That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He *did* rape her.

I guess I was going by the old fashioned P in V definition of rape. I don't think that occurred here because he did not want to leave his DNA on the victim. Some posters think that if the Swedes hadn't have come along when they did that he would have progressed to P in V penetration thus upping the severity of his crime and probably the amount of time he received from the judge.

What he did to this young woman was awful but it could have been even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Okay, so should he be asking her for permission for every single thing he does? Is he supposed to ask for permission to kiss her first? At each stage of the progression does he need to stop and ask her if what he's doing is Ok? What about when she is progressing things in her own physical manner? What is the conversation then? Or isn't there one?

Again, how many drinks constitute her ability to give consent? Does she specifically have to say the word yes, or it's ok?

For the parents of kids who are of the age where this is a pertinent discussion to have, what are the conversations you're having with your children to have with their potential parents regarding consent?

Are you noticing, pp, that the more you take this conversation into rational, intelligent thinking, the more emotional and mean the comments get?

This is because you are 100% correct and these folk know it. They are trying to ignore facts, using phrases like "accidentally drunk" and not wanting to acknowledge that he was drunk and impaired as well. The CA law states "and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused. ". When someone is as drunk as this boy's lab test indicated, there is a question as to whether or not this criteria was met. It would take a mighty strong judge to face the political fallout had he/she ruled otherwise. That is why, though, the boy got a light sentence, and rightfully so. Personally, were I the judge, I would have ruled otherwise.

Here's the difference between her drunk and his drunk:

She was unconscious

He was conscious

Ergo, the onus was on him to determine SHE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO BE FINGERED BEHIND A DUMPSTER

You don't know when she went from consciousness to unconsciousness, and you don't know, therefore, if she gave consent or not. When she WAS conscious, she was physically engaged with him.

She doesn't remember what happened. You are taking the word of a convicted rapist. He has an interest is saying she was engaged and consented.

He is patently lying about that. He didn't say that when he was first arrested. He ran away from the scene. This only came up once he had a defense lawyer on board to help him create a defensible story.

Other people saw them (allegedly together) at the party -- no one was willing to testify for the prosecutor or the defense.

Um that is probably because what happened at the party is irrelevant to what later happened behind the dumpster, to which they were NOT witnesses. If I see you driving your car just fine at 8 pm I can't testify you weren't impaired when you drive drunk and hit someone at 12 am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He *did* rape her.

I guess I was going by the old fashioned P in V definition of rape. I don't think that occurred here because he did not want to leave his DNA on the victim. Some posters think that if the Swedes hadn't have come along when they did that he would have progressed to P in V penetration thus upping the severity of his crime and probably the amount of time he received from the judge.

What he did to this young woman was awful but it could have been even worse.

And I just looked at what he was actually convicted of: 6 charges, 3 of them felony. He was convicted of Assault with intent to rape. So it does not sound as though he was convicted of rape. He was convicted of felony sexual assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Okay, so should he be asking her for permission for every single thing he does? Is he supposed to ask for permission to kiss her first? At each stage of the progression does he need to stop and ask her if what he's doing is Ok? What about when she is progressing things in her own physical manner? What is the conversation then? Or isn't there one?

Again, how many drinks constitute her ability to give consent? Does she specifically have to say the word yes, or it's ok?

For the parents of kids who are of the age where this is a pertinent discussion to have, what are the conversations you're having with your children to have with their potential parents regarding consent?

Are you noticing, pp, that the more you take this conversation into rational, intelligent thinking, the more emotional and mean the comments get?

This is because you are 100% correct and these folk know it. They are trying to ignore facts, using phrases like "accidentally drunk" and not wanting to acknowledge that he was drunk and impaired as well. The CA law states "and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused. ". When someone is as drunk as this boy's lab test indicated, there is a question as to whether or not this criteria was met. It would take a mighty strong judge to face the political fallout had he/she ruled otherwise. That is why, though, the boy got a light sentence, and rightfully so. Personally, were I the judge, I would have ruled otherwise.

Here's the difference between her drunk and his drunk:

She was unconscious

He was conscious

Ergo, the onus was on him to determine SHE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO BE FINGERED BEHIND A DUMPSTER

You don't know when she went from consciousness to unconsciousness, and you don't know, therefore, if she gave consent or not. When she WAS conscious, she was physically engaged with him.

