That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[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.

She was sexually assaulted. Not raped. Not murdered. Not kidnapped. She was sexually assaulted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, some drivers run down pedestrians
some drivers are just inattentive and hit pedestrians
some drivers purposely get drunk and drive and hit pedestrians

Some rapists, plan a rape, stalk their victim and rape them. There is intent from planning until the end of the act.
Some rapists get drunk, find another drunk and they both have sex and don't remember it and there is no consent, though they are both awake and actively involved. There was never an intent of rape, though it is rape.
Some rapists look for the drunkest girls, take her home and assault her because she has no clue. Intent starts from planning and ends with the act.
Some rapists get drunk, find another drunk, they start to have sex, as some point the girls stops, and he continues. Intent happens during sex.
Some rapists have sex with a minor, the minor says yes, but one party is too young to consent, so it is rape. Intent starts from planning to the end of the sex act.
Some rapists meet a girls in a bar, go home and have sex, she is 14, she snuck into the bar, she is too young to consent. There was no intent to rape but it is still rape.
Some rapists get drunk, they meet a girl that is drunk, they start kissing, they have sex, the next morning she does not remember anything. No intent, still rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Other consequences of getting blackout drunk: permanent effects on memory, alcohol poisoning. Also, doing things that are a bad idea.

From wiki: " Blackouts were reported during activities such as spending money (27%), sexual conduct (24%), fighting (16%), vandalism (16%), unprotected intercourse (6%), and driving a car (3%). So a significant number of students were engaged in a range of possibly hazardous activities during blackouts.[22]

Of 545 individuals in another study, 161 (29.5%) reported driving drunk, 139 (25.5%) reported a regretted sexual situation, 67 (12.3%) reported unprotected sex, 60 (11%) reported having damaged property, 55 (10.1%) reported getting into a physical fight, and 29 (5.3%) reported injuring someone while under the influence of alcohol in the past 6 months.[23]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(drug-related_amnesia)

[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?

I'm willing to bet that the statistics will show far fewer rapes in some situations than others.

[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).

This

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.

It's her job to make good decisions - all of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She was sexually assaulted. Not raped. Not murdered. Not kidnapped. She was sexually assaulted.

His felony charges did not include rape, but he definitely, definitely meets the federal definition of rape. Hence why people keep (correctly) calling him a rapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I was a "party animal" myself back in the day. I do understand what it means to be VERY drunk but still participating and still aware of what is happening and still wanting to participate in what is happening...even though you are very, VERY drunk. A person that is NOT aware of what is happening, is not participating - is absolutely being assaulted.

Me waking up behind a dumpster feeling lousy the next morning with a pounding headache, clothes pulled up/off and a lot of regret "WTF did I do???!!" does not automatically mean rape or sexual assault occurred. But it might have occurred. Maybe? People don't go to jail for what might have happened.

In this situation with Emily Doe - it did occur. Thank God for those Swedes.

[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?

I'm willing to bet that the statistics will show far fewer rapes in some situations than others.

So?

[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.

The PP doesn't seem to think women should take any precautions ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She was sexually assaulted. Not raped. Not murdered. Not kidnapped. She was sexually assaulted.

Ok - go start a "history of sexual assaults" thread. All sexual assaults ever in the history of the world.

[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).

This

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.

It's her job to make good decisions - all of the time.

Or else she gets raped? Those are the options for women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She was sexually assaulted. Not raped. Not murdered. Not kidnapped. She was sexually assaulted.

His felony charges did not include rape, but he definitely, definitely meets the federal definition of rape. Hence why people keep (correctly) calling him a rapist.

He is not a convicted rapist though. And because Emily Doe is such a poor witness it is not clear that at least some of what happened that night was not consensual. We don't know. I think the Swedes saw this guy dry humping her while she was passed out. That's what they got him for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm willing to bet that the statistics will show far fewer rapes in some situations than others.

So?

So? the PP said the victim didn't put herself in a vulnerable situation and compared that location to the entire world. Yes, it was a vulnerable situation. To think otherwise is naive, stupid, or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I was a "party animal" myself back in the day. I do understand what it means to be VERY drunk but still participating and still aware of what is happening and still wanting to participate in what is happening...even though you are very, VERY drunk. A person that is NOT aware of what is happening, is not participating - is absolutely being assaulted.

Me waking up behind a dumpster feeling lousy the next morning with a pounding headache, clothes pulled up/off and a lot of regret "WTF did I do???!!" does not automatically mean rape or sexual assault occurred. But it might have occurred. Maybe? People don't go to jail for what might have happened.

In this situation with Emily Doe - it did occur. Thank God for those Swedes.

You get that this wasn't the case here, right? She didn't fall asleep after having a good time behind a dumpster. She was unconscious the whole time she was behind the dumpster. If she merely fell asleep, she would've woken up when the Swedes were trying to wake her up, or when they transported her to the hospital, or when she was being medically evaluated, or when they changed her into scrubs, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I was a "party animal" myself back in the day. I do understand what it means to be VERY drunk but still participating and still aware of what is happening and still wanting to participate in what is happening...even though you are very, VERY drunk. A person that is NOT aware of what is happening, is not participating - is absolutely being assaulted.

Me waking up behind a dumpster feeling lousy the next morning with a pounding headache, clothes pulled up/off and a lot of regret "WTF did I do???!!" does not automatically mean rape or sexual assault occurred. But it might have occurred. Maybe? People don't go to jail for what might have happened.

In this situation with Emily Doe - it did occur. Thank God for those Swedes.

You get that this wasn't the case here, right? She didn't fall asleep after having a good time behind a dumpster. She was unconscious the whole time she was behind the dumpster. If she merely fell asleep, she would've woken up when the Swedes were trying to wake her up, or when they transported her to the hospital, or when she was being medically evaluated, or when they changed her into scrubs, etc.

we actually don't know that. they might have stumbled there together. we don't know.