Anonymous wrote:Kids, don't drink or do drugs outside the safety of your homes.

Parents, let kids drink and explore at home. Just grin and bear it. This shit ain't worth your principles.

Because that goes so well. No, parents do not need to be hosting drinking parties at their houses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brock is undoubtedly a douchebag, but 6 months of jail and spending the rest of your life as a registered sex offender seems like a reasonable punishment for a man who fingered a passed out drunk girl (and even then we don't know for certain that she was passed out at that moment he did it)

People are outraged at the lenient 6 month sentence. The probation officer took into account the notorieity of the case, that Turner's name is forever besmirched, and the llifetime sentence of the sex offender registry when advising the jail time.

I think the sex offender registry is an awful creation, myself. A lifetime sentence that limits where a person can live, severely limits what job a person can have, and does not distinguish between one sex offense and another. Does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think so. a person is supposed toserve their sentence, pay their debt to society, and then move on. If a person is too dangerous to be out in society, then either give them a lifetimeprison sentence, kill them, or castrate and release them.

You know, part of the reason for this is an abundance of evidence that sexual predators cannot be reformed. I wouldn't want to live next to this guy. I wouldn't my daughters in a room with him. And no, I wouldn't want to work with him.

The thought that there are many, many others like him out there gives me chills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brock is undoubtedly a douchebag, but 6 months of jail and spending the rest of your life as a registered sex offender seems like a reasonable punishment for a man who fingered a passed out drunk girl (and even then we don't know for certain that she was passed out at that moment he did it)

People are outraged at the lenient 6 month sentence. The probation officer took into account the notorieity of the case, that Turner's name is forever besmirched, and the llifetime sentence of the sex offender registry when advising the jail time.

I think the sex offender registry is an awful creation, myself. A lifetime sentence that limits where a person can live, severely limits what job a person can have, and does not distinguish between one sex offense and another. Does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think so. a person is supposed toserve their sentence, pay their debt to society, and then move on. If a person is too dangerous to be out in society, then either give them a lifetimeprison sentence, kill them, or castrate and release them.

I actually do not consider 6 months to be a lenient sentence for someone who fingered a woman In a situation where it can't be proved as to whether she gave her consent. And fwiw, I actually DO believe she was passed out and therefore couldn't give consent, but speculation isn't enough

It was enough for the jury, who found him guilty of 3 felonies, beyond a reasonable doubt. They were the ones who heard all the facts and testimony. It's no longer speculation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brock is undoubtedly a douchebag, but 6 months of jail and spending the rest of your life as a registered sex offender seems like a reasonable punishment for a man who fingered a passed out drunk girl (and even then we don't know for certain that she was passed out at that moment he did it)

People are outraged at the lenient 6 month sentence. The probation officer took into account the notorieity of the case, that Turner's name is forever besmirched, and the llifetime sentence of the sex offender registry when advising the jail time.

I think the sex offender registry is an awful creation, myself. A lifetime sentence that limits where a person can live, severely limits what job a person can have, and does not distinguish between one sex offense and another. Does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think so. a person is supposed toserve their sentence, pay their debt to society, and then move on. If a person is too dangerous to be out in society, then either give them a lifetimeprison sentence, kill them, or castrate and release them.

I actually do not consider 6 months to be a lenient sentence for someone who fingered a woman In a situation where it can't be proved as to whether she gave her consent. And fwiw, I actually DO believe she was passed out and therefore couldn't give consent, but speculation isn't enough

I also want to add that I actually think he would have raped her (with his penis) if the men on the bike hadn't come along. But legally you can't just go on gut feelings, you have to go by what is known and what is known is that she doesn't remember the events of the evening and eventually passed out, he fingered her at some point, but it can't be determined if it was prior to her passing out, and witnesses saw him dry hump her with his pants on while she was apparently passed out. Based on what can actually be determined six months in jail and a lifetime branded as a sex offender does not seem lenient to me.

Kids, don't drink or do drugs outside the safety of your homes.

Parents, let kids drink and explore at home. Just grin and bear it. This shit ain't worth your principles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

No, the RAPIST was her worst enemy. The punishment for a woman drinking too much is not sexual assault, it is a hangover, and you are some sick people who seem bent on making her rape her problem. Brock chose to engage sexually with a woman incapable of consent and then continued after she passed out. Would you also defend people who kick passed out homeless people, you know, since they made unwise decisions?

Not the pp, but I just want to say that even though I think the sentence was fair, I do NOT share the above poster's opinion that the victim was her own worst enemy.

She took away her own ability to consent, advocate and look out for herself. She wound up passed out half naked next to a dumpster. She was not being kind or respectful or decent to herself.

