That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. You are pushing your narrative onto the facts. Two bikers came by at night after these two had been dancing, partying, talking, starting sex (or rape, if it was). They saw a dude having sex with a girl who was lying still. That's all they could say. That doesn't get you to "assault" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Uh, once she is unconscious, then it's assault. Doesn't matter how it started out. So I'm guessing what happened is the guys saw him, he ran away, they tackled him, and they found out the woman was unconscious. Unless you think she became unconscious after he ran away. Yes, I suppose there's that possibility but what are the chances of that?

Let's see. I have sex with my husband. While we are in the act, I become unconscious. Do you think he should stop maybe? Do you think it's okay for him to continue? Oh sure, no prob, I'm cool with my husband humping me while I appear to have slipped into an alcoholic coma. Just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah I'm sure she laid down on the ground behind a dumpster willingly to fool around with him!

Cause that's where girls usually head when they want to hook up with a guy at a party. The ground behind a dumpster.

A blind drunk $&@@ed up girl might.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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".

If it was consensual, why did he run with those two guys saw him? Why not stop and explain and ask the girl to confirm it? Oh, right, she couldn't because she was passed out at the time. Guess Dad didn't educate his son on the importance of stopping sex when someone is unconscious. Maybe Dad is really the one to blame because he didn't educate his son how to have anonymous sex safely and appropriately.

He probably ran because he probably knew he was raping her. But he also could have been running because two guys shouted accusing him of rape and started coming at him to tackle him. Or he was blitzed out of his mind. I hope you don't also believe that anyone who runs from police must be a guilty criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

If she was even conscious when she got back there, she did not "fall asleep," she passed out. At which point continued sexual activity is rape.

And read the victim's statement. Rape trials are still f-ed up against women. Or would you consent to pine needles shoved in your vagina or rectum?

She had pine needles stuck in her hair and on her clothes -- not shoved in her orifices. Again, you are creating a narrative that is not based on facts. And pine needles have nothing at all to do with the way trials are conducted.

I just re-read her statement - she had pine needles and debris in her vagina

[Anonymous]

NP here. My heart goes out to the PPs who were raped. Of course it isn't your fault. That's not what the other PPs are saying. Obviously, we need to "teach our sons not to rape." But as most of us tell our children in other contexts, you can control your own actions but not those of others. Terrible things can happen, and people can rape and murder regardless of the cautionary steps we take. But it is possible to lower the chances of something terrible happening. You can die in a car wreck while wearing a seatbelt, but it's less likely. Your car can be stolen even if you don't leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition, but it's less likely. And you can be raped, mugged or killed when you are not drunk or wandering isolated areas at 2 am, but it's less likely.
I feel it's empowering to tell people, male and female, ways they can take charge and mitigate (but never eliminate, of course), risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

If she was even conscious when she got back there, she did not "fall asleep," she passed out. At which point continued sexual activity is rape.

And read the victim's statement. Rape trials are still f-ed up against women. Or would you consent to pine needles shoved in your vagina or rectum?

She had pine needles stuck in her hair and on her clothes -- not shoved in her orifices. Again, you are creating a narrative that is not based on facts. And pine needles have nothing at all to do with the way trials are conducted.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. From the victim's statement: "One more time, in public news, I learned that my [buttocks] and vagina were completely exposed outside, my breasts had been groped, fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris, my bare skin and head had been rubbing against the ground behind a dumpster, while an erect freshman was humping my half naked, unconscious body. But I don’t remember, so how do I prove I didn’t like it."

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Yup. For those of us that live here in reality, you protect yourself and don't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Rape is not ok so not excusing it at all, but there is no need to make yourself a target by what you are wearing, who you are with, where you are, etc. People do have *some* control over their lives.

