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.

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.

I've taught my kids that when you're drunk out of your mind and unconscious or high on drugs, you're putting yourself in a very vulnerable position because there are bad people in this world who will take advantage of you if they can. Wish that weren't true, but it is.

NP/ guy here. PP, I don't believe anyone denies that getting drunk off your ass is a dumb thing to do. But her dumb decisions were not criminal, and they does not absolve the criminal actions of Mr. Turner.

I do agree with that there are various levels of rape. No, he did not snatch the victim of the street and force himself on her. But the end result is the same.

Can you explain, precisely, what the "various levels" of rape are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

[Anonymous]

I teach my kids that pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk... BUT drivers suck, and they may not yield to a crosswalk.... or they may not notice the crosswalk... or maybe they can't see you.... or maybe they think they are more important...

so look both ways, look for turning cars, look for people going at high rate of speed.... cross with caution

If you get hit... it is NOT your fault and you can sue for money but it was not worth the risk of just walking across the crosswalk because you have the right of way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter gets blackout drunk at a party, I'm going to talk to her about making better decisions in the future.

If my daughter gets blackout drunk at a party and gets raped, I'm going to tell her it's not her fault and place 100% blame on the rapist.

I think it's how we'd all want our daughters treated, so why not support this young woman the same way.

There are two different messages/lessons there and they are both correct.

- Don't rape
- Make good decisions

We don't need to pick one or the other. Both are good for our children to learn.

Along with help others (Swedes).

[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: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.

Regretting a drunk night is way, way, WAY different than being raped.

She could have been the Virgin Mary and people like you would still find a way to rationalize that it was her fault.

Do you not get that having a drunk night where you remember nothing is allowing other people to take advantage of you if they want? What he did isn't fair, right, or legal. He's a criminal. Why put your trust in a (potential) criminal?

Do you not get that college kids make mistakes and do stupid things? Why do you focus so much on her behavior, rather than the behavior of her rapist? Why is the most important issue to you what she did to deserve what happened to her? Why spend all of your time raking a woman over the coals for being stupid, as if that were the same thing as the man's behavior for being a rapist?

Women don't just get raped when they are drunk. Women get raped when they are sober, too. Rape is the problem, not the behavior of women.

You're saying were focusing on her rather than him . He's going to jail, is a convicted felon on the sex offender registry. He's being punished. Why shouldn't we also talk about her?

There you go again, equating her behavior to his. The last time I checked getting drunk isn't illegal. Rape is.

She is the victim. She didn't volunteer for this. She now has PTSD and a life-time of emotional pain. She doesn't deserve to be raked over the coals because you don't approve her behavior. She didn't do anything illegal, unlike Brock.

I'm pretty sure that drunken stumble bumming down public streets is illegal. And passing out on public streets/sidewalks/behind dumpsters is illegal. That doesn't mean that it is o.k. to assault a person passed out on a public sidewalk. Two wrongs clearly do not make a right.

Getting drunk is not even remotely equivalent to raping someone. One is a public nuisance that harms the person doing it. The other one is a felony that creates a lifetime of harm for the victim.

Stop equating rape to a misdemeanor. It wasn't 20 minutes of action. It was a felony assault.

Did I say that getting drunk was equivalent to rape or murder or any other such thing? No. I didn't. Nor did I say that public intoxication or passing out was an excuse for someone else to sexually assault you. But there is such a thing as being drunk in public. You can get arrested for public intoxication. You can pass out, hit your head on a dumpster and bleed to death if you are stumble bum drunk - but that didn't happen to Emily Doe. She is still alive, she will learn from what SHE did and hopefully what happened to her will be a cautionary tale to other young women.

Brock will also hopefully come to understand just how horrible is crime was. I don't get the impression that he or his dad "get" how wrong this assault was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I teach my kids that pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk... BUT drivers suck, and they may not yield to a crosswalk.... or they may not notice the crosswalk... or maybe they can't see you.... or maybe they think they are more important...

so look both ways, look for turning cars, look for people going at high rate of speed.... cross with caution

If you get hit... it is NOT your fault and you can sue for money but it was not worth the risk of just walking across the crosswalk because you have the right of way.

AGAIN -- thinking about it this way equates rapists with drivers who aren't being sufficiently attentive. Rape is an intentional crime. In your hypothetical, are the drivers intentionally running down the pedestrians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter gets blackout drunk at a party, I'm going to talk to her about making better decisions in the future.

