Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

Stop with the concern trolling.

The effects of date rape and stranger rape are the same for the victim.

He didn't RAPE her!!! There is that.

PP, listen to yourself. Do you think that it makes a difference whether he penetrates her with his penis or his fingers? There is a difference under the law in California, but other states do not make that distinction. DC doesn't, for example. It's truly mind-boggling to me that you seem to think that what he did isn't "rape" and that that should make it better.

It is not clear when the penetration took place. He was convicted of the penetration because CA law says that if the victim doesn't remember the penetration it is a sexual assault. The victim may have been awake and actively making out with this guy when the penetration occurred. He was caught dry humping her.

He wasn't convicted of rape for a reason. He didn't rape her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy and the girl were both drunk off their asses. I feel sorry for both of them that they made such bad decisions.

The decision to get drunk is nowhere near the magnitude of the decision to rape someone. Many, MANY men get drunk and do not rape anyone.

Sticking your finger in someone without their permission is not rape. It is sexual assault.

Not according the FBI and most other states.

And not according to the generally understood meaning of rape. Well, before it changed and it became "rape is rape". There seems to be no reason, anymore, to have both rape and sexual assault when they have become the same thing.

I guess sticking your finger into a drunk person's ear is rape if they don't remember it happening the next day?

It explains why Sweden has a huge rape problem, according to the statistics. (I don't agree with this, myself Equating any and all sexual contact or assault with rape. It seems to trivialize the word and minimize it.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

Stop with the concern trolling.

The effects of date rape and stranger rape are the same for the victim.

He didn't RAPE her!!! There is that.

PP, listen to yourself. Do you think that it makes a difference whether he penetrates her with his penis or his fingers? There is a difference under the law in California, but other states do not make that distinction. DC doesn't, for example. It's truly mind-boggling to me that you seem to think that what he did isn't "rape" and that that should make it better.

Not the poster you quoted, but yes I see a BIG difference between being penetrated by a penis as opposed to a finger. Both are crimes, but the first is much more serious than the later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy and the girl were both drunk off their asses. I feel sorry for both of them that they made such bad decisions.

The decision to get drunk is nowhere near the magnitude of the decision to rape someone. Many, MANY men get drunk and do not rape anyone.

Sticking your finger in someone without their permission is not rape. It is sexual assault.

Not according the FBI and most other states.

And not according to the generally understood meaning of rape. Well, before it changed and it became "rape is rape". There seems to be no reason, anymore, to have both rape and sexual assault when they have become the same thing.

I guess sticking your finger into a drunk person's ear is rape if they don't remember it happening the next day?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

Stop with the concern trolling.

The effects of date rape and stranger rape are the same for the victim.

He didn't RAPE her!!! There is that.

PP, listen to yourself. Do you think that it makes a difference whether he penetrates her with his penis or his fingers? There is a difference under the law in California, but other states do not make that distinction. DC doesn't, for example. It's truly mind-boggling to me that you seem to think that what he did isn't "rape" and that that should make it better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy and the girl were both drunk off their asses. I feel sorry for both of them that they made such bad decisions.

The decision to get drunk is nowhere near the magnitude of the decision to rape someone. Many, MANY men get drunk and do not rape anyone.

Sticking your finger in someone without their permission is not rape. It is sexual assault.

Under California law. Under the FBI definition, it is rape.

Ok forgive me for being blunt but as vile as it is, most people don't view a man sticking his finger in a woman without consent to be as bad as if it were a penis

And most women would never undergo an invasive rape kit exam if they knew that they had only been fingered and dry humped. And they wouldn't have humiliating crime photos taken of their naked body that would be splayed out for all to see at a trial. In this case, the victim was her own worst enemy. I feel for her, I really do. And I understand how this could have happened and I do feel sympathy for her. But blaming the young man for these intrusive, invasive exams....I don't think she can do that. She got herself black out drunk. She can't blame him for her own drinking. Especially since it wasn't the first time she had blacked out like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy and the girl were both drunk off their asses. I feel sorry for both of them that they made such bad decisions.

The decision to get drunk is nowhere near the magnitude of the decision to rape someone. Many, MANY men get drunk and do not rape anyone.

Sticking your finger in someone without their permission is not rape. It is sexual assault.

Not according the FBI and most other states.

And not according to the generally understood meaning of rape. Well, before it changed and it became "rape is rape". There seems to be no reason, anymore, to have both rape and sexual assault when they have become the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

Stop with the concern trolling.

The effects of date rape and stranger rape are the same for the victim.

He didn't RAPE her!!! There is that.