I was raped at 11:08 am on a Tuesday. It was not dark out. I was not alone. I was at work. There were security cameras. I was wearing a new pair of black slacks that I'd yet to take to get altered, so they were a smidge too long and the hem dragged the ground a bit because I wanted to wear flats that day instead of heels. I had on a turquoise silk tank top under my black suit jacket. He put his hand over my mouth and a knife to my neck that pierced my skin enough to let me know he was serious about killing me if I screamed or fought too much. I did fight and the knife sunk in deeper. I bit the hand he had over my mouth and he pushed so hard that I thought my front teeth would cave in. He ripped my slacks and pulled them down just far enough to spread my legs enough. He didn't take off his pants; he just unzipped them and pulled himself out and then raped me. The zipper from his jeans kept digging into my skin with each movement. I still have a small zipper-tooth scar from this. He winked when he was done. He punched my temple and then twice in my kidneys before he ran.

I wasn't impaired. I wasn't wearing any provocative clothing. I wasn't alone or in a dark, sketchy place. I was working. My co-workers had no idea that just down the hall, my life pre-11:08 am on that Tuesday morning was ending. I'm not even what most people would call pretty. I just wanted to know why, why, why. It took lots of therapy to learn that there is no why. I didn't do anything wrong. Some men rape because they want to. That's life. My rapist wanted to rape that day and I was his unlucky victim.

By your logic, when I was in full control, I shouldn't have been raped. But rapists aren't logical. There are thousands of other stories like mine of people who weren't "being vulnerable " who were raped. We shouldn't have to teach our girls not to get raped because boys should just know and have been taught DON'T RAPE.

I was raped in my bed, at college. I had been drinking, but I went home at around 11:30 pm and went to bed. The guy who raped me tried to persuade me to stay at the bar, but I didn't want to and I went home. He talked someone into letting him into my locked dorm and then let himself into my dorm room. I did not lock the door to my dorm suite because one of my suite mates had forgotten her keys. I assumed that it would be fine, because the (all women) dorm was locked.

I was really drunk, but I was asleep in bed. It was 2 hours after I left the bar.

I have life long consequences from that rape. I can't drink anymore, or I get panic attacks and have to barricade myself in my bedroom with furniture. I have trouble traveling alone for work, because it's difficult for me to stay in a hotel room alone, even with a deadbolt.

I guess it was my fault, though. I should have been more safety conscious. Thanks to PPs for showing me where I went wrong!

Obviously the person responsible for the rape was the rapist. But opening the dorm door for random guy wasn't the best decision by that person. And neither was leaving your room unlocked. Doesn't mean you should have been raped or it's your fault. But there is a reason why people lock their doors.

How did he even know where your dorm room was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. You are pushing your narrative onto the facts. Two bikers came by at night after these two had been dancing, partying, talking, starting sex (or rape, if it was). They saw a dude having sex with a girl who was lying still. That's all they could say. That doesn't get you to "assault" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Uh, once she is unconscious, then it's assault. Doesn't matter how it started out. So I'm guessing what happened is the guys saw him, he ran away, they tackled him, and they found out the woman was unconscious. Unless you think she became unconscious after he ran away. Yes, I suppose there's that possibility but what are the chances of that?

Let's see. I have sex with my husband. While we are in the act, I become unconscious. Do you think he should stop maybe? Do you think it's okay for him to continue? Oh sure, no prob, I'm cool with my husband humping me while I appear to have slipped into an alcoholic coma. Just fine.

It depends on what consent you give when you are conscious. Actually, I would use your example to reach the opposite conclusion. Presumably you have sex with your husband on a regular basis. One of these nights, you consent and start going at it, but you start snoring before he's done. He tells you the next morning. Are you really going to turn your husband in for rape because he finished?

[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".

Mutually getting it on?

She woke up three hours later, bloody and with bruises and abrasions on her body and inside her body. What person would find that enjoyable?

Her assailant ran when he was discovered assaulting a motionless person, indicating he knew that what he was doing was wrong.

There's no mystery, and no assumptions, about what happened, because there were witnesses.

There's no way to rationalize it, and no need to speculate about what the victim wanted. Men who do this as they perpetuate violence are the ones assuming risk of trial and punishment that you think is so dangerous to their lives. These are the assumptions that create that risk and ease the decision to take it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

If she was even conscious when she got back there, she did not "fall asleep," she passed out. At which point continued sexual activity is rape.

