That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don't drag a girl behind a dumpster because you're drunk.

You drag a girl behind a dumpster because you KNOW it's wrong and don't want others to see you.

I think this is definitely true. And Brock said he never had any intentions of taking this young woman back to his dorm room which is why I guess he led (?) her behind that dumpster.

If she had had a clearer memory of what had occurred that night maybe there would have been enough evidence to justify a heftier sentence. It's just so hard because there are so many gaps in her memory as to what happened that night.

How much was consensual on her part and at what point did it clearly became non-consensual. Did she walk herself behind that dumpster or did she pass out and he took her back there.

She'll never know and he'll never tell. This is such a sad and scary situation...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the California penal code:

(3)?Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261.html

It leaves things in a gray area, since it's based on exactly how drunk the person is whether they are prevented from resisting. But it's hard enough to prove a rape occurred, that I think the gray area in the law is necessary in order to ever convict. I'm not a lawyer, though, so it would be interesting if one could weigh in.

WHERE A PERSON IS PREVENTED FROM RESISTING.

WTF is "gray" about that?

Passers by could see that she was not resisting and she didn't wake up for another 3 hours.

I posted the law excerpt, and I have no idea why you are yelling at me. I was responding to a PP who was talking about all drunken sex being rape, not this particular case which is very clear cut. I went to college in California, and it *is* a gray area...intentionally, as I understand it. There is no clear standard of what is "not too drunk to be able to resist an unwanted sexual advance"...the blood alcohol level, for example, will vary greatly by person. But it's a good thing that the penal code includes this clause, even though it leaves a lot up to interpretation...because it gives a tool to prosecutors.

It is not helpful to pretend that the law isn't what it is, or that all scenarios are clearly cut-and-dry. The Brock Turner case is pretty obvious, but there are situations that are less so. And I'm saying this as a survivor of acquaintance rape, so I'm not trying to minimize the situation at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't drag a girl behind a dumpster because you're drunk.

You drag a girl behind a dumpster because you KNOW it's wrong and don't want others to see you.

I think this is definitely true. And Brock said he never had any intentions of taking this young woman back to his dorm room which is why I guess he led (?) her behind that dumpster.

If she had had a clearer memory of what had occurred that night maybe there would have been enough evidence to justify a heftier sentence. It's just so hard because there are so many gaps in her memory as to what happened that night.

How much was consensual on her part and at what point did it clearly became non-consensual. Did she walk herself behind that dumpster or did she pass out and he took her back there.

She'll never know and he'll never tell. This is such a sad and scary situation...

Actually, a jury got to hear detailed testimony from both sides and unanimously found him guilty on each of the charges presented to them. There isn't any evidence lacking to convict him of those crimes, which carry a maximum sentence of more than a decade.

In a fictional world where there was inadequate evidence of what happened, he should have been found not guilty. He wasn't, because there was enough evidence. The judge accepted that he committed the crimes he was charged with and just chose to give substantially less than the maximum and 1/12th the sentence recommended by the prosecutor.

[Anonymous]

Then there is his childhood friend's statement. She blames it on society being too "politically correct" since he could "never do something like this" because he was "always smiling"
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/brock-turners-friend-pens-letter-of-support.html?mid=facebook_nymag

Woman to woman, I'm so embarrassed for her and her stupid, uneducated comments. I hope she is never responsible for raising a son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't drag a girl behind a dumpster because you're drunk.

You drag a girl behind a dumpster because you KNOW it's wrong and don't want others to see you.

I think this is definitely true. And Brock said he never had any intentions of taking this young woman back to his dorm room which is why I guess he led (?) her behind that dumpster.

If she had had a clearer memory of what had occurred that night maybe there would have been enough evidence to justify a heftier sentence. It's just so hard because there are so many gaps in her memory as to what happened that night.

How much was consensual on her part and at what point did it clearly became non-consensual. Did she walk herself behind that dumpster or did she pass out and he took her back there.

She'll never know and he'll never tell. This is such a sad and scary situation...