She doesn't remember what happened. You are taking the word of a convicted rapist. He has an interest is saying she was engaged and consented.

He is patently lying about that. He didn't say that when he was first arrested. He ran away from the scene. This only came up once he had a defense lawyer on board to help him create a defensible story.

Other people saw them (allegedly together) at the party -- no one was willing to testify for the prosecutor or the defense.

Until someone is under oath, it's gossip, rumors and hearsay. It's why hearsay rules exist for evidence. All you have is what he testified to. She didn't remember. You are taking the word of a rapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Okay, so should he be asking her for permission for every single thing he does? Is he supposed to ask for permission to kiss her first? At each stage of the progression does he need to stop and ask her if what he's doing is Ok? What about when she is progressing things in her own physical manner? What is the conversation then? Or isn't there one?

Again, how many drinks constitute her ability to give consent? Does she specifically have to say the word yes, or it's ok?

For the parents of kids who are of the age where this is a pertinent discussion to have, what are the conversations you're having with your children to have with their potential parents regarding consent?

Are you noticing, pp, that the more you take this conversation into rational, intelligent thinking, the more emotional and mean the comments get?

This is because you are 100% correct and these folk know it. They are trying to ignore facts, using phrases like "accidentally drunk" and not wanting to acknowledge that he was drunk and impaired as well. The CA law states "and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused. ". When someone is as drunk as this boy's lab test indicated, there is a question as to whether or not this criteria was met. It would take a mighty strong judge to face the political fallout had he/she ruled otherwise. That is why, though, the boy got a light sentence, and rightfully so. Personally, were I the judge, I would have ruled otherwise.

Here's the difference between her drunk and his drunk:

She was unconscious

He was conscious

Ergo, the onus was on him to determine SHE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO BE FINGERED BEHIND A DUMPSTER

You don't know when she went from consciousness to unconsciousness, and you don't know, therefore, if she gave consent or not. When she WAS conscious, she was physically engaged with him.

She doesn't remember what happened. You are taking the word of a convicted rapist. He has an interest is saying she was engaged and consented.

He is patently lying about that. He didn't say that when he was first arrested. He ran away from the scene. This only came up once he had a defense lawyer on board to help him create a defensible story.

Other people saw them (allegedly together) at the party -- no one was willing to testify for the prosecutor or the defense.

Um that is probably because what happened at the party is irrelevant to what later happened behind the dumpster, to which they were NOT witnesses. If I see you driving your car just fine at 8 pm I can't testify you weren't impaired when you drive drunk and hit someone at 12 am.

If these two were seen making out at a party and she was seen willingly leaving with him it would simply mean that at some point she was engaging in consensual sexual activity with this guy.

If she had later woke up disheveled and alone behind a dumpster but with no memory of how she wound up there and she later found out from friends that she had been making out with a guy and had left the party with him.... What would she assume had happened to herself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He *did* rape her.

I guess I was going by the old fashioned P in V definition of rape. I don't think that occurred here because he did not want to leave his DNA on the victim. Some posters think that if the Swedes hadn't have come along when they did that he would have progressed to P in V penetration thus upping the severity of his crime and probably the amount of time he received from the judge.

What he did to this young woman was awful but it could have been even worse.

And I just looked at what he was actually convicted of: 6 charges, 3 of them felony. He was convicted of Assault with intent to rape. So it does not sound as though he was convicted of rape. He was convicted of felony sexual assault.

That is some really desperate hair splitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have never actually been drunk, but sometimes I wonder if a drunk male will always have the good sense to do this, or if there will be a lot of miscommunication. Again, I have never been drunk, but I have observed other people being drunk, and I wonder how much control they really have over themselves and how considerate they are capable of being. As I get older and I see more and more stories like this I feel thankful for my prudish ways.

Well, let's see. The people who have killed people while drunk driving aren't given leniency because they're so drunk they didn't know what they were doing. Because they were too drunk, right. I mean, I don't think this guy was planning to go out and rape someone just like I don't think most drunk drivers are planning to go out and kill innocent people with a car. But it doesn't matter. You do the crime, you pay the price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have never actually been drunk, but sometimes I wonder if a drunk male will always have the good sense to do this, or if there will be a lot of miscommunication. Again, I have never been drunk, but I have observed other people being drunk, and I wonder how much control they really have over themselves and how considerate they are capable of being. As I get older and I see more and more stories like this I feel thankful for my prudish ways.

