That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[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.

He backed off because the other ones verbally rejected him. Daunted, he just went and found a girl who wasn't in great condition so he could take advantage of her, which he did. Please stop acting like he was some fine gentleman who called on ladies who were otherwise occupied and went about his merry way. He was a rapist who sought a victim and found one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Quite honestly we don't know how they ended up behind the dumpster. She could have led him, he could have led her. They could have stumbled there together. Who the heck knows.

[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.

There also seems to be a lot of people here who don't want to admit that getting blitzed drunk and unconscious for hours is very dangerous. No one wants to think of themselves that way.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes, that is the difference between most people and criminals- exactly what we are talking about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Quite honestly we don't know how they ended up behind the dumpster. She could have led him, he could have led her. They could have stumbled there together. Who the heck knows.

Neither of them knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He wasn't sneaking around, looking for unconscious girls to sexuslly assault. Stick with what he actually did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, fine, but when people are talking about "non-violent offenders" they're really mostly talking about status offenses and non-violent drug offenses. I would hope we could all agree that BOTH rape and scamming old ladies is worse than smoking a joint.

[Anonymous]

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.

And when a kid gets so drunk that he forgets about consent, he should go to jail. If he can't control himself, he shouldn't drink.

True. When a girl goes to a party, accidentally drinks too much, cheats on her boyfriend and ends up by a dumpster, she shouldn't drink. No college kid should drink.

You are a horrible human being, I hope you don't have daughters. It takes a lot of nerve to say that about a rape victim and you should be ashamed of yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There also seems to be a lot of people here who don't want to admit that getting blitzed drunk and unconscious for hours is very dangerous. No one wants to think of themselves that way.

agreed. no one wants to think this can happen to them or someone they know. But it can. Which is why you have to be careful. No this is not her FAULT. But blacking out a party - not a good plan in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Quite honestly we don't know how they ended up behind the dumpster. She could have led him, he could have led her. They could have stumbled there together. Who the heck knows.

Quite honestly we don't know how his finger ended up inside her body. Maybe she fell and he was just trying to reach out and help her break her fall with his hand. Who the heck knows?

[Anonymous]

Women should be taught to be safe. That conversation, however, has absolutely no place in a discussion as to the CAUSE of the rape. The blame solely resides with the rapist. That's what he is.

Anyone here trying to conflate the two or making it seem that the girl is even remotely responsible for this disgusting pig is just vile. To the core.

Yes, have the discussion about drinking and putting yourself at risk. But, do it somewhere else and not in a discussion of whether that behavior -done ALL THE TIME on a college campus- caused the rape. We don't blame murder victims for leaving doors unlocked, or visiting ATMs at 2:00 a.m. Nor should we. And we should blame rape victims.

Some of you need to re-examine yourselves and your values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Quite honestly we don't know how they ended up behind the dumpster. She could have led him, he could have led her. They could have stumbled there together. Who the heck knows.

Neither of them knows.

honestly we don't know that. he might know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Quite honestly we don't know how they ended up behind the dumpster. She could have led him, he could have led her. They could have stumbled there together. Who the heck knows.

Quite honestly we don't know how his finger ended up inside her body. Maybe she fell and he was just trying to reach out and help her break her fall with his hand. Who the heck knows?

no that we do know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Quite honestly we don't know how they ended up behind the dumpster. She could have led him, he could have led her. They could have stumbled there together. Who the heck knows.

Quite honestly we don't know how his finger ended up inside her body. Maybe she fell and he was just trying to reach out and help her break her fall with his hand. Who the heck knows?

I'm just saying that people seem to be making up stories about the events preceding the assault. I wasn't aware that any of us were actually there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, you are. We treat attempted murderers with the same harshness as actual murderers. Attempted rapists should get the same treatment as people who actually complete their rape.

Do you seriously believe that he didn't digitally penetrate her with his fingers? The witnesses weren't close enough to see, but do you seriously believe there was no penetration in this case? Any penetration is enough under the law to charge someone with rape (but you have to have a witness who can testify to it.)

He is a sex offender. If it makes you feel better to call him that, rather than a rapist, so be it.