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:

Nope. Foreign object was dirt, pine needles and other stuff. They pulled it out of her at the hospital. Turner is a weirdo.

Are you serious?

If true, he has issues on multiple fronts. Very sick young man.

No the charge and conviction were for fingers. It was outside and messy, not deliberate, as PP is implying. Stick to what he was actually convicted of.

And you know that because you were there? And you were on the jury, so you know what the jury found?

As the owner of a vagina, I can't imagine how someone gets pine needles in it without them being deliberately placed there. There had to be a lot of force or a very deliberate action. That's not something that just happens.

I asked somebody that does rape kits and it does, just happen, when having sex outside.

Because there is thrusting when you have sex. It's a good bit of force and it's repetitive.

They weren't having sex, though. PP has been very insistent that they weren't having sex and that she wasn't raped.PP has been insisting that he was just fingering her. If he was fingering her hard enough to shove pine needles in her vagina, he was fisting her.

Are you sure you have a vagina? Have you ever been fingered properly? There is some force to it. Certainly if you have something on your fingers it will get pushed up in there.

How on earth did he have pine needles on his hands? Were they just stuck there with magic? How did he not notice that he had magic pine needles stuck all over his hands?

go have sex on a bed of pine needles and tell us how many are stuck to your body and are all up in the privates... you realize pine needles have sap on them.

I suspect you're the one who hasn't been doing things properly!

I have actually spoken to a person who does rape kits and yes, bark and pine needles indeed end up in the vagina during sex outdoors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Foreign object was dirt, pine needles and other stuff. They pulled it out of her at the hospital. Turner is a weirdo.

Are you serious?

If true, he has issues on multiple fronts. Very sick young man.

No the charge and conviction were for fingers. It was outside and messy, not deliberate, as PP is implying. Stick to what he was actually convicted of.

And you know that because you were there? And you were on the jury, so you know what the jury found?

As the owner of a vagina, I can't imagine how someone gets pine needles in it without them being deliberately placed there. There had to be a lot of force or a very deliberate action. That's not something that just happens.

I asked somebody that does rape kits and it does, just happen, when having sex outside.

Because there is thrusting when you have sex. It's a good bit of force and it's repetitive.

They weren't having sex, though. PP has been very insistent that they weren't having sex and that she wasn't raped.PP has been insisting that he was just fingering her. If he was fingering her hard enough to shove pine needles in her vagina, he was fisting her.

Are you sure you have a vagina? Have you ever been fingered properly? There is some force to it. Certainly if you have something on your fingers it will get pushed up in there.

How on earth did he have pine needles on his hands? Were they just stuck there with magic? How did he not notice that he had magic pine needles stuck all over his hands?

go have sex on a bed of pine needles and tell us how many are stuck to your body and are all up in the privates... you realize pine needles have sap on them.

I suspect you're the one who hasn't been doing things properly!

I have actually spoken to a person who does rape kits and yes, bark and pine needles indeed end up in the vagina during sex outdoors.

They weren't having sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the prosecutor, judge, jury or probation officer had thought he had deliberately picked up pine needles and stuck them in there, instead of just using his fingers while outside, he would have been in a lot worse trouble. They didn't think that.

He was convicted of penetration with a foreign object. He either penetrated her with his fingers or he penetrated her by stick pine needles in there.

It's much worse than PP or Brock Turner's dad would like you to believe.

[Anonymous]

I'm perfectly fine with the punishment given the facts. Both were extremely intoxicated acting extremely irresponsibly. There is evidence he was kissing, or trying to kiss the sister, and evidence that the victim left with him to hook up. At some point she passed out and he should have immediately stopped. He didn't. Whether or not he was so hammered to not realize she was passed out does not lesson his guilt, but is a mitigating factor when determining his punishment. As it is, his life is ruined.

And certainly am ok with his dad trying to save his kid. duh. Any of you guys parents???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the prosecutor, judge, jury or probation officer had thought he had deliberately picked up pine needles and stuck them in there, instead of just using his fingers while outside, he would have been in a lot worse trouble. They didn't think that.

He was convicted of penetration with a foreign object. He either penetrated her with his fingers or he penetrated her by stick pine needles in there.

It's much worse than PP or Brock Turner's dad would like you to believe.

what is that, 2nd base? he could have easily been doing that during the hook up which continued illegally after she passed out. That is not rape. Doesn't make it a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the prosecutor, judge, jury or probation officer had thought he had deliberately picked up pine needles and stuck them in there, instead of just using his fingers while outside, he would have been in a lot worse trouble. They didn't think that.

And she didn't say that he had done that in her letter either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm perfectly fine with the punishment given the facts. Both were extremely intoxicated acting extremely irresponsibly. There is evidence he was kissing, or trying to kiss the sister, and evidence that the victim left with him to hook up. At some point she passed out and he should have immediately stopped. He didn't. Whether or not he was so hammered to not realize she was passed out does not lesson his guilt, but is a mitigating factor when determining his punishment. As it is, his life is ruined.

And certainly am ok with his dad trying to save his kid. duh. Any of you guys parents???

