That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brock Turner would have raped her even if she had been unconscious from a health related illness.

CNN just announced he is appealing the sentence.

Of course he is

Barf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope he appeals it and gets MORE time in the next sentencing

Doesn't usually work that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope he appeals it and gets MORE time in the next sentencing

X1000000

Maybe an appropriate sentence, next time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope he appeals it and gets MORE time in the next sentencing

Doesn't usually work that way.

Well it ought to, just because he believes there to be an error doesn't mean it's an error in his favor

[Anonymous]

Did you all read the cached page of the support fund someone set up? For HIS family??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the cached page of the support fund someone set up? For HIS family??

or just someone trying to make a buck. disgusting

[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: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.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying whether or not women "take precautions" has nothing to do with any kind of culpability discussion when it comes to rape.

Who said it did?

Lock you car doors. Don't get black out drunk. Lessons learned!

How about some responsibility on the part of the people committing the crimes? How about don't rape?

Uh. Rape, sexual assault is not allowed. Who the hell is telling men that it is o.k. to rape? No one. Good guys (the Swedes) may very well have prevented this guy from doing even worse things to this woman.

Ironically, this woman was saved and her assailant brought to justice by MEN.

Uh. Yeah. My point was simply to the PPs saying things like "lock your car doors. Don't get black out drunk" Implying if you don't do those things, then you're asking to be raped.

Why do you think the police recommendations are to try not to walk alone in a mall parking lot after dark, to walk in the middle of the driving area and not near parked cars, to have your key out and ready, and to lock your car doors as soon as you get in your car? Do you view those recommendations as helpful?

Don't trivialize the situation and don't patronize. We all understand personal responsibility. That doesn't mean you should be attacked when you miss a safety measure. The problem starts with attackers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brock Turner would have raped her even if she had been unconscious from a health related illness.

CNN just announced he is appealing the sentence.

Of course he is

Barf.

Now, now, everyone has a right to appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope he appeals it and gets MORE time in the next sentencing

+1 million. Hopefully, he gets the ten years without parole he's entitled to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope he appeals it and gets MORE time in the next sentencing

+1 million. Hopefully, he gets the ten years without parole he's entitled to.

what the hell is he hoping for? an acquital? a shorter sentence???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brock Turner would have raped her even if she had been unconscious from a health related illness.

CNN just announced he is appealing the sentence.

Of course he is

Barf.

Now, now, everyone has a right to appeal.

Double barf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope he appeals it and gets MORE time in the next sentencing

+1 million. Hopefully, he gets the ten years without parole he's entitled to.

Or the six years recommended by the DA?

[Anonymous]

Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

Speaking as a lawyer, this is very true. Using the legal system, including a defense attorney, a jury trial, and an appeal, do not indicate remorse, lack of remorse, guilt, or innocence. Any person charged with a crime, whatever it is and regardless of what they did, can proceed with a trial. That's their right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

there were witnesses though. the two swedes. he was assaulting an unconscious woman. do you refute this?