That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You're putting a spin on these statements. They're not trivializing anything. The point is that we should all be safety conscious. No one blames people who get beaten, robbed, and/or kidnapped from shopping centers. Still, we try to do what hopefully will keep us safe from people with criminal intent.

[Anonymous]

This thread makes me so sad. I can't believe PPs are trying to blame other PPs after reading their rape story.

Why is it so hard to JUST blame a rapist for raping? Why do you feel the need to say "but she ...."?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I don't think his minimal sentence is because of his white privilege -- within the past few years, California has removed mandatory minimum sentencing and, because of overflowing prisons and hope for rehabilitation, has been giving much lighter sentences in many instances. Don't blame his sentence only on his race, it's not really about him.

[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.

Wow - terrible reading comprehension. I said people have *some* control over their lives. I even starred the "some" to get that point across. Sorry you were raped. As you know, we obviously never have 100% control over what happens.

But even so, if you had a daughter you wouldn't encourage her to take responsibility for her personal safety? At least lessen her chances of becoming a target?

I'm sorry, but you are an ignorant asshole. How many times do we need to go over this. Nobody is saying that people shouldn't take responsibility for their personal safety, or teach that to our children. But how about teaching to not rape? That is where it starts. Emily Doe's actions or lack of actions as you like to point out in no way excuse her rapist. He should've known better, not her. It's RIGHT vs. WRONG. Not, "make sure you don't put yourself in a vulnerable situation or else you'll be raped and it'll be your fault."

OMFG. You are so insufferable. Where did I say not to teach about rape?! Where did I say it excuses her rapist? Where did I say "or else you'll be raped and it'll be your fault"? You are making this shit up just to make some hysterical point. YES, WE ALL KNOW RAPE IS WRONG. I am not your rapist. Go call your therapist and work out your anger there.

I have posted a few times now and I'll post again -- here is what we can learn from this:
1) don't rape (Brock)
2) be careful (Emily)
3) help others (Swedes)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy. Shit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenduca/status/739505679635992577

Actually, the father is correct.

Both of them were drunk. Both. She was so drunk, she had no idea of anything, and didn't come-to until she was in the hospital, with no recollection. She was black-out drunk. While no one deserves to be raped, she placed herself in a very dangerous state. I do want to know where her friends were, where her sister was, where ANY responsible person was - probably drunk themselves. It would have been a cold day in hell, in college, when I would have left one of my friends (or a perfect stranger) alone, that dangerously drunk.

His son, in his drunken state, assaulted this girl. Very, very wrong. He IS taking responsibility for his actions. What disturbs me, is not only is she NOT taking responsibility for her own stupidity, but she has all the pity in the world. The net result of that is the message that people can get as stupid-drunk as they want and expect NO harm to come of them. That is NOT a message I have EVER given my children, and ever will.

This statement from the victim? “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she read in court from her victim impact statement,

What kind of worth does one have when one is so drunk, one can't even function? What kind of confidence? What kind of intimacy?

And this? "I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me."

She completely brushes aside her responsibility in becoming a 'wounded antelope'.


The judge did good in this case.

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.

seriously that is horrible PP.

[Anonymous]

People want to find a way that the victim could have prevented the situation in order to reassure themselves it could never happen to them. Wishful thinking but it doesn't guarantee anyone's safety.

[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".

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

This was also a full grown woman with a full time job and a serious boyfriend... who was out at a party drinking to the point of passing out and hooking up and leaving with a 19 year old guy. She was a bit out of control that night and I really don't doubt that she intended to fool around with this guy. She likely passed out while they were fooling around and the hot and bothered guy didn't have the decency to get off of her. The Swedes came on the scene, tackled the guy and called the cops.

The woman was so passed out drunk that she slept through the cops coming on the scene (and apparently taking pics of her!), the ambulance ride and then later continued to sleep at the hospital for 2 hours. When she woke up she had no memory of what happened to her and I assume that someone told her that she had been assaulted. She didn't know or remember what had happened to her so she agreed to that invasive examination and more photographs of her naked body - she was even told that she needed to do another HIV test in a few months just to be sure. She must have been absolutely terrified as to WTH had happened to her. She later found out in the newspaper, while sitting at her desk at work , what had happened, how she was found. The Newspaper!

So she expected the guy to accept a plea deal to avoid a trial and that didn't happen. I would imagine that she will try to go for compensatory damages...and maybe the lighter sentence will make it easier for this guy to finish school, get a job and compensate her for damages. It's a tough situation for sure.

[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.

Wow - terrible reading comprehension. I said people have *some* control over their lives. I even starred the "some" to get that point across. Sorry you were raped. As you know, we obviously never have 100% control over what happens.

But even so, if you had a daughter you wouldn't encourage her to take responsibility for her personal safety? At least lessen her chances of becoming a target?

I'm sorry, but you are an ignorant asshole. How many times do we need to go over this. Nobody is saying that people shouldn't take responsibility for their personal safety, or teach that to our children. But how about teaching to not rape? That is where it starts. Emily Doe's actions or lack of actions as you like to point out in no way excuse her rapist. He should've known better, not her. It's RIGHT vs. WRONG. Not, "make sure you don't put yourself in a vulnerable situation or else you'll be raped and it'll be your fault."

You put those words there. Not what the PP was saying. Can you not get that we should do everything to protect ourselves from criminals? That's not laying blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me so sad. I can't believe PPs are trying to blame other PPs after reading their rape story.