I am a parent, and a parent of a boy. I understand why the dad felt compelled to defend his son. That doesn't make the way he did it ok. It's understandable to ask for leniency on the basis that it's your son's first offense, or he's been a great kid up until now, or such an act was completely out of character. It's not okay to ask for leniency on the basis that sexual assault is just "20 minutes of action" and it wasn't really that bad.

It was that bad. It's true the boy's life is ruined, but he's the one that ruined it. There has to be some acknowledgement of responsibility, and neither the boy nor his father seem to understand that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the prosecutor, judge, jury or probation officer had thought he had deliberately picked up pine needles and stuck them in there, instead of just using his fingers while outside, he would have been in a lot worse trouble. They didn't think that.

And she didn't say that he had done that in her letter either. [/quote he doesn't know WHAT he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm perfectly fine with the punishment given the facts. Both were extremely intoxicated acting extremely irresponsibly. There is evidence he was kissing, or trying to kiss the sister, and evidence that the victim left with him to hook up. At some point she passed out and he should have immediately stopped. He didn't. Whether or not he was so hammered to not realize she was passed out does not lesson his guilt, but is a mitigating factor when determining his punishment. As it is, his life is ruined.

And certainly am ok with his dad trying to save his kid. duh. Any of you guys parents???

I am a parent, and a parent of a boy. I understand why the dad felt compelled to defend his son. That doesn't make the way he did it ok. It's understandable to ask for leniency on the basis that it's your son's first offense, or he's been a great kid up until now, or such an act was completely out of character. It's not okay to ask for leniency on the basis that sexual assault is just "20 minutes of action" and it wasn't really that bad.

It was that bad. It's true the boy's life is ruined, but he's the one that ruined it. There has to be some acknowledgement of responsibility, and neither the boy nor his father seem to understand that.

The letter seemed like pure emotion, written soon afterseeing his son, without a lot of thought. I wonder how many letters like that parents write, judges receive, that are never published. He was defending his child, which is what parents do. As for Brock, if he learns the lesson never to drink again, I'm happy with that. Good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: As for Brock, if he learns the lesson never to drink again, I'm happy with that. Good enough.

If you think that is the lesson that needs to be learned, you are beyond hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm perfectly fine with the punishment given the facts. Both were extremely intoxicated acting extremely irresponsibly. There is evidence he was kissing, or trying to kiss the sister, and evidence that the victim left with him to hook up. At some point she passed out and he should have immediately stopped. He didn't. Whether or not he was so hammered to not realize she was passed out does not lesson his guilt, but is a mitigating factor when determining his punishment. As it is, his life is ruined.

And certainly am ok with his dad trying to save his kid. duh. Any of you guys parents???

I am a parent, and a parent of a boy. I understand why the dad felt compelled to defend his son. That doesn't make the way he did it ok. It's understandable to ask for leniency on the basis that it's your son's first offense, or he's been a great kid up until now, or such an act was completely out of character. It's not okay to ask for leniency on the basis that sexual assault is just "20 minutes of action" and it wasn't really that bad.

It was that bad. It's true the boy's life is ruined, but he's the one that ruined it. There has to be some acknowledgement of responsibility, and neither the boy nor his father seem to understand that.

The letter seemed like pure emotion, written soon afterseeing his son, without a lot of thought. I wonder how many letters like that parents write, judges receive, that are never published. He was defending his child, which is what parents do. As for Brock, if he learns the lesson never to drink again, I'm happy with that. Good enough.

Obviously I can't speak to this court or case, but I read a lot of these sorts of letters when I was clerking for a federal judge. Nearly always they focused on the defendant's personal qualities and standing in the community. Sometimes they were a plea for mercy because the defendant was a parent of young children, or supported a spouse or parent, etc etc. Much more rarely did one say "he was convicted but it wasn't that bad so you should go easy on him." And when those letters were there, they tended -- like this one -- to be from people who didn't believe that what the person did was very bad. Examples I remember are the friends of major tax evaders (and the evaders were tax lawyers!) and the friends of some guys convicted of running an illegal pharmaceutical drug ring. People died from mislabeled drugs, but the defendants were "good people." No acknowledgement that their actions killed people. Judge didn't put a lot of weight on that one.

So, sure, these letters are written and considered. It doesn't make them right. I like to think that if my child were ever convicted of raping or murdering someone -- G-d forbid! -- I would recognize that what he did was wrong. It wouldn't make him any less my child. But there needs to be acknowledgement that there was wrongdoing and there should be punishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking that alcohol doesn't matter is just dumb. Placing responsibility for your own safety onto other drunk people is equally dumb. Has she not passed out it would have been a regular college hook up. Had he not been there she would have passed out anyway and possibly found behind the same dumpster. Drinking is a choice and with choices come consequences. I am having very hard time feeling sorry for her.

I do feel sorry for her. I don't think the natural consequence of drinking is rape. However, it certainly is a potential consequence, and one that should not be ignored.

Compare it to smoking. Many people who smoke get lung cancer. Some people who smoke do not. Some people get lung cancer without ever having smoked. If you smoke and get lung cancer, it doesn't mean you deserved to get lung cancer. It does mean you made a stupid decision that increased your risk. A decision you would have been better off not making.

