That Brock Allen Turner is a dirtbag

[Anonymous]

PP you are a horrible human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy. Shit.

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

Actually, the father is correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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


The judge did good in this case.

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.

Let's turn this around and think of your children. You found out that your daughter isn't locking her dorm door at night. Would you encourage her to lock it? You found out that your daughter is letting random people into her locked dorm late at night? Think that's OK? We all know that rape is bad. Don't rape, got it. But I think disregarding personal safety would be a huge disservice to our children. Why are you so quick to ignore that side to the story? We all do these little things that aren't safe and most of the time there aren't consequences, but there really is a reason why we do them. I would never ever say this to someone IRL who was raped but here we are talking about rape and personal safety so I mentioned it because it was relevant.

My question about how he found her dorm room was prompted by the fact that there were two quick rape stories back-to-back. Seemed a tiny bit contrived.

Of course it's contrived. This thread couldn't possibly have two victims of rape on it, right? Because rape is just so darn rare? GTFOOH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nope. That's your line of thinking. Nothing is guaranteed and not trying to reassure ourselves of anything. It's all about trying to be safe, no matter where we find ourselves. Doesn't mean we'll be safe from every criminal. Doesn't mean we're putting blame on victims.

EXACTLY!

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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....

Read her letter.

I did. twice. you have no idea if she intended on fooling around with the guy. and you have no idea when she passed out. And neither does she.

We know that he had been openly coming on to other women at the party and they rejected him. She knew what he wanted when she left with him. No one has ever said that she left with him unwillingly. Remember: he is only responsible for what HE actually did.

[Anonymous]

Seems to me a lot of women think they should be able to cry rape anytime they want. Because. Men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Thank you, pp, for posting this. It's worth pasting it again without all the other quotes before it.

Doesn't matter if this was a mutual hookup. As soon as she was unconscious, it was a crime. I'm sorry he was too stupid to know this but it's still a crime even if he didn't know this. Sucks to be him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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....

Read her letter.

I did. twice. you have no idea if she intended on fooling around with the guy. and you have no idea when she passed out. And neither does she.

We know that he had been openly coming on to other women at the party and they rejected him. She knew what he wanted when she left with him. No one has ever said that she left with him unwillingly. Remember: he is only responsible for what HE actually did.

No one has ever said that she left with him willingly, or even that she left with him at all. My guess is that she felt sick and needed some fresh air, and he either offered to go outside with her or followed her when she went outside by herself. But that is speculation. "What HE actually did" was put his fingers inside an unconscious person. Not speculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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....

Read her letter.

I did. twice. you have no idea if she intended on fooling around with the guy. and you have no idea when she passed out. And neither does she.

We know that he had been openly coming on to other women at the party and they rejected him. She knew what he wanted when she left with him. No one has ever said that she left with him unwillingly. Remember: he is only responsible for what HE actually did.

really it says this in her letter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me a lot of women think they should be able to cry rape anytime they want. Because. Men.

Wow. Doesn't even dignify a response, so I'll just stop there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Although it's not clear from the statute, I read this to mean that the person is unconscious at the time of the first penetration, such that they wouldn't have been able to consent to sex. This doesn't mean that consensual sex becomes rape because one person doesn't stay awake all the way through. And, anyway, if one person is cool with the sex continuing after they pass out (I'm really tired, but you go ahead), then they aren't "incapable of resisting" -- they consent. Also, the other person needs to perceive the victim's unconsciousness.

I've said before that Brock was probably a knowing rapist. But it's hard to see how you vote him guilty beyond a doubt when the victim is incapable of presenting her side of the story. You have to do a lot of assuming about the character of the girl and what she would and would not have wanted to do that night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me a lot of women think they should be able to cry rape anytime they want. Because. Men.

People believe survivors should charge rapists with rape. Because rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Let's turn this around and think of your children. You found out that your daughter isn't locking her dorm door at night. Would you encourage her to lock it? You found out that your daughter is letting random people into her locked dorm late at night? Think that's OK? We all know that rape is bad. Don't rape, got it. But I think disregarding personal safety would be a huge disservice to our children. Why are you so quick to ignore that side to the story? We all do these little things that aren't safe and most of the time there aren't consequences, but there really is a reason why we do them. I would never ever say this to someone IRL who was raped but here we are talking about rape and personal safety so I mentioned it because it was relevant.

My question about how he found her dorm room was prompted by the fact that there were two quick rape stories back-to-back. Seemed a tiny bit contrived.



In making a victim blaming argument, it is best to read one's words closely.

And to your last sentence, I don't know whether to laugh or cry that you don't know how many women are raped. Two stories is "contrived"? That is.... effed up. You are effed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's not entirely fair. I posted earlier saying there but for the grace of God. I have no assurance that this could not have happened to me; I behaved just like Emily Doe in my college years and even a few times in graduate school. At the time I was just embarrassed to have made a fool of myself; I was too clueless to realize how incredibly risky that behavior was. And so I damn sure want to teach my kids as best not to ever do anything like that - that binge drinking is not some harmless adolescent rite of passage.

Drilling basic self-protection measures into our kids isn't a fantasy. It will not keep them from all harm or prevent any possibility of rape or some other horrible crime. But it may decrease their odds of facing such a terrible situation as Emily Doe, or something even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me a lot of women think they should be able to cry rape anytime they want. Because. Men.

Said the rapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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....

Read her letter.

I did. twice. you have no idea if she intended on fooling around with the guy. and you have no idea when she passed out. And neither does she.

We know that he had been openly coming on to other women at the party and they rejected him. She knew what he wanted when she left with him. No one has ever said that she left with him unwillingly. Remember: he is only responsible for what HE actually did.

No one has ever said that she left with him willingly, or even that she left with him at all. My guess is that she felt sick and needed some fresh air, and he either offered to go outside with her or followed her when she went outside by herself. But that is speculation. "What HE actually did" was put his fingers inside an unconscious person. Not speculation.

There were other people at the party. They refused to come forward and be witnesses (possibly because they were drinking underage) for either the prosecution or the defense. There is gossip that says she was with him at the party and left with him, FWIW -- he testified as much and no one has disputed that part of his testimony.