Are you single?

[Anonymous]

Emily had an En Bloc blackout (google the definition). In the moment, she appeared to be like a regular intoxicated person to Brock no more impaired than himself - conversing, dancing, kissing, making out.

But her short term memory had stopped working. She was o.k. in the moment, living on impulse. But making a phone call? No. By the time she dialed the phone, waited for it to ring and for someone to pick up or voicemail...she was having a hard time remembering what she was trying to say. Thus the incoherent message. Too many steps.

This is why she appeared to be so incoherent in her messages to friends but seemed normal drunk to Brock. En Block blackouts end with a period of sleep. And in Emily's case she passed out in the middle of fooling around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

There is no witness testimony to the defendant's version of events. There is a time-stamped voice mail that Emily left shortly before the incident in which she is not coherent. There are witnesses who say that the defendant was kissing and grabbing girls at the party. If I were a juror who had been presented with the evidence, I would be wondering if Emily was just the girl he finally met up with who was in too weakened a state to move away when he started to kiss her. It's too bad there wasn't a security camera outside that fraternity house. It possibly could have filled in the time before the Swedes arrived.

[Anonymous]

What is clear is that an underage drunk teen was found having one sided sexual actions with an unconscious woman. Could the defendant have thought he had gotten consent earlier? Might he have been so drunk that he didn't notice she was unconscious until the Swedes told him? If that is what he could have thought in his drunken state, is the act of having sex with another drunk person a crime? Previous posts have stated that it is a crime to have sex with an unconscious person. If the accused is sober that seems straightforward. But is it a crime to have sex with an unconscious person that may have given consent earlier and that the accused may mistakenly think is still conscious? What if she were drifting in and out of consciousness (this wasn't the case) but if she were, would that change things?

Should there be extra consideration that both parties were drunk and may have given unclear sexual signals to each other? The accused chose to drink even though he was underage, should we treat his drunkness as more culpable than hers because underage drinking is a crime and she was of legal age?

[Anonymous]

You people are killing me! Most people don't drunk rape or murder people! Stop victim blaming.

He fingers her full of pine needles and was caught dry humping her by Swedes noticing she was passed out.

I assure you that no women wants to be dry humped passed out. The end. Period. Not to mention other shit...

He's a total douche canoe. Party of many assholes who think this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you want to understand how it happened, he decided that he wanted to have sex with her, her consent or ability to consent be damned, and he began to do so. That is what happened.

Okay. See how we civilly discussed what happened without calling each other rape apologists?

And 22:34's reply strikes you as civil? "Rape apologist" isn't namecalling for several PPs; it's accurate labeling. There are two more PPs just on this page who seem desperate to make it that Emily would have appeared sober. They are literally searching for reasons this isn't a rape!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She wasn't planning on anything because that would make too much sense. What we have learned is that the more you drink the less responsible you become for your own actions.

Yeah, especially when you're a rapist.

[Anonymous]

So now the women's swim team at Stanford speak up about Brock's creepy behavior but they were pressured not to go forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So now the women's swim team at Stanford speak up about Brock's creepy behavior but they were pressured not to go forward.

Thanks for posting this. It's being reported here: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/brock-turner-stanford-women-s-swim-team-105204

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the women's swim team at Stanford speak up about Brock's creepy behavior but they were pressured not to go forward.

Thanks for posting this. It's being reported here: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/brock-turner-stanford-women-s-swim-team-105204

O.k. I think that this is significant new info. If women on the Stanford swim team felt threatened and creeped out by him - both during practice and at parties, it indicates a much stronger pattern of disturbing behavior leading up to this sexual assault.

I was having a hard time seeing a regular nice guy suddenly - out of the blue - snapping and purposefully sexually assaulting a woman. But if there was a pattern of increasing aggressive/creepy behavior....that would make more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the women's swim team at Stanford speak up about Brock's creepy behavior but they were pressured not to go forward.

Thanks for posting this. It's being reported here: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/brock-turner-stanford-women-s-swim-team-105204

O.k. I think that this is significant new info. If women on the Stanford swim team felt threatened and creeped out by him - both during practice and at parties, it indicates a much stronger pattern of disturbing behavior leading up to this sexual assault.

I was having a hard time seeing a regular nice guy suddenly - out of the blue - snapping and purposefully sexually assaulting a woman. But if there was a pattern of increasing aggressive/creepy behavior....that would make more sense.

I think this is what many of us were trying to get at when everyone was wringing their hands about how such a nice boy could do this: we've known men like this who can present nice in one direction, but are creepy and criminal in another. The Brocks of the world aren't nice to all of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the women's swim team at Stanford speak up about Brock's creepy behavior but they were pressured not to go forward.

Thanks for posting this. It's being reported here: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/brock-turner-stanford-women-s-swim-team-105204

O.k. I think that this is significant new info. If women on the Stanford swim team felt threatened and creeped out by him - both during practice and at parties, it indicates a much stronger pattern of disturbing behavior leading up to this sexual assault.

I was having a hard time seeing a regular nice guy suddenly - out of the blue - snapping and purposefully sexually assaulting a woman. But if there was a pattern of increasing aggressive/creepy behavior....that would make more sense.

I think this is what many of us were trying to get at when everyone was wringing their hands about how such a nice boy could do this: we've known men like this who can present nice in one direction, but are creepy and criminal in another. The Brocks of the world aren't nice to all of us.

Sorry. I was seeing young, inexperienced guy being led behind the dumpster by an older heavy drinker. I still wonder about that whole scenario and how on earth (why!!) they wound up back there. Not all women are nice to men either...but you're right there are some guys who appear one way in front of the crowd and are completely different around their prey.