She is not a bad person, she is human. She is a good person who made some really bad choices for herself that night. She needs to own that if she is ever going to move on. Brock needs to do the same. This would never have happened if either one of them had been sober. That is something to think long and hard about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brock is undoubtedly a douchebag, but 6 months of jail and spending the rest of your life as a registered sex offender seems like a reasonable punishment for a man who fingered a passed out drunk girl (and even then we don't know for certain that she was passed out at that moment he did it)

People are outraged at the lenient 6 month sentence. The probation officer took into account the notorieity of the case, that Turner's name is forever besmirched, and the llifetime sentence of the sex offender registry when advising the jail time.

I think the sex offender registry is an awful creation, myself. A lifetime sentence that limits where a person can live, severely limits what job a person can have, and does not distinguish between one sex offense and another. Does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think so. a person is supposed toserve their sentence, pay their debt to society, and then move on. If a person is too dangerous to be out in society, then either give them a lifetimeprison sentence, kill them, or castrate and release them.

I actually do not consider 6 months to be a lenient sentence for someone who fingered a woman In a situation where it can't be proved as to whether she gave her consent. And fwiw, I actually DO believe she was passed out and therefore couldn't give consent, but speculation isn't enough

Anonymous wrote:Brock is undoubtedly a douchebag, but 6 months of jail and spending the rest of your life as a registered sex offender seems like a reasonable punishment for a man who fingered a passed out drunk girl (and even then we don't know for certain that she was passed out at that moment he did it)

People are outraged at the lenient 6 month sentence. The probation officer took into account the notorieity of the case, that Turner's name is forever besmirched, and the llifetime sentence of the sex offender registry when advising the jail time.

I think the sex offender registry is an awful creation, myself. A lifetime sentence that limits where a person can live, severely limits what job a person can have, and does not distinguish between one sex offense and another. Does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think so. a person is supposed toserve their sentence, pay their debt to society, and then move on. If a person is too dangerous to be out in society, then either give them a lifetimeprison sentence, kill them, or castrate and release them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His own letter showed a lot more personal responsibility than Emily Doe's letter did. He's now a convicted criminal on the sex offender registry, she's officially the wounded victim who is waiting for him to pay her back some day. Brock's life has turned into a living nightmare. He never wants to drink again. Ever. He has lost everything over this. Things went from being fun to ruined in a night. Quite literally. He made a horrible, terrible mistake that has taken away everything that he has worked for. He is remorseful for it. If he could take back everything that he did that night. If he could unmeet Emily Doe - he would do it.

His parents and friends are still reeling from what has happened to this promising young man. How can someone so smart and funny and carefree and capable do something so stupid and hurtful? Not just to Emily Doe but to himself. Why did this happen? Why?

The more I read about this case the more I understand the relatively light sentencing suggestion from the PO.

Really? If he'd been sitting on her unconscious body slapping her face back and forth, would you still consider it just a horrible mistake made by a promising young man?

What if he'd stuck foreign objects in her mouth instead of her vagina?

Or how about if he'd taken a passed out girl and simply left her behind behind a dumpster and walked home with no one the wiser if he'd done anything to her or not? Would you still consider him a fine person because of everything he's accomplished?

And if he got away with these types of actions, what do you think the chances are that he would try them again with another woman? Maybe drop something in a drink since the passed out thing worked so well before? Any chance of that at all, or would it just not matter because he's so smart and capable and funny? How about if those qualities find him a wife some day - would that be enough to dismiss the thought of him humping an unconscious woman? What if, because he kept getting away with it, he was still doing it after he'd found a wife? Should we blame the women he encounters and assaults for what - just bringing out his naughty side and potentially ruining his life if they decide they didn't like it?

And what if he was the one who was blacked out drunk and she was only just very drunk. Maybe she was the one sitting on him and shoving her fingers and tongue into his mouth...or bought him drinks....and he drank them willingly but he passed out and she continued to grope him trying to wake him back up.....would it be her fault then? Would he be blameless because he didn't remember? Whoever passes out first wins?

What is your point? Why not stick with what actually DID happen. Neither one of these people behaved admirably that night. They were both drunk off their arses and behaving in ways that they would never behave while sober. And they have both hurt themselves and each other in the process.

So if you want to stick with actually DID happen, and believe they "both hurt themselves", you probably believe that they have both been punished. Am I right?

I'll bet Emily Doe will never again do anything to be in the position she was in that night. Nothing about her life will ever be the same again.

The problem you seem to be having is that her assailant will also never be the same again. That if Emily Doe had just felt sufficient shame, then Brock Turner could move on to meet his great potential.

So the point I'm trying to make is this: he didn't just behave badly, he behaved criminally. There's a reason that it's against the law to violate an unconscious person - even if some sick people out there want to convince themselves and others that she wanted to be violated and maybe even enjoyed it. There's a reason that the justice system weighs the facts carefully before deciding that he acted criminally.