Actually, a jury got to hear detailed testimony from both sides and unanimously found him guilty on each of the charges presented to them. There isn't any evidence lacking to convict him of those crimes, which carry a maximum sentence of more than a decade.

In a fictional world where there was inadequate evidence of what happened, he should have been found not guilty. He wasn't, because there was enough evidence. The judge accepted that he committed the crimes he was charged with and just chose to give substantially less than the maximum and 1/12th the sentence recommended by the prosecutor.

Yes, obviously there was enough to convict him. The jury convicted him. My point was that if she had had a better memory of the night - if she had been a better witness herself and provided more details about what happened - there may have been even more that they could have charged him with. In case you think I'm implying that she is in any way responsible for this assault I am not. But the reality is drinking to the point of blacking out has made her memory of the night very vague. Thank goodness those Swedes came along when they did because without them I don't know that this ever would have been brought to justice which is scary. She would have woken up behind that dumpster with her clothes a mess, abrasions on her body and no memory of what had happened to her. Scary!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then there is his childhood friend's statement. She blames it on society being too "politically correct" since he could "never do something like this" because he was "always smiling"
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/brock-turners-friend-pens-letter-of-support.html?mid=facebook_nymag

Woman to woman, I'm so embarrassed for her and her stupid, uneducated comments. I hope she is never responsible for raising a son.

You know as much as I hate what this guy did I do feel for his supportive friends and family members who have only seen Brock's good side and simply can not begin to comprehend the scene that the Swedes encountered on that dark night behind that dumpster. It was a scene so bad that it brought one of those men to tears. It was awful.

I'm sure it makes zero sense to the people who know and love Brock that this horrible thing happened. They never saw this side of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, obviously there was enough to convict him. The jury convicted him. My point was that if she had had a better memory of the night - if she had been a better witness herself and provided more details about what happened - there may have been even more that they could have charged him with. In case you think I'm implying that she is in any way responsible for this assault I am not. But the reality is drinking to the point of blacking out has made her memory of the night very vague. Thank goodness those Swedes came along when they did because without them I don't know that this ever would have been brought to justice which is scary. She would have woken up behind that dumpster with her clothes a mess, abrasions on her body and no memory of what had happened to her. Scary!

I didn't think you were implying anything about her. I just think part of the reason we kind of accept insane sentences like these is because we imagine there are some facts up in the air. He was charged and convicted of sex crimes that permit a 14 year sentence. The problem isn't that he wasn't charged with enough, its that the judge didn't punish him commensurate with the offense he was convicted of.

Also, a small irony of the Swedes coming along is that they're probably the reason the more serious initial charge wasn't sent to the jury; they interrupted him before he could earn himself more jail time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, obviously there was enough to convict him. The jury convicted him. My point was that if she had had a better memory of the night - if she had been a better witness herself and provided more details about what happened - there may have been even more that they could have charged him with. In case you think I'm implying that she is in any way responsible for this assault I am not. But the reality is drinking to the point of blacking out has made her memory of the night very vague. Thank goodness those Swedes came along when they did because without them I don't know that this ever would have been brought to justice which is scary. She would have woken up behind that dumpster with her clothes a mess, abrasions on her body and no memory of what had happened to her. Scary!

I didn't think you were implying anything about her. I just think part of the reason we kind of accept insane sentences like these is because we imagine there are some facts up in the air. He was charged and convicted of sex crimes that permit a 14 year sentence. The problem isn't that he wasn't charged with enough, its that the judge didn't punish him commensurate with the offense he was convicted of.

Also, a small irony of the Swedes coming along is that they're probably the reason the more serious initial charge wasn't sent to the jury; they interrupted him before he could earn himself more jail time.

I still don't think that this guy was going to rape her. If that had been his intention he would have just done it rather than spending all that time doing that other stuff to her. This wasn't foreplay on his part and he knew that she was passed out cold. He was doing what he wanted to do and making the deliberate decision to leave no evidence behind while maintaining the ability to get up and leave in a hurry if someone came along. He did not anticipate the Swedes tackling the sh*t out of him however. Good for those Swedes!!!! And without those Swedes there would be no case. That is a very sobering thought.