And read the victim's statement. Rape trials are still f-ed up against women. Or would you consent to pine needles shoved in your vagina or rectum?

She had pine needles stuck in her hair and on her clothes -- not shoved in her orifices. Again, you are creating a narrative that is not based on facts. And pine needles have nothing at all to do with the way trials are conducted.

I just re-read her statement - she had pine needles and debris in her vagina

You think he collected pine needles and put them there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. You are pushing your narrative onto the facts. Two bikers came by at night after these two had been dancing, partying, talking, starting sex (or rape, if it was). They saw a dude having sex with a girl who was lying still. That's all they could say. That doesn't get you to "assault" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Uh, once she is unconscious, then it's assault. Doesn't matter how it started out. So I'm guessing what happened is the guys saw him, he ran away, they tackled him, and they found out the woman was unconscious. Unless you think she became unconscious after he ran away. Yes, I suppose there's that possibility but what are the chances of that?

Let's see. I have sex with my husband. While we are in the act, I become unconscious. Do you think he should stop maybe? Do you think it's okay for him to continue? Oh sure, no prob, I'm cool with my husband humping me while I appear to have slipped into an alcoholic coma. Just fine.

It depends on what consent you give when you are conscious. Actually, I would use your example to reach the opposite conclusion. Presumably you have sex with your husband on a regular basis. One of these nights, you consent and start going at it, but you start snoring before he's done. He tells you the next morning. Are you really going to turn your husband in for rape because he finished?

NO IT DOES NOT. READ THE STATUTE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

If she was even conscious when she got back there, she did not "fall asleep," she passed out. At which point continued sexual activity is rape.

And read the victim's statement. Rape trials are still f-ed up against women. Or would you consent to pine needles shoved in your vagina or rectum?

She had pine needles stuck in her hair and on her clothes -- not shoved in her orifices. Again, you are creating a narrative that is not based on facts. And pine needles have nothing at all to do with the way trials are conducted.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. From the victim's statement: "One more time, in public news, I learned that my [buttocks] and vagina were completely exposed outside, my breasts had been groped, fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris, my bare skin and head had been rubbing against the ground behind a dumpster, while an erect freshman was humping my half naked, unconscious body. But I don’t remember, so how do I prove I didn’t like it."

Reading comprehension. She is not saying he shoved pine needles in her. She is saying the sex/assault was on the ground and, therefore, crap got on or in her parts. Like you'd get sand in you from sex on the beach. That's not what you claimed before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. You are pushing your narrative onto the facts. Two bikers came by at night after these two had been dancing, partying, talking, starting sex (or rape, if it was). They saw a dude having sex with a girl who was lying still. That's all they could say. That doesn't get you to "assault" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Uh, once she is unconscious, then it's assault. Doesn't matter how it started out. So I'm guessing what happened is the guys saw him, he ran away, they tackled him, and they found out the woman was unconscious. Unless you think she became unconscious after he ran away. Yes, I suppose there's that possibility but what are the chances of that?

Let's see. I have sex with my husband. While we are in the act, I become unconscious. Do you think he should stop maybe? Do you think it's okay for him to continue? Oh sure, no prob, I'm cool with my husband humping me while I appear to have slipped into an alcoholic coma. Just fine.

It depends on what consent you give when you are conscious. Actually, I would use your example to reach the opposite conclusion. Presumably you have sex with your husband on a regular basis. One of these nights, you consent and start going at it, but you start snoring before he's done. He tells you the next morning. Are you really going to turn your husband in for rape because he finished?

NO IT DOES NOT. READ THE STATUTE.

PASTE THE STATUTE.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Yup. For those of us that live here in reality, you protect yourself and don't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Rape is not ok so not excusing it at all, but there is no need to make yourself a target by what you are wearing, who you are with, where you are, etc. People do have *some* control over their lives.