He did the thing, he got caught, and his life should also never be the same. That's the point.

And the bonus point is that we'd probably not be discussing what he did if it weren't for the heroism of the witnesses and the victim and the appalling lack of conscience displayed by the assailant, his father, and most especially the judge. He could have slunk away with a big sigh of relief and his own immorality in tact.

That would just in your world?

If Emily Doe had come to after the swedes arrived on the scene and realized that this guy that she had been making out with had continued to dry hump her even after she had passed out, she would have been humiliated and pissed off at him. But I can about guarantee that she would have not called the cops, gone and done the rape kit exams, had photos taken of her naked body. No way would she have wanted to read about this in the paper.

She would have told Brock off in no uncertain terms and that would have been it. Maybe they would have both learned their lesson right then and there. Two lives spared and able to move on.

The reason this got as far as it did is because she blacked out drunk and awoke in the hospital not knowing wth had happened to her. She could have been gang raped for all she knew. HIV!! And once the sex crime investigation started to take place...that was it. No turning back.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

No, the RAPIST was her worst enemy. The punishment for a woman drinking too much is not sexual assault, it is a hangover, and you are some sick people who seem bent on making her rape her problem. Brock chose to engage sexually with a woman incapable of consent and then continued after she passed out. Would you also defend people who kick passed out homeless people, you know, since they made unwise decisions?

Not the pp, but I just want to say that even though I think the sentence was fair, I do NOT share the above poster's opinion that the victim was her own worst enemy.

Brock is undoubtedly a douchebag, but 6 months of jail and spending the rest of your life as a registered sex offender seems like a reasonable punishment for a man who fingered a passed out drunk girl (and even then we don't know for certain that she was passed out at that moment he did it)

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

+100000 It trivializes rape while giving the victims in these cases a weird sort of life ruining power over the accused. All you have to do is say you don't remember. It almost flips the tables...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His own letter showed a lot more personal responsibility than Emily Doe's letter did. He's now a convicted criminal on the sex offender registry, she's officially the wounded victim who is waiting for him to pay her back some day. Brock's life has turned into a living nightmare. He never wants to drink again. Ever. He has lost everything over this. Things went from being fun to ruined in a night. Quite literally. He made a horrible, terrible mistake that has taken away everything that he has worked for. He is remorseful for it. If he could take back everything that he did that night. If he could unmeet Emily Doe - he would do it.

His parents and friends are still reeling from what has happened to this promising young man. How can someone so smart and funny and carefree and capable do something so stupid and hurtful? Not just to Emily Doe but to himself. Why did this happen? Why?

The more I read about this case the more I understand the relatively light sentencing suggestion from the PO.

Really? If he'd been sitting on her unconscious body slapping her face back and forth, would you still consider it just a horrible mistake made by a promising young man?

What if he'd stuck foreign objects in her mouth instead of her vagina?

Or how about if he'd taken a passed out girl and simply left her behind behind a dumpster and walked home with no one the wiser if he'd done anything to her or not? Would you still consider him a fine person because of everything he's accomplished?

And if he got away with these types of actions, what do you think the chances are that he would try them again with another woman? Maybe drop something in a drink since the passed out thing worked so well before? Any chance of that at all, or would it just not matter because he's so smart and capable and funny? How about if those qualities find him a wife some day - would that be enough to dismiss the thought of him humping an unconscious woman? What if, because he kept getting away with it, he was still doing it after he'd found a wife? Should we blame the women he encounters and assaults for what - just bringing out his naughty side and potentially ruining his life if they decide they didn't like it?

And what if he was the one who was blacked out drunk and she was only just very drunk. Maybe she was the one sitting on him and shoving her fingers and tongue into his mouth...or bought him drinks....and he drank them willingly but he passed out and she continued to grope him trying to wake him back up.....would it be her fault then? Would he be blameless because he didn't remember? Whoever passes out first wins?

What is your point? Why not stick with what actually DID happen. Neither one of these people behaved admirably that night. They were both drunk off their arses and behaving in ways that they would never behave while sober. And they have both hurt themselves and each other in the process.

So if you want to stick with actually DID happen, and believe they "both hurt themselves", you probably believe that they have both been punished. Am I right?

I'll bet Emily Doe will never again do anything to be in the position she was in that night. Nothing about her life will ever be the same again.

The problem you seem to be having is that her assailant will also never be the same again. That if Emily Doe had just felt sufficient shame, then Brock Turner could move on to meet his great potential.

So the point I'm trying to make is this: he didn't just behave badly, he behaved criminally. There's a reason that it's against the law to violate an unconscious person - even if some sick people out there want to convince themselves and others that she wanted to be violated and maybe even enjoyed it. There's a reason that the justice system weighs the facts carefully before deciding that he acted criminally.