[Anonymous]

^and in case you're wondering, I think the additional charge could have been kidnapping if he had in fact taken her behind those dumpsters after she passed out rather than walked with her back there. But as it is, no one knows how she ended up back there.

[Anonymous]

The judge in this case was likely paid off-same with tat Dupont guy who raped his 3 yr old and 6 month old=he served no time at all, These judges should loose their jobs and be dis barred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge in this case was likely paid off-same with tat Dupont guy who raped his 3 yr old and 6 month old=he served no time at all, These judges should loose their jobs and be dis barred.

The judge followed the recommendation of the probation officer. The judge seems to have a history of following the recommendations of the probation officer, which tend to be very low, rather than prosecutor, which tend to be very high. IOW, the judge was just doing his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there is his childhood friend's statement. She blames it on society being too "politically correct" since he could "never do something like this" because he was "always smiling"
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/brock-turners-friend-pens-letter-of-support.html?mid=facebook_nymag

Woman to woman, I'm so embarrassed for her and her stupid, uneducated comments. I hope she is never responsible for raising a son.

You know as much as I hate what this guy did I do feel for his supportive friends and family members who have only seen Brock's good side and simply can not begin to comprehend the scene that the Swedes encountered on that dark night behind that dumpster. It was a scene so bad that it brought one of those men to tears. It was awful.

I'm sure it makes zero sense to the people who know and love Brock that this horrible thing happened. They never saw this side of him.

I'm sure it's very difficult to come to terms with a loved one doing something so horrific but the father would have done well to have said nothing.

His mother must feel such shame.

[Anonymous]

His father stated that when he came home for Christmas break, he was distraught because he was having trouble adjusting socially. If he thought college was tough, wonder how he'll do in jail.

He's got suicide watch written all over him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be very confusing for an 18 or 19 year old boy when he is with a girl and they both been drinking heavily in regards to where the line is...especially if he has no explicit conversations with anyone about the exact parameters of what constitutes consent.

In many cases, you are asking a boy whose judgment is impaired to make judgment calls on the amount of impairment of the girl, something that can be very hard for him to do. A boy can be drunk and not realize the girl is as drunk or drunker than he is.

I would expect a kid who gets into Stanford to realize that he should not finger a woman who is unconscious behind a dumpster.

But he was a DRUNK kid who got into Stanford. Brains and rational thought go out the window when you're that drunk. Women can't trust someone like that to care what they're doing.

True fact: I drank a lot of alcohol in college and did not finger any unconscious women behind a dumpster.

True fact: Not everyone has the same intelligence level, emotional maturity, social experience, impulse control, ability to handle alcohol,etc.

How about when in doubt, don't have sex with the person. No mental gymnastics or genius needed. Can't figure it out? THEN JUST STOP.

Take a good, hard look at the mugshots of convicted rapists and child molestors who've been sent to prison. Then tell us if you think they give a flying f..... about not having sex with their victims. I'm far more interested in doing all that's humanly possible to prevent a criminal act BEFORE the crime is committed.

This statement and the posts about teaching our kids how to try to be responsible and safe to the degree possible is NOT blaming the victim. It's about teaching our loved ones how to minimize the chances of being raped, hurt, robbed, murdered, or violated by other crimes. It's about doing our best to be aware of surroundings and not go off with strangers because people like Joran van der Sloot, Jesse Matthew, and others with bad intentions can't be trusted. None of us can ever be completely safe, but let's be reasonably cautious. Because we live in a big city, several of us took a safety class from a neighborhood policeman. Obviously, we can still fall victim to a crime, but what he taught us about even the way to walk to our cars was eye-opening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then there is his childhood friend's statement. She blames it on society being too "politically correct" since he could "never do something like this" because he was "always smiling"
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/brock-turners-friend-pens-letter-of-support.html?mid=facebook_nymag

Woman to woman, I'm so embarrassed for her and her stupid, uneducated comments. I hope she is never responsible for raising a son.

Or a daughter, for that matter!

This whole case makes my stomach turn.