He penetrated her unconscious body. That is rape. You are hanging your hat on the technical name of crime in California. If you stick your fingers in someone's body without their permission, you are engaged in rape.

If rape required using a penis by the defendant, then no woman could ever rape a man, and we know that women can rape men.

He was seen dry humping her, not penetrating her. She could have been conscious when the penetration occurred. We don't know what happened because she doesn't remember. He was not convicted of rape because the facts are not clear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy and the girl were both drunk off their asses. I feel sorry for both of them that they made such bad decisions.

The decision to get drunk is nowhere near the magnitude of the decision to rape someone. Many, MANY men get drunk and do not rape anyone.

Sticking your finger in someone without their permission is not rape. It is sexual assault.

Under California law. Under the FBI definition, it is rape.

Ok forgive me for being blunt but as vile as it is, most people don't view a man sticking his finger in a woman without consent to be as bad as if it were a penis

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Uh, he didn't come across a passed out woman, carry her behind a dumpster, unclothe her and penetrate her with his penis, and take pictures of her.

No, he trolled a party until he found a woman drunk enough to victimize. He walked her out of the party and then victimized her behind a dumpster.

Not much difference.

Nope. Big difference between finding a woman passed out on a couch, carrying her to your room and having your way with her passed out body and meeting a woman kissing/dancing her, going outside, walking behind a dumpster and having her pass out while making out. In the first instance you are talking about a predator, in the other you are talking about a drunk guy who went with a drunk woman to fool around and didn't have the good sense or decency to stop touching her when she passed out.

If you think those two scenarios are The Same, you have a mighty twisted view of sexuality.

If this woman had even gone behind those dumpsters to barf and he blind sided her back there - that would have been an attack. But if she willingly walked back there with him, even heavily intoxicated....that was not an attack even though it turned into an assault when she passed out and he continued to touch her. Still not rape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy and the girl were both drunk off their asses. I feel sorry for both of them that they made such bad decisions.

The decision to get drunk is nowhere near the magnitude of the decision to rape someone. Many, MANY men get drunk and do not rape anyone.

Sticking your finger in someone without their permission is not rape. It is sexual assault.

Not according the FBI and most other states.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy and the girl were both drunk off their asses. I feel sorry for both of them that they made such bad decisions.

The decision to get drunk is nowhere near the magnitude of the decision to rape someone. Many, MANY men get drunk and do not rape anyone.

Sticking your finger in someone without their permission is not rape. It is sexual assault.

Under California law. Under the FBI definition, it is rape.

Have not read through this thread, but are there any witnesses that saw Brock and the woman leave the party together? Has it been established that he came across her passed out body and he decided to assault her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

Stop with the concern trolling.

The effects of date rape and stranger rape are the same for the victim.

He didn't RAPE her!!! There is that.

He penetrated her unconscious body. That is rape. You are hanging your hat on the technical name of crime in California. If you stick your fingers in someone's body without their permission, you are engaged in rape.

If rape required using a penis by the defendant, then no woman could ever rape a man, and we know that women can rape men.

California law is more nuanced than that. Rape requires intent, and proving that he wanted to rape her and not just have sex with her wasn't possible.

If you are hanging your hat on his lack of intent to rape, then you are mistaken. He was also convicted of sexual assault with intent to rape, along with the two counts of penetration with a foreign object. He had the intent to rape her.

BTW, the incident will be reported to the FBI which will label it a rape in the FBI crime database and it will go into the rape statistics.

It was a rape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYDN piece comparing a similar case makes this sentencing even more disgusting, if that is possible:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affects-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Except Brock Turner did not carry an unconscious woman anywhere. And he didn't rape the woman or videotape the act. Nor was he convicted of rape.

The devil is in these little details.

Call it "sexual assault" then. He was convicted of two counts of penetrating Emily's body with a foreign object.

How does that make it better?

Why do you want to equate the crimes? That seems to minimize what happened to the woman in the Vanderbilt case.

Stop with the concern trolling.

The effects of date rape and stranger rape are the same for the victim.

He didn't RAPE her!!! There is that.

He penetrated her unconscious body. That is rape. You are hanging your hat on the technical name of crime in California. If you stick your fingers in someone's body without their permission, you are engaged in rape.

If rape required using a penis by the defendant, then no woman could ever rape a man, and we know that women can rape men.

California law is more nuanced than that. Rape requires intent, and proving that he wanted to rape her and not just have sex with her wasn't possible.

If you are hanging your hat on his lack of intent to rape, then you are mistaken. He was also convicted of sexual assault with intent to rape, along with the two counts of penetration with a foreign object. He had the intent to rape her.