Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For everyone saying he had zero history of this-- he did. Trial included the testimony of another girl her had gotten aggressive with at a party the prior week. Lots of touching and grabbing after she told him to go away. He's a serious sicko.

+100

And he would have gotten away with it completely if he hadn't been caught in the act by the passerby. Who saw the light of his phone while he was filming her and posting it to his teammates. Sicko scumbag.

Anonymous wrote:Ok I just read the mother's letter and you have got to be kidding me. He and his parents are a sick trio. How can they have absolutely zero remorse for what he did to another human being?

I haven't read his mother's letter. Where did you find it?

What kind of person takes advantage of an incapacitated person? That's the simple issue here.

I am the mother of two sons. Brock's mother is delusional. He should be in jail for years and the judge should be disbarred.

Ok I just read the mother's letter and you have got to be kidding me. He and his parents are a sick trio. How can they have absolutely zero remorse for what he did to another human being?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter that he never raped before? He was 20 not 50! There's no history at that age. There is a first for every scumbag.

He was 19. I agree that he was inexperienced.

At raping. Super glad that he may not have the opportunity to become an "experienced" rapist.

He wasn't convicted of rape. But I agree that it is good that the swedes interrupted him.

He was convicted of assault with intent to rape. The only thing that stopped him from raping her was being interrupted.

He didn't rape her. He wasn't convicted of raping her. You do not know without a doubt that he would have raped her, you seem to want to assume that he would have raped her though. Which is weird of you.

He may have dry humped her until he was done, covered her up (or not) and left her lying behind those dumpsters. The end.

It's like some of you are refusing to read. It's not "weird" of PP, it's what he was convicted of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He obviously had a lot of trouble finding women who were interested in him and was really insecure about it, hence the picture he sent to try to impress his teammates. He went from being a big fish in a little pond at his high school and local swim team to a little fish in a big pond at Stanford. I think this brought out his true colors which nobody from his hometown saw.

He was almost assured of a place on the Olympic team, if he'd not gotten in trouble. He wasn't a little fish in a big pond. He was a big fish in a big pond. He was an important swimmer on one of the most important swim teams in the US at one of the most prestigious schools in the US. A huge part of this is about jock entitlement.

Well obviously the world is a better place with this guy taken down, right? Why are you so gleeful about this guy's destruction? Granted he put himself in that situation and he was convicted by this jury, but why are you so thrilled about that? What part of that is funny about that?

I think this whole nightmare has been a tragedy for both Emily and Brock.

PP doesn't sound gleeful, but you sound needlessly defensive about him. And let's not weep for Brock Allen Turner, sex criminal, for his nightmare is, again, entirely of his own making. Most men who get drunk don't sexually assault women. But, yes, what a nightmare for Emily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He obviously had a lot of trouble finding women who were interested in him and was really insecure about it, hence the picture he sent to try to impress his teammates. He went from being a big fish in a little pond at his high school and local swim team to a little fish in a big pond at Stanford. I think this brought out his true colors which nobody from his hometown saw.

He was almost assured of a place on the Olympic team, if he'd not gotten in trouble. He wasn't a little fish in a big pond. He was a big fish in a big pond. He was an important swimmer on one of the most important swim teams in the US at one of the most prestigious schools in the US. A huge part of this is about jock entitlement.

I disagree. At home he was a big deal for his swimming skills and because he was going to Stanford. At Stanford he was just another student athlete, not a standout in any way. I was a swimmer and nobody cares about swimmers until they are Michael Phelps or Mark Spitz caliber. I think most of the Stanford swim team has a chance of making the Olympics and he was not almost assured a spot on the Olympic team. Saying that shows you don't know anything about swimming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He obviously had a lot of trouble finding women who were interested in him and was really insecure about it, hence the picture he sent to try to impress his teammates. He went from being a big fish in a little pond at his high school and local swim team to a little fish in a big pond at Stanford. I think this brought out his true colors which nobody from his hometown saw.

He was almost assured of a place on the Olympic team, if he'd not gotten in trouble. He wasn't a little fish in a big pond. He was a big fish in a big pond. He was an important swimmer on one of the most important swim teams in the US at one of the most prestigious schools in the US. A huge part of this is about jock entitlement.

Well obviously the world is a better place with this guy taken down, right? Why are you so gleeful about this guy's destruction? Granted he put himself in that situation and he was convicted by this jury, but why are you so thrilled about that? What part of that is funny about that?

I think this whole nightmare has been a tragedy for both Emily and Brock.

Anonymous wrote:He obviously had a lot of trouble finding women who were interested in him and was really insecure about it, hence the picture he sent to try to impress his teammates. He went from being a big fish in a little pond at his high school and local swim team to a little fish in a big pond at Stanford. I think this brought out his true colors which nobody from his hometown saw.

He was almost assured of a place on the Olympic team, if he'd not gotten in trouble. He wasn't a little fish in a big pond. He was a big fish in a big pond. He was an important swimmer on one of the most important swim teams in the US at one of the most prestigious schools in the US. A huge part of this is about jock entitlement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter that he never raped before? He was 20 not 50! There's no history at that age. There is a first for every scumbag.

He was 19. I agree that he was inexperienced.

At raping. Super glad that he may not have the opportunity to become an "experienced" rapist.

He wasn't convicted of rape. But I agree that it is good that the swedes interrupted him.

He was convicted of assault with intent to rape. The only thing that stopped him from raping her was being interrupted.

He didn't rape her. He wasn't convicted of raping her. You do not know without a doubt that he would have raped her, you seem to want to assume that he would have raped her though. Which is weird of you.

He may have dry humped her until he was done, covered her up (or not) and left her lying behind those dumpsters. The end.

Anonymous wrote:He obviously had a lot of trouble finding women who were interested in him and was really insecure about it, hence the picture he sent to try to impress his teammates. He went from being a big fish in a little pond at his high school and local swim team to a little fish in a big pond at Stanford. I think this brought out his true colors which nobody from his hometown saw.

You've convicted him of sending a picture that may not even have been of Emily or if it was of Emily may not have been taken by Brock.

I agree with the little fish, big pond at Stanford thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter that he never raped before? He was 20 not 50! There's no history at that age. There is a first for every scumbag.

He was 19. I agree that he was inexperienced.

He's had girlfriends before. Unless they were platonic, I presume he was sexually active

He was new to drinking parties/hooking up. His former HS girlfriends only indicate that Bock consistently respected them and did not pressure them to do anything that they didn't want to do. These girls and Brock were still relatively inexperienced even if they did fool around together. I do think that it is significant that these girls speak highly of Brock. It says something about his character and his attitude towards women.

I do think that Brock was treating Emily in a less than respectful way. But that could have had more to do with the situation (drunken dancing/kissing/loud music) and simply the fact that he didn't know or care about this girl. He wanted to fool around and he thought that she did too.

He obviously had a lot of trouble finding women who were interested in him and was really insecure about it, hence the picture he sent to try to impress his teammates. He went from being a big fish in a little pond at his high school and local swim team to a little fish in a big pond at Stanford. I think this brought out his true colors which nobody from his hometown saw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it matter that he never raped before? He was 20 not 50! There's no history at that age. There is a first for every scumbag.

He was 19. I agree that he was inexperienced.

At raping. Super glad that he may not have the opportunity to become an "experienced" rapist.

He wasn't convicted of rape. But I agree that it is good that the swedes interrupted him.

He was convicted of assault with intent to rape. The only thing that stopped him from raping her was being interrupted.