Why is it so hard to JUST blame a rapist for raping? Why do you feel the need to say "but she ...."?

If you want to keep things very simple and gloss over other aspects to the case, sure? Brock bad. Is that simple enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me so sad. I can't believe PPs are trying to blame other PPs after reading their rape story.

Why is it so hard to JUST blame a rapist for raping? Why do you feel the need to say "but she ...."?

I read a really good quote on this the other day, and the gist of it was that in cases like this, why do we always focus on the past of the woman ("she was drinking, why wasn't she safer, etc."), only to focus on the future of the man ("this will hurt his future, he's a promising swimmer/football player/etc.").

[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?

This was also a full grown woman with a full time job and a serious boyfriend... who was out at a party drinking to the point of passing out and hooking up and leaving with a 19 year old guy. She was a bit out of control that night and I really don't doubt that she intended to fool around with this guy. She likely passed out while they were fooling around and the hot and bothered guy didn't have the decency to get off of her. The Swedes came on the scene, tackled the guy and called the cops.

The woman was so passed out drunk that she slept through the cops coming on the scene (and apparently taking pics of her!), the ambulance ride and then later continued to sleep at the hospital for 2 hours. When she woke up she had no memory of what happened to her and I assume that someone told her that she had been assaulted. She didn't know or remember what had happened to her so she agreed to that invasive examination and more photographs of her naked body - she was even told that she needed to do another HIV test in a few months just to be sure. She must have been absolutely terrified as to WTH had happened to her. She later found out in the newspaper, while sitting at her desk at work , what had happened, how she was found. The Newspaper!

So she expected the guy to accept a plea deal to avoid a trial and that didn't happen. I would imagine that she will try to go for compensatory damages...and maybe the lighter sentence will make it easier for this guy to finish school, get a job and compensate her for damages. It's a tough situation for sure.

wow lots of assumptions on your part. its so interesting how many people seem to know exactly what happened here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes me so sad. I can't believe PPs are trying to blame other PPs after reading their rape story.

Why is it so hard to JUST blame a rapist for raping? Why do you feel the need to say "but she ...."?

I read a really good quote on this the other day, and the gist of it was that in cases like this, why do we always focus on the past of the woman ("she was drinking, why wasn't she safer, etc."), only to focus on the future of the man ("this will hurt his future, he's a promising swimmer/football player/etc.").

We, DCUM, are not trying and convicting either of them. He has already been tried and convicted. We're just discussing everything that happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can't believe that there's actually people out there who need the California Penal Code spoon-fed to them to know that they are not supposed to put their penis or their fingers inside an unconscious person. But here you go. This is only one of the felonies of which he was found guilty:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=289
(d) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. As used in this subdivision, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(1) Was unconscious or asleep.
(2) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.
(3) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraud in fact.
(4) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.

[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?

This was also a full grown woman with a full time job and a serious boyfriend... who was out at a party drinking to the point of passing out and hooking up and leaving with a 19 year old guy. She was a bit out of control that night and I really don't doubt that she intended to fool around with this guy. She likely passed out while they were fooling around and the hot and bothered guy didn't have the decency to get off of her. The Swedes came on the scene, tackled the guy and called the cops.

The woman was so passed out drunk that she slept through the cops coming on the scene (and apparently taking pics of her!), the ambulance ride and then later continued to sleep at the hospital for 2 hours. When she woke up she had no memory of what happened to her and I assume that someone told her that she had been assaulted. She didn't know or remember what had happened to her so she agreed to that invasive examination and more photographs of her naked body - she was even told that she needed to do another HIV test in a few months just to be sure. She must have been absolutely terrified as to WTH had happened to her. She later found out in the newspaper, while sitting at her desk at work , what had happened, how she was found. The Newspaper!

So she expected the guy to accept a plea deal to avoid a trial and that didn't happen. I would imagine that she will try to go for compensatory damages...and maybe the lighter sentence will make it easier for this guy to finish school, get a job and compensate her for damages. It's a tough situation for sure.

wow lots of assumptions on your part. its so interesting how many people seem to know exactly what happened here.

Most of it is from her letter. Some of it is filling in.

[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?

This was also a full grown woman with a full time job and a serious boyfriend... who was out at a party drinking to the point of passing out and hooking up and leaving with a 19 year old guy. She was a bit out of control that night and I really don't doubt that she intended to fool around with this guy. She likely passed out while they were fooling around and the hot and bothered guy didn't have the decency to get off of her. The Swedes came on the scene, tackled the guy and called the cops.

The woman was so passed out drunk that she slept through the cops coming on the scene (and apparently taking pics of her!), the ambulance ride and then later continued to sleep at the hospital for 2 hours. When she woke up she had no memory of what happened to her and I assume that someone told her that she had been assaulted. She didn't know or remember what had happened to her so she agreed to that invasive examination and more photographs of her naked body - she was even told that she needed to do another HIV test in a few months just to be sure. She must have been absolutely terrified as to WTH had happened to her. She later found out in the newspaper, while sitting at her desk at work , what had happened, how she was found. The Newspaper!

So she expected the guy to accept a plea deal to avoid a trial and that didn't happen. I would imagine that she will try to go for compensatory damages...and maybe the lighter sentence will make it easier for this guy to finish school, get a job and compensate her for damages. It's a tough situation for sure.

wow lots of assumptions on your part. its so interesting how many people seem to know exactly what happened here.

Most of it is from her letter. Some of it is filling in.

uh huh....