Well, let's see. The people who have killed people while drunk driving aren't given leniency because they're so drunk they didn't know what they were doing. Because they were too drunk, right. I mean, I don't think this guy was planning to go out and rape someone just like I don't think most drunk drivers are planning to go out and kill innocent people with a car. But it doesn't matter. You do the crime, you pay the price.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have never actually been drunk, but sometimes I wonder if a drunk male will always have the good sense to do this, or if there will be a lot of miscommunication. Again, I have never been drunk, but I have observed other people being drunk, and I wonder how much control they really have over themselves and how considerate they are capable of being. As I get older and I see more and more stories like this I feel thankful for my prudish ways.

Well, let's see. The people who have killed people while drunk driving aren't given leniency because they're so drunk they didn't know what they were doing. Because they were too drunk, right. I mean, I don't think this guy was planning to go out and rape someone just like I don't think most drunk drivers are planning to go out and kill innocent people with a car. But it doesn't matter. You do the crime, you pay the price.

Your example further supports that alcohol can't be ignored as a contributor to criminal acts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have never actually been drunk, but sometimes I wonder if a drunk male will always have the good sense to do this, or if there will be a lot of miscommunication. Again, I have never been drunk, but I have observed other people being drunk, and I wonder how much control they really have over themselves and how considerate they are capable of being. As I get older and I see more and more stories like this I feel thankful for my prudish ways.

Well, let's see. The people who have killed people while drunk driving aren't given leniency because they're so drunk they didn't know what they were doing. Because they were too drunk, right. I mean, I don't think this guy was planning to go out and rape someone just like I don't think most drunk drivers are planning to go out and kill innocent people with a car. But it doesn't matter. You do the crime, you pay the price.

Sadly I think there was a long time where they didn't consider it murder though - they considered it manslaughter. So even with drunk driving, there has had to be a paradigm shift in people's thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have never actually been drunk, but sometimes I wonder if a drunk male will always have the good sense to do this, or if there will be a lot of miscommunication. Again, I have never been drunk, but I have observed other people being drunk, and I wonder how much control they really have over themselves and how considerate they are capable of being. As I get older and I see more and more stories like this I feel thankful for my prudish ways.

Well, let's see. The people who have killed people while drunk driving aren't given leniency because they're so drunk they didn't know what they were doing. Because they were too drunk, right. I mean, I don't think this guy was planning to go out and rape someone just like I don't think most drunk drivers are planning to go out and kill innocent people with a car. But it doesn't matter. You do the crime, you pay the price.

Sadly I think there was a long time where they didn't consider it murder though - they considered it manslaughter. So even with drunk driving, there has had to be a paradigm shift in people's thinking.

It isn't murder when you kill someone drunk driving because a charge of murder has to be justified by proving premeditation with intent to kill. It's a legal distinction. Manslaughter is when your actions cause a death; murder is when you plan and premeditate to kill someone. Words mean things.

[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.

Let's hope they never see this side of him... since he's only going to jail for 6 months, and since he doesn't think he actually did anything wrong, he could easily get out and do this all over again.

Because, you know, 'hook up culture' and 'poor little drunk boys.'

Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True fact; alcohol doesn't spontaneously turn normal healthy people into rapists

+1

As a young girl, I got drunk plenty of times (with groups of people who were also drunk). No man during these times ever tried to rape me. The time I was sexually violated (I won't call it rape because I don't consider it rape, really) was when I was sleeping in bed with my sober then-boyfriend and he started having sex with me - while I was still sleeping.

Alcohol does not a rapist make.

Based on your experiences, what advice will you give your kids about alcohol, sexual violations, and rape?

Not PP but my discussions with my kids about alcohol will be completely separate from my discussions with them about sexual violations and rape because they are two different animals.

If only life's experiences could be so neatly compartmentalized.

