That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

We talk all the time about America's incarceration problem with too many people in prison, but then get angry at short sentences. We can't make up our minds what we want, fewer people in prison or harsh punishment.

Most of the "talk all the time about America's incarceration problem," since you don't seem to be listening, is with regard to NONVIOLENT offenders, like those who possess or sell dime bags or paraphernalia. I think everyone can agree, except this asshole and his dad and the judge, that we are OK with violent felons receiving sentences longer than six months.

[Anonymous]

I think there's a lot of people sympathizing with Brock, because they've behaved similarly in their past. And to call him a rapist is to call yourself a rapist, and no one wants to think of themselves as a rapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would agree with the "plea for leniency" if he had apologized to the victim and showed any remorse.

He did apologize. We just don't like his apology.

He did?

Where is his apology?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there's a lot of people sympathizing with Brock, because they've behaved similarly in their past. And to call him a rapist is to call yourself a rapist, and no one wants to think of themselves as a rapist.

And some people seem to believe that if given the opportunity every young man in the country would behave like Brock did. NOT the case.

They also seem to think that a woman with a drink in her hand automatically ceases to be responsible for her own behavior. Also - NOT the case. She is responsible for herself.

Men and women can drink and hook up, consent to have sex without it ever becoming rape. If Emily Doe had not passed out she might have consented to sex with Brock and that would have been her right to choose to do so. BUT she did pass out and instead of backing off Brock kept engaging with her passed out body. NOT o.k. That is never o.k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Umm, no. That is a FACT. And facts are important.

You are distinguishing between an attempted rape and a rape, and saying "Well, it wasn't that bad. He isn't really a rapist."

It wasn't for lack of trying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when you are black out drunk you can still be conscious, right? And perhaps even "consenting"? And maybe even if a guy was sheltered and hadn't had much to drink before he might not handle alcohol well and be able to distinguish that the girl is *that* drunk.

It was a drinking party and people drink and hook up at drinking parties. This guy appeared to have been drinking and trying to hook up. Was he somehow more responsible than the women at the drinking at the party? I don't know that he was. Was he looking for a woman that was interested and willing to hook up with him? Yeah, I think that he was...

It is not really known exactly what happened between these two before the assault took place. But at some point it was consensual, even if they were both very drunk. Obviously, when the young woman ceased being aware of what was happening and could no longer stand and was literally falling down drunk....things changed and this guy knew damned well that she was no longer capable of consenting but kept going anyway. Now he's in jail.

He ran when those witnesses walked up on him because he knew he was wrong. I doubt he was really even that drunk.

I doubt that this was his first rape. Rapists usually experiment behavior before getting to attempted rape behind a dumpster. I wonder how many other young women he did this to in high school and college. He's a huge jock and a frat boy. I wonder how much rape goes on at his fraternity house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy. Shit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenduca/status/739505679635992577

Actually, the father is correct.

Both of them were drunk. Both. She was so drunk, she had no idea of anything, and didn't come-to until she was in the hospital, with no recollection. She was black-out drunk. While no one deserves to be raped, she placed herself in a very dangerous state. I do want to know where her friends were, where her sister was, where ANY responsible person was - probably drunk themselves. It would have been a cold day in hell, in college, when I would have left one of my friends (or a perfect stranger) alone, that dangerously drunk.

His son, in his drunken state, assaulted this girl. Very, very wrong. He IS taking responsibility for his actions. What disturbs me, is not only is she NOT taking responsibility for her own stupidity, but she has all the pity in the world. The net result of that is the message that people can get as stupid-drunk as they want and expect NO harm to come of them. That is NOT a message I have EVER given my children, and ever will.

This statement from the victim? “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she read in court from her victim impact statement,

What kind of worth does one have when one is so drunk, one can't even function? What kind of confidence? What kind of intimacy?

And this? "I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me."

She completely brushes aside her responsibility in becoming a 'wounded antelope'.


The judge did good in this case.

Probably in the minority on this forum but I completely agree with you. And for her to equate her experience with that if someone who is raped by a stranger (i.e. Pulled off the sidewalk without warning and raped with life threatened) trivializes the latter's assault. These crimes are absolutely different.

Rape is rape. I wasn't pulled off a street by a random but I was drugged and carried unconscious up to his dorm room. You think my experience in the aftermath of my rape is different bc I was drinking that night or bc I left my beer unattended with someone I thought was a friend? The only thing that makes my experience different than the violent stranger rape you describe, is that people like you would blame me for thinking I should be able to go out and have a beer w/o getting raped. Actually, people like you would probably also blame a victim of stranger rape for their clothing or the hour they were walking around at night. This woman was so drunk that she passed out unconscious. he was rejected by other more coherent women's that night - he chose her bc she couldn't fight back. Let me repeat, rape is rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Umm, no. That is a FACT. And facts are important.

You are distinguishing between an attempted rape and a rape, and saying "Well, it wasn't that bad. He isn't really a rapist."

