Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

Not the PP.

Ask the girl.

Turner got a lighter sentence because of the following:

(1) He has no priors
(2) There is no indication of him drugging her
(3) There is no indication of him dragging her behind the dumpster
(4) She was too drunk to even remember what happened so there is no record
(5) He was too drunk to realize when or if she passed out.

I am a woman. I truly do not understand women who think they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and then blame men when things go badly. Stop pretending that she was sober, he was sober, and that he threatened her, dragged her behind a dumpster, and assaulted her. Stick with the facts and only the facts, like the judge did.

I am a woman too and I agree with the above posted message. The whole incident is unfortunate but the girl is taking zero responsibility for her actions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

Not the PP.

Ask the girl.

Turner got a lighter sentence because of the following:

(1) He has no priors
(2) There is no indication of him drugging her
(3) There is no indication of him dragging her behind the dumpster
(4) She was too drunk to even remember what happened so there is no record
(5) He was too drunk to realize when or if she passed out.

I am a woman. I truly do not understand women who think they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and then blame men when things go badly. Stop pretending that she was sober, he was sober, and that he threatened her, dragged her behind a dumpster, and assaulted her. Stick with the facts and only the facts, like the judge did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

Not the PP.

Ask the girl.

Turner got a lighter sentence because of the following:

(1) He has no priors
(2) There is no indication of him drugging her
(3) There is no indication of him dragging her behind the dumpster
(4) She was too drunk to even remember what happened so there is no record
(5) He was too drunk to realize when or if she passed out.

I am a woman. I truly do not understand women who think they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and then blame men when things go badly. Stop pretending that she was sober, he was sober, and that he threatened her, dragged her behind a dumpster, and assaulted her. Stick with the facts and only the facts, like the judge did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this, but it doesn't seem like rape to me either. It seems like it was a party hook-up by two drunken idiots that went off the rails. He fingered her according to him, with her consent. There was no PIV.

This is silly. In what universe do 2 people have consensual sex behind a dumpster, and then when people come up on you, the first instinct is to RUN LIKE HELL and leave a naked girl behind? Clearly he knew he was doing something wrong. He was scared to death of being caught because he knew he was raping a girl.

He was cool with leaving her behind, half naked with 2 dudes on a bike, in the middle of the night.

But it was just the alcohol right? Right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.

Cool. You've explained that part. Now tell us in what circumstances you would need to go behind a dumpster with your wife for this to occur.

Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Distorting the facts do not make your argument credible. The fingering may have been consensual on her part for all we know. Maybe she passed out during the process of being fingered She can't tell you if it was or not because she doesn't remember. You can not convict or call him a rapist when the facts are this vague. You don't know what happened. Emily Doe doesn't know what happened. And the accused gets the benefit of the doubt unless proved otherwise. It wasn't proved otherwise. So you are out of line calling him a rapist. Distorting the facts only makes what he actually DID do look made up. Don't you get that? That does not help Emily Doe. That does not help victims of sex crimes.

From what I've read it sounds as thought the swedes came upon this guy dry humping her. That is what they were able to get him on.

Actually, a jury of his peers did convict him of sexual assault given the facts available. California Law states that if a person is too drunk to remember what happened the next day, even if still conscious, they are too drunk to provide consent. So the fact of her being that drunk, which you don't seem to dispute, is enough for a conviction. The reason he was not convicted of rape, but only of attempted rape, is not because of any questions around whether she had consented. California law only defines an assault as rape if there is penetration with a penis. Since, in this case, their was evidence penetration with a foreign object (his fingers), and no evidence that he inserted his penis inside of her, he was convicted of sexual assault with a foreign object.

You can argue that California's law should not say that extreme intoxication means that a person cannot provide consent, whatever else they may say or do, but that's an issue to take up with the California legislature.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this, but it doesn't seem like rape to me either. It seems like it was a party hook-up by two drunken idiots that went off the rails. He fingered her according to him, with her consent. There was no PIV.

This is silly. In whati universe do 2 people have consensual sex behind a dumpster, and then when people come up on you, the first instinct is to RUN LIKE HELL and leave a naked girl behind? Clearly he knew he was doing something wrong. He was scared to death of being caught because he knew he was raping a girl.

He was cool with leaving her behind, half naked with 2 dudes on a bike, in the middle of the night.

But it was just the alcohol right? Right.

In the same one. Wasn't very gentlemanly of him, true. Wasn't that ladylike of her, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this, but it doesn't seem like rape to me either. It seems like it was a party hook-up by two drunken idiots that went off the rails. He fingered her according to him, with her consent. There was no PIV.

This is silly. In whati universe do 2 people have consensual sex behind a dumpster, and then when people come up on you, the first instinct is to RUN LIKE HELL and leave a naked girl behind? Clearly he knew he was doing something wrong. He was scared to death of being caught because he knew he was raping a girl.

He was cool with leaving her behind, half naked with 2 dudes on a bike, in the middle of the night.

But it was just the alcohol right? Right.

Anonymous wrote:Hate to say this, but it doesn't seem like rape to me either. It seems like it was a party hook-up by two drunken idiots that went off the rails. He fingered her according to him, with her consent. There was no PIV.

Anonymous wrote:
Distorting the facts do not make your argument credible. The fingering may have been consensual on her part for all we know. Maybe she passed out during the process of being fingered She can't tell you if it was or not because she doesn't remember. You can not convict or call him a rapist when the facts are this vague. You don't know what happened. Emily Doe doesn't know what happened. And the accused gets the benefit of the doubt unless proved otherwise. It wasn't proved otherwise. So you are out of line calling him a rapist. Distorting the facts only makes what he actually DID do look made up. Don't you get that? That does not help Emily Doe. That does not help victims of sex crimes.

From what I've read it sounds as thought the swedes came upon this guy dry humping her. That is what they were able to get him on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joining the thread late, but to those who are defending BAT would you have sexual contact (with your penis inside the body or your fingers inside the vagina/anus) with your wife if she was passed out?

timing is everything. If I was fooling around with my wife, and during the fingering she passed out, it might take me more than a few minutes for my drunken brain to realize that if I was fingering away.