So it is with drinking at a party. It's just better not to do it. Plenty of people drink at parties and are fine, just like plenty of people smoke and are fine, and plenty of people go running by themselves at 2 am with headphones and are fine. But a hell of a lot of people do these things and are not fine. Do you really want to take the chance that you'll be one of them? Cutting down on alcohol consumption would not eliminate rape and sexual assault, but it would go a long way towards reducing it.

I am fine with that message if it is directed to both men and women. If you only direct it towards women, you are making women solely responsible for preventing their own rapes. Men have to be accountable for changing their behavior, too.

NP here - and I DEFINITELY think both men and women should be counseled about drinking and rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:according to certain posts here it would be justified to rape drunk people male or female I suppose right?. Hey, do not get drunk or you might exposed yourself to be raped by someone or something. Imagine if guys would have the fear of getting drunk because of this possibility.

No one is saying it's justified to rape anyone at any time, drunk or not. They are saying that you're exposing yourself to all kinds of bad possibilities when you're too drunk to know your surroundings or what's going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking that alcohol doesn't matter is just dumb. Placing responsibility for your own safety onto other drunk people is equally dumb. Has she not passed out it would have been a regular college hook up. Had he not been there she would have passed out anyway and possibly found behind the same dumpster. Drinking is a choice and with choices come consequences. I am having very hard time feeling sorry for her.

I do feel sorry for her. I don't think the natural consequence of drinking is rape. However, it certainly is a potential consequence, and one that should not be ignored.

Compare it to smoking. Many people who smoke get lung cancer. Some people who smoke do not. Some people get lung cancer without ever having smoked. If you smoke and get lung cancer, it doesn't mean you deserved to get lung cancer. It does mean you made a stupid decision that increased your risk. A decision you would have been better off not making.

So it is with drinking at a party. It's just better not to do it. Plenty of people drink at parties and are fine, just like plenty of people smoke and are fine, and plenty of people go running by themselves at 2 am with headphones and are fine. But a hell of a lot of people do these things and are not fine. Do you really want to take the chance that you'll be one of them? Cutting down on alcohol consumption would not eliminate rape and sexual assault, but it would go a long way towards reducing it.

I am fine with that message if it is directed to both men and women. If you only direct it towards women, you are making women solely responsible for preventing their own rapes. Men have to be accountable for changing their behavior, too.

NP here - and I DEFINITELY think both men and women should be counseled about drinking and rape.

+ I don't think anyone on this thread has said otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand the sentence. It was basically a hookup at a frat party gone wrong. It doesn't make sense to send one party to prison for years.. There's no way to know when she became unconscious, but it was probably later rather than sooner.

No, IT WAS A RAPE, you idiot

Do you think a woman ever bears any responsibility re staying sober, not trusting drunk strangers, not walking down a street at 2 a.m. alone, etc? We're not doing any favors to perpetuate the myth that women can be and do anything they want and go anywhere they want without being responsible for their own safety to the degree possible. That's beyond naive and truly not very smart.

If I stand naked in the street at 2:00 am it doesn't give anyone the right to rape me.

you're right it doesn't. but would you advise your daughter to do so?

NP here. Safety advice I would give my child is completely irrelevant to whether someone is justified in committing a crime against them or whether the criminal deserves jail time.

I tell my kids to lock the front door. Whether they do, do but forger the deadbolt, or do not for some reason, if someone breaks in and steals their things it is still a crime and still the fault and moral responsibility of the thief.

Absolutely! But making the effort to try to be safe should still be the message.

I agree. One thing that really stands out in a lot of campus rape stories is the alcohol. And that goes for both men and women. It does not absolve men of blame, and it does not mean that women deserve to be assaulted. But when you are drinking enough to black out, you are putting yourself at risk. You can't depend on your friends to save you; they're drinking too. Like the victim here said, this man was looking to assault someone and if it hadn't been her, it would have been another woman. But very likely it would have been a woman who, like she did, had too much too drink. That's what these predators look for or take advantage of when they find it.

The number one thing women can do to protect themselves is not drink to excess, which probably means one drink only. Maybe things have changed but when I went to college in 1998, my parents impressed the following on me: do not go to parties where you don't know anyone; don't go to parties by yourself; don't accept any drink, even water, that's been opened or poured by someone else outside of your sight; don't ever go to a guy's room during a party; don't accept a ride or escort home from any guy you don't know well; don't ever invite a guy you don't know well into your own room.

Now, if you don't follow these rules, do you deserve to be sexually assaulted? Of course not. But why make yourself an easier target? Like the house-breaking example: yes, it is the burglar's fault, but doesn't the victim wish she'd locked her doors? I've read comments by college-age women who say "it's not fair, we should be able to drink as much as men, it's discriminatory to tell us we shouldn't." To which I answer: too bad. Not everything in life is fair. There are a hell of a lot of unfair things in this world, and it's not worth getting assaulted over.

+ 100 and more! Your entire post is on-target!!