It wasn't for lack of trying.

He did not actually rape her which is why he was not convicted of rape. We don't call him a "rapist" any more than we would call the victim of an attempted murder a "murder victim".

I am not "apologizing" for this guy AT ALL. But if you start "convicting" him of things that he did not actually do you make what he DID do sound made up too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy. Shit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenduca/status/739505679635992577

Actually, the father is correct.

Both of them were drunk. Both. She was so drunk, she had no idea of anything, and didn't come-to until she was in the hospital, with no recollection. She was black-out drunk. While no one deserves to be raped, she placed herself in a very dangerous state. I do want to know where her friends were, where her sister was, where ANY responsible person was - probably drunk themselves. It would have been a cold day in hell, in college, when I would have left one of my friends (or a perfect stranger) alone, that dangerously drunk.

His son, in his drunken state, assaulted this girl. Very, very wrong. He IS taking responsibility for his actions. What disturbs me, is not only is she NOT taking responsibility for her own stupidity, but she has all the pity in the world. The net result of that is the message that people can get as stupid-drunk as they want and expect NO harm to come of them. That is NOT a message I have EVER given my children, and ever will.

This statement from the victim? “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she read in court from her victim impact statement,

What kind of worth does one have when one is so drunk, one can't even function? What kind of confidence? What kind of intimacy?

And this? "I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me."

She completely brushes aside her responsibility in becoming a 'wounded antelope'.


The judge did good in this case.

Probably in the minority on this forum but I completely agree with you. And for her to equate her experience with that if someone who is raped by a stranger (i.e. Pulled off the sidewalk without warning and raped with life threatened) trivializes the latter's assault. These crimes are absolutely different.

Rape is rape. I wasn't pulled off a street by a random but I was drugged and carried unconscious up to his dorm room. You think my experience in the aftermath of my rape is different bc I was drinking that night or bc I left my beer unattended with someone I thought was a friend? The only thing that makes my experience different than the violent stranger rape you describe, is that people like you would blame me for thinking I should be able to go out and have a beer w/o getting raped. Actually, people like you would probably also blame a victim of stranger rape for their clothing or the hour they were walking around at night. This woman was so drunk that she passed out unconscious. he was rejected by other more coherent women's that night - he chose her bc she couldn't fight back. Let me repeat, rape is rape.

The key point is that those other women rejected him and he backed off. He was not trying to force himself on anyone. And Emily Doe was not exactly a babe in the woods herself. She willingly left with this guy and she probably would have willingly engaged in sexual acts with him if she had not passed out. But she did pass out and he kept going...an obvious sexual assault.

This was going to be a regrettable night for Emily Doe whether she met up with this guy or not. If he had just backed off and left her alone she STILL would have been passed out behind a dumpster like a skid row bum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This was going to be a regrettable night for Emily Doe whether she met up with this guy or not. If he had just backed off and left her alone she STILL would have been passed out behind a dumpster like a skid row bum.

And you know this how? Did she tell you she was planning to pass out behind a dumpster? Do you feel good about yourself for disparaging another human being?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy. Shit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenduca/status/739505679635992577

Actually, the father is correct.

Both of them were drunk. Both. She was so drunk, she had no idea of anything, and didn't come-to until she was in the hospital, with no recollection. She was black-out drunk. While no one deserves to be raped, she placed herself in a very dangerous state. I do want to know where her friends were, where her sister was, where ANY responsible person was - probably drunk themselves. It would have been a cold day in hell, in college, when I would have left one of my friends (or a perfect stranger) alone, that dangerously drunk.

His son, in his drunken state, assaulted this girl. Very, very wrong. He IS taking responsibility for his actions. What disturbs me, is not only is she NOT taking responsibility for her own stupidity, but she has all the pity in the world. The net result of that is the message that people can get as stupid-drunk as they want and expect NO harm to come of them. That is NOT a message I have EVER given my children, and ever will.

This statement from the victim? “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she read in court from her victim impact statement,

What kind of worth does one have when one is so drunk, one can't even function? What kind of confidence? What kind of intimacy?

And this? "I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me."

She completely brushes aside her responsibility in becoming a 'wounded antelope'.


The judge did good in this case.

Probably in the minority on this forum but I completely agree with you. And for her to equate her experience with that if someone who is raped by a stranger (i.e. Pulled off the sidewalk without warning and raped with life threatened) trivializes the latter's assault. These crimes are absolutely different.

Rape is rape. I wasn't pulled off a street by a random but I was drugged and carried unconscious up to his dorm room. You think my experience in the aftermath of my rape is different bc I was drinking that night or bc I left my beer unattended with someone I thought was a friend? The only thing that makes my experience different than the violent stranger rape you describe, is that people like you would blame me for thinking I should be able to go out and have a beer w/o getting raped. Actually, people like you would probably also blame a victim of stranger rape for their clothing or the hour they were walking around at night. This woman was so drunk that she passed out unconscious. he was rejected by other more coherent women's that night - he chose her bc she couldn't fight back. Let me repeat, rape is rape.