I was raped at 11:08 am on a Tuesday. It was not dark out. I was not alone. I was at work. There were security cameras. I was wearing a new pair of black slacks that I'd yet to take to get altered, so they were a smidge too long and the hem dragged the ground a bit because I wanted to wear flats that day instead of heels. I had on a turquoise silk tank top under my black suit jacket. He put his hand over my mouth and a knife to my neck that pierced my skin enough to let me know he was serious about killing me if I screamed or fought too much. I did fight and the knife sunk in deeper. I bit the hand he had over my mouth and he pushed so hard that I thought my front teeth would cave in. He ripped my slacks and pulled them down just far enough to spread my legs enough. He didn't take off his pants; he just unzipped them and pulled himself out and then raped me. The zipper from his jeans kept digging into my skin with each movement. I still have a small zipper-tooth scar from this. He winked when he was done. He punched my temple and then twice in my kidneys before he ran.

I wasn't impaired. I wasn't wearing any provocative clothing. I wasn't alone or in a dark, sketchy place. I was working. My co-workers had no idea that just down the hall, my life pre-11:08 am on that Tuesday morning was ending. I'm not even what most people would call pretty. I just wanted to know why, why, why. It took lots of therapy to learn that there is no why. I didn't do anything wrong. Some men rape because they want to. That's life. My rapist wanted to rape that day and I was his unlucky victim.

By your logic, when I was in full control, I shouldn't have been raped. But rapists aren't logical. There are thousands of other stories like mine of people who weren't "being vulnerable " who were raped. We shouldn't have to teach our girls not to get raped because boys should just know and have been taught DON'T RAPE.

I was raped in my bed, at college. I had been drinking, but I went home at around 11:30 pm and went to bed. The guy who raped me tried to persuade me to stay at the bar, but I didn't want to and I went home. He talked someone into letting him into my locked dorm and then let himself into my dorm room. I did not lock the door to my dorm suite because one of my suite mates had forgotten her keys. I assumed that it would be fine, because the (all women) dorm was locked.

I was really drunk, but I was asleep in bed. It was 2 hours after I left the bar.

I have life long consequences from that rape. I can't drink anymore, or I get panic attacks and have to barricade myself in my bedroom with furniture. I have trouble traveling alone for work, because it's difficult for me to stay in a hotel room alone, even with a deadbolt.

I guess it was my fault, though. I should have been more safety conscious. Thanks to PPs for showing me where I went wrong!

Obviously the person responsible for the rape was the rapist. But opening the dorm door for random guy wasn't the best decision by that person. And neither was leaving your room unlocked. Doesn't mean you should have been raped or it's your fault. But there is a reason why people lock their doors.

How did he even know where your dorm room was?

NP here. Are you seriously picking apart the PP's story about how she was raped?? What the fuck does it matter how the rapist knew where her dorm room was?!?! Sounds like more victim blaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

If it was consensual, why did he run with those two guys saw him? Why not stop and explain and ask the girl to confirm it? Oh, right, she couldn't because she was passed out at the time. Guess Dad didn't educate his son on the importance of stopping sex when someone is unconscious. Maybe Dad is really the one to blame because he didn't educate his son how to have anonymous sex safely and appropriately.

He probably ran because he probably knew he was raping her. But he also could have been running because two guys shouted accusing him of rape and started coming at him to tackle him. Or he was blitzed out of his mind. I hope you don't also believe that anyone who runs from police must be a guilty criminal.

You're right - I don't believe that anyone who runs from the police is guilty. But note that Brock didn't run from the police. He ran from two guys passing by. At any rate, this is the game that people are playing here. The "if she was really raped, why did she do X? Why didn't she do Y?" game. If she shouldn't have gotten drunk, then people should also be saying that he shouldn't have gotten drunk. If posters want to blame her for getting drunk, I can blame him for running. After all, we see pretty clearly how effective white privilege is in this case given his minimal sentence. White middle class boys don't need to run. There will always be people who believe them.

I'm still thinking that his dad did a crappy job of raising him. As I mentioned earlier, why didn't his dad teach him how to have a safe quickie - if that's what they want to argue this was? Too bad, Brock, your dad didn't teach you to make sure you don't drink too much and to find a sober woman who is willing to give you a blow job in a spare room somewhere.