If my daughter gets blackout drunk at a party and gets raped, I'm going to tell her it's not her fault and place 100% blame on the rapist.

I think it's how we'd all want our daughters treated, so why not support this young woman the same way.

There are two different messages/lessons there and they are both correct.

- Don't rape
- Make good decisions

We don't need to pick one or the other. Both are good for our children to learn.

Along with help others (Swedes).

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter gets blackout drunk at a party, I'm going to talk to her about making better decisions in the future.

If my daughter gets blackout drunk at a party and gets raped, I'm going to tell her it's not her fault and place 100% blame on the rapist.

I think it's how we'd all want our daughters treated, so why not support this young woman the same way.

There are two different messages/lessons there and they are both correct.

- Don't rape
- Make good decisions

We don't need to pick one or the other. Both are good for our children to learn.

Along with help others (Swedes).

No one is saying any of those are bad lessons. But if you connect rape with the need to "make good decisions," you imply (strongly) that it's your daughter's job to make sure she's not raped. And that's dangerous bullshit.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

She passed out dead drunk behind a freakin' dumpster outside on a public street with a strange not so nice guy nearby. Do not candy coat just how serious her poor judgement was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

Nothing vulnerable about getting black out drunk and then actually passing out?

Sorry - are we talking about all rapes that have ever happened or just this one? Maybe you should start a general rape post if you want to discuss all rapes that have ever happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter gets blackout drunk at a party, I'm going to talk to her about making better decisions in the future.

If my daughter gets blackout drunk at a party and gets raped, I'm going to tell her it's not her fault and place 100% blame on the rapist.

I think it's how we'd all want our daughters treated, so why not support this young woman the same way.

There are two different messages/lessons there and they are both correct.

- Don't rape
- Make good decisions

We don't need to pick one or the other. Both are good for our children to learn.

Along with help others (Swedes).

No one is saying any of those are bad lessons. But if you connect rape with the need to "make good decisions," you imply (strongly) that it's your daughter's job to make sure she's not raped. And that's dangerous bullshit.

This.

Ha. No not "this" to the dangerous bullshit comment. I said "This" to there are 3 good lessons to take away from this poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

she would not have been in as vulnerable a position if she was sober though. if this is blaming her - its not meant to. there is no way I condone what he did and I support her wholeheartedly. hell I've been in her shoes and I can admit it would NOT have happened if I hadn't been so drunk that I don't remember parts of it. But I think its somewhat naive not to realize that there are some circumstances that leave us more vulnerable than others. I'm sure I'll get attacked for saying this. And maybe I do need to think on this some more. this has been a very interesting discussion with lots to think about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

She passed out dead drunk behind a freakin' dumpster outside on a public street with a strange not so nice guy nearby. Do not candy coat just how serious her poor judgement was.

Do you get how drinking works? Do you get what state of mind you're in before you pass out? Do you think she walked behind the dumpster stone sober and started doing shots? She drank, too much, at a party. Brock brought her behind the dumpster AFTER she was unable to consent.

But good news for you! She was raped! So was she adequately "punished" for her poor judgment? Or should the swedes have hopped on too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

Nothing vulnerable about getting black out drunk and then actually passing out?

Sorry - are we talking about all rapes that have ever happened or just this one? Maybe you should start a general rape post if you want to discuss all rapes that have ever happened.

I'm saying that the following are expected consequences to getting very drunk that the drinker is responsible for: hangovers. Liver damage. Dancing embarrassingly. Vomiting and ruining your shoes.

The following are NOT expected consequences to getting very drunk that the drinker is responsible for, because it requires someone else to intentionally commit felony assault: rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter gets blackout drunk at a party, I'm going to talk to her about making better decisions in the future.

If my daughter gets blackout drunk at a party and gets raped, I'm going to tell her it's not her fault and place 100% blame on the rapist.

I think it's how we'd all want our daughters treated, so why not support this young woman the same way.

There are two different messages/lessons there and they are both correct.

- Don't rape
- Make good decisions

We don't need to pick one or the other. Both are good for our children to learn.

Along with help others (Swedes).

No one is saying any of those are bad lessons. But if you connect rape with the need to "make good decisions," you imply (strongly) that it's your daughter's job to make sure she's not raped. And that's dangerous bullshit.

This.

Ha. No not "this" to the dangerous bullshit comment. I said "This" to there are 3 good lessons to take away from this poster.

My fault -- bad formatting choices.