The key point is that those other women rejected him and he backed off. He was not trying to force himself on anyone. And Emily Doe was not exactly a babe in the woods herself. She willingly left with this guy and she probably would have willingly engaged in sexual acts with him if she had not passed out. But she did pass out and he kept going...an obvious sexual assault.

This was going to be a regrettable night for Emily Doe whether she met up with this guy or not. If he had just backed off and left her alone she STILL would have been passed out behind a dumpster like a skid row bum.

What the fucking fuck, psychic mcpsychoston?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy. Shit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenduca/status/739505679635992577

Actually, the father is correct.

Both of them were drunk. Both. She was so drunk, she had no idea of anything, and didn't come-to until she was in the hospital, with no recollection. She was black-out drunk. While no one deserves to be raped, she placed herself in a very dangerous state. I do want to know where her friends were, where her sister was, where ANY responsible person was - probably drunk themselves. It would have been a cold day in hell, in college, when I would have left one of my friends (or a perfect stranger) alone, that dangerously drunk.

His son, in his drunken state, assaulted this girl. Very, very wrong. He IS taking responsibility for his actions. What disturbs me, is not only is she NOT taking responsibility for her own stupidity, but she has all the pity in the world. The net result of that is the message that people can get as stupid-drunk as they want and expect NO harm to come of them. That is NOT a message I have EVER given my children, and ever will.

This statement from the victim? “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she read in court from her victim impact statement,

What kind of worth does one have when one is so drunk, one can't even function? What kind of confidence? What kind of intimacy?

And this? "I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me."

She completely brushes aside her responsibility in becoming a 'wounded antelope'.


The judge did good in this case.

I'm so glad I've only see a few ignorant messages like yours in response to this verdict and article.

It is not illegal to get black-out drunk. This is what the victim did.

It is illegal to stand on a public sidewalk/park/area/etc. drinking alcohol. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to drink and then drive. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to be drunk in public, being a nuisance. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to sexually assault another person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to digitally penetrate another person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to rub your erect penis on an unconscious person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to rape another person. This is what Brock did.

Maybe by breaking it down for you, you'll be able to understand that what she did was not illegal. What he did, was illegal.

She did own up to the fact that it was not smart to drink that much. But again, not illegal. He's never owned up to the fact that what he did was illegal. Even now, after being convicted, he nor his father/family believe what he did was illegal. He did what he did because he drank is their mentality. The alcohol is the perpetrator and Brock and his victim are the real victims!

Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't of been so drunk is wrong.
Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't been running along in the dark is wrong.
Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if her skirt wasn't so short is wrong.

I refuse to teach my daughter that doing any of the above could lead to her being raped. Why? Because I expect you to teach your son that rape/sexual assault is illegal. End of story.

[Anonymous]

So some of you are saying that a crime of opportunity does not rise to the same level as a crime that includes a threat of violence. I get that they are not the same thing. By definition these criminal acts are different from one another. But does that make one more forgiveable than another?

It almost seems to me that those who commit crimes of opportunity are even worse. Sneakier. Preying on the weak. Someone who tricks little old ladies into paying them thousands for a roof repair that will never happen is perhaps just a more clever criminal than a guy who flashes a gun and takes her purse with $100 in it.

Preying on the weak and vulnerable is a special kind of evil. Cowardly, sneaky.

[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.

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.

There is nothing at all wrong with being sober and aware. What is wrong is coming on a thread where people are condemning a rapist and instead explaining that young women should be sober and aware. That decision on your part to choose to focus on those particular facts in this particular context is what is problematic, because, even if true, you're trivializing the real issue and inappropriately shifting the responsibility to the victim.

Suppose you're walking down the street and you see a toddler playing close to the curb. Suddenly a drunk driver swerves off the road and runs over the toddler killing him. The mother screams in pain. You helpfully wander over and say "Hey, so, this is a great reminder that you should keep toddlers from standing too close to the curb." What you said is 100% true, and you're still an asshole. This is similar.

No, it isn't. Sharing an opinion in a situation like that would be beyond cruel. On this DCUM forum, the victim isn't participating. We're having a discussion about a crime, a terrible situation. Talking about ways women can protect themselves is hardly the same as directly speaking to someone who has just experienced a tragedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So some of you are saying that a crime of opportunity does not rise to the same level as a crime that includes a threat of violence. I get that they are not the same thing. By definition these criminal acts are different from one another. But does that make one more forgiveable than another?

It almost seems to me that those who commit crimes of opportunity are even worse. Sneakier. Preying on the weak. Someone who tricks little old ladies into paying them thousands for a roof repair that will never happen is perhaps just a more clever criminal than a guy who flashes a gun and takes her purse with $100 in it.

Preying on the weak and vulnerable is a special kind of evil. Cowardly, sneaky.

Completely agree with this.