You can roll your eyes into the back of your head if you want. It doesn't change the fact that far too many high school and college-aged students, as well as young adults, are engaging in highly risky behavior. Getting extremely drunk and counting on others to look out for you is incredibly unsafe. The PP related her experiences of being drunk and being with other people who were drunk but fortunately no one took advantage of her. What's wrong with being sober and aware? Too many people commenting here want to be free to do whatever they want and hope that others will be responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Okay, so should he be asking her for permission for every single thing he does? Is he supposed to ask for permission to kiss her first? At each stage of the progression does he need to stop and ask her if what he's doing is Ok? What about when she is progressing things in her own physical manner? What is the conversation then? Or isn't there one?

Again, how many drinks constitute her ability to give consent? Does she specifically have to say the word yes, or it's ok?

For the parents of kids who are of the age where this is a pertinent discussion to have, what are the conversations you're having with your children to have with their potential parents regarding consent?

Are you noticing, pp, that the more you take this conversation into rational, intelligent thinking, the more emotional and mean the comments get?

This is because you are 100% correct and these folk know it. They are trying to ignore facts, using phrases like "accidentally drunk" and not wanting to acknowledge that he was drunk and impaired as well. The CA law states "and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused. ". When someone is as drunk as this boy's lab test indicated, there is a question as to whether or not this criteria was met. It would take a mighty strong judge to face the political fallout had he/she ruled otherwise. That is why, though, the boy got a light sentence, and rightfully so. Personally, were I the judge, I would have ruled otherwise.

Here's the difference between her drunk and his drunk:

She was unconscious

He was conscious

Ergo, the onus was on him to determine SHE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO BE FINGERED BEHIND A DUMPSTER

You don't know when she went from consciousness to unconsciousness, and you don't know, therefore, if she gave consent or not. When she WAS conscious, she was physically engaged with him.

She doesn't remember what happened. You are taking the word of a convicted rapist. He has an interest is saying she was engaged and consented.

He is patently lying about that. He didn't say that when he was first arrested. He ran away from the scene. This only came up once he had a defense lawyer on board to help him create a defensible story.

Other people saw them (allegedly together) at the party -- no one was willing to testify for the prosecutor or the defense.

Until someone is under oath, it's gossip, rumors and hearsay. It's why hearsay rules exist for evidence. All you have is what he testified to. She didn't remember. You are taking the word of a rapist.

O.k....the guy was not convicted of rape. He was convicted of sexual assault with the intent to rape. Calling him a "rapist" would be the same thing as calling an attempted murderer a murderer. Yeah, he may have intended to do worse damage than he did but he didn't actually do it. I think it's important to stick to the facts and not "convict" him of things that he wasn't actually convicted of. What he did was terrible enough - the facts speak for themselves. There is no indication that the victim did not go willingly with this guy - he did not kidnap her, he did not force her to leave with him. There is an indication that this guy had come on to multiple women at this party, the victim's sister included - he did not try to drag them out of the party, he took their "no's" for an answer and tried to find a woman that was interested. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that he also came on to the victim and the victim left the party with him willingly to fool around with him.

At some point, this victim passed out and this young man continued to sexually engage with her passed out body - an obvious, cut and dry sexual assault. The Swedes came along and saw him doing it, tackled him and called the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have never actually been drunk, but sometimes I wonder if a drunk male will always have the good sense to do this, or if there will be a lot of miscommunication. Again, I have never been drunk, but I have observed other people being drunk, and I wonder how much control they really have over themselves and how considerate they are capable of being. As I get older and I see more and more stories like this I feel thankful for my prudish ways.

Well, let's see. The people who have killed people while drunk driving aren't given leniency because they're so drunk they didn't know what they were doing. Because they were too drunk, right. I mean, I don't think this guy was planning to go out and rape someone just like I don't think most drunk drivers are planning to go out and kill innocent people with a car. But it doesn't matter. You do the crime, you pay the price.

Sadly I think there was a long time where they didn't consider it murder though - they considered it manslaughter. So even with drunk driving, there has had to be a paradigm shift in people's thinking.

It isn't murder when you kill someone drunk driving because a charge of murder has to be justified by proving premeditation with intent to kill. It's a legal distinction. Manslaughter is when your actions cause a death; murder is when you plan and premeditate to kill someone. Words mean things.

Words aside - I know there has been a shift historically in how people feel about and prosecute drunk drivers. Courtesy of MADD.