He did the thing, he got caught, and his life should also never be the same. That's the point.

And the bonus point is that we'd probably not be discussing what he did if it weren't for the heroism of the witnesses and the victim and the appalling lack of conscience displayed by the assailant, his father, and most especially the judge. He could have slunk away with a big sigh of relief and his own immorality in tact.

That would just in your world?

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.

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.

No, the RAPIST was her worst enemy. The punishment for a woman drinking too much is not sexual assault, it is a hangover, and you are some sick people who seem bent on making her rape her problem. Brock chose to engage sexually with a woman incapable of consent and then continued after she passed out. Would you also defend people who kick passed out homeless people, you know, since they made unwise decisions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not ONLY that what he did was so appalling. It's ALL the ingredients of this story. His letter. His dad's letter. His friend's statement. All minimizing and dodging responsibility. The failure of the Judge in sentencing. Taken all together, this case really distills the disregard our society shows for rape victims and the privilege of white males and athletes. "20 minutes of action" indeed.

His own letter showed a lot more personal responsibility than Emily Doe's letter did. He's now a convicted criminal on the sex offender registry, she's officially the wounded victim who is waiting for him to pay her back some day. Brock's life has turned into a living nightmare. He never wants to drink again. Ever. He has lost everything over this. Things went from being fun to ruined in a night. Quite literally. He made a horrible, terrible mistake that has taken away everything that he has worked for. He is remorseful for it. If he could take back everything that he did that night. If he could unmeet Emily Doe - he would do it.

His parents and friends are still reeling from what has happened to this promising young man. How can someone so smart and funny and carefree and capable do something so stupid and hurtful? Not just to Emily Doe but to himself. Why did this happen? Why?

The more I read about this case the more I understand the relatively light sentencing suggestion from the PO.

Of course, it was a horrible, terrible mistake, and has really harmed this young man. No doubt about that at all. But this is so only because he was caught, only because he was prosecuted, only because he is now a registered sex offender, only because he is now banned from swimming, only because of the social media backlash, only because a rich white entitled top athlete Ivy college male student did not expect that he could not get away with this. Because if he was not a white man there would have not been any apologist.

Thanks to all the words - written, spoken, filmed, documented, discussed - before, during and after this case, that was made public - we all got a pretty good idea of not only the case, but also what the actors and audience of this case ACTUALLY think. And WHAT the people in power - the judge, the lawyer, the defendant's father who could afford the lawyer - ACTUALLY THINK is the problem that spawns people like Brock Allen Turner.

The school counselor and the female friend of Brock who wrote for Brock were also part of the problem --- After all, the girl was drunk. probably promiscuous and this guy did not put his penis in her vagina, or mouth or anus, so why the big deal? It was just a fumbling roll in the dirt and pine needles for two hormonal young consenting adults who were sexually promiscuous - we all have been there during our own college, right? People only go to these parties to get drunk and hook up, so why was the girl there in the first place?

Remember the movie "Accused" starring Jodie Foster? The question there was (in my then teen mind at least) will people accept that a promiscuous prostitute who sells her body for sex, can be raped on a pinball machine by a hoard of men who she was dancing and flirting with? The answer was that she was raped if she had said "No".

In this case, the woman was unconscious. She could not even say "No". She needed to have said an explicit "Yes", which she did not. I also do not buy the story that at some point she could have been aware of, or participated in "the action" of having a man finger her vagina. Why? Because no woman wants pine needles and dirt in her vagina during any "action"...so that proves that at no time during the penetration of her vagina she was conscious.

The defence strategy was to vilify the victim, and frankly if I was a criminal defence lawyer this would have been the classic defence strategy for me too (yeah, lawyers are scum). So the victim gets victimized again, and her trauma has not ended, but somehow this is more acceptable to the judge? Maybe, this will teach the defence lawyers to instruct their client to beg forgiveness and acknowledge the harm they have done to the victim. Because now thanks to social media and the fact that the victim can pen a "victim impact" statement means that the victims are not so voiceless anymore. The ridiculously light sentence was actually the best thing that happened to this victim (sorry nameless victim- I am very hurt for you and I wish you were never raped) because she truly has become the voice of every woman. If the punishment would have been harsher, if the judge had understood what the cronyism means (or appearance of it), it would have been a different outcome in the court of public opinion.

So, I should be sorry that the little Brock chick is marked with red and every one is peck, peck, pecking at him - but I cannot. Mainly because maybe that image of Brock chick being pecked is what is needed to deter some men, and maybe this is what is needed for some parents to change how they raise their son so that they do not become entitled rapists.

- mom of two daughters and two sons.