Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not going to apologize for being skeptical. The victim was not some dumb naive fraternity party newbie. But the guy accused of this did seem to be a socially awkward, naive, fraternity party newbie. Women can absolutely be the instigators of sexual encounters with men. Especially drunk women. I've seen it enough times to know that they can be. Just because Brock is guilty does not mean that Emily was attacked. She could have passed out in the act. Which would put a different light on what Brock was seen doing. There is a difference between jumping a woman behind a dumpster with the intent of sexually assaulting her and having a mutual sexual encounter with a woman, having her pass out mid act and the guy not fully appreciating how out of it she had become. If you think the two scenarios are The Same, then you have a twisted view of sex.

Brock has had his day in court and he was found guilty and sentenced. Now it's just a matter of trying to figure out how/why this happened. It sure doesn't seem as though Brock went to that party expecting to leave it a sex offender. And Emily did not go to that party looking to become a victim of sexual assault. But that is what happened.

Asking why that happened two these two specific people in this specific situation is appropriate given the amount of coverage this case has received. It's possible that Brock was nothing but an ahole opportunist who finally got his chance. It's also possible that two reasonably good people both made some extremely bad (and atypical) errors in judgement that night.

People, maybe you, keep posting this distinction as if it is somehow material in this case. It's not. The law treats both of these scenarios as crimes, which is why Turner was convicted. And it's not twisted to believe that most men, drunk or sober, know to stop humping or fingering a woman when she is unconscious. I'm guessing that 99.9% of men would never do that. If you think this is a difficult thing for a man, even a drunk man, to figure out, then I might suggest it is you who has a twisted view of sex.

I think that most men would not do what Brock did - thank God. It was disgusting and I mean really, really gross. But on a moral level there is a difference between mutually agreeing to gross behavior and passing out in the middle of it.... and being jumped and sexually assaulted. The law may say they are the same thing but they are not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no question in my mind that BAT committed a crime here. Not debatable.

My question is: what mother drives her daughters (who have been doing shots of whiskey) to a frat party?!!!

I know. That got me too.

Out of curiosity, are you more interested in that or what kind of mother raises a serial groper/liar/creeper/sex-offender/felon?

We can be interested in all sorts of mothers. I too thought that was an interesting detail -- adult daughter who is home visiting has 4 shots (of the parents top shelf liquor?), mom drives her and her baby sister to a frat party at her sister's school. It's a bit odd. Was mom planning on pickiing them up again later, or were they going to find their own way home?

Anonymous wrote:There is no question in my mind that BAT committed a crime here. Not debatable.

My question is: what mother drives her daughters (who have been doing shots of whiskey) to a frat party?!!!

My uncle drove his of age son, my cousin, from one party to the next because he'd been drinking, and that was their agreement so he'd never drink and drive.

He ended up diving into a shallow lake and died that night, but he was being thoughtful in some ways.

^Also Brock's drug/drinking appear to have started in the spring of his senior year of HS. He was trying to "fit in" with the other guys at Stanford so I think that some of that druggie stuff is bluster.

The kid was too good a swimmer to have serious drug/alcohol problems. Although his experimentation does seem to have been getting out of hand in a hurry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no question in my mind that BAT committed a crime here. Not debatable.

My question is: what mother drives her daughters (who have been doing shots of whiskey) to a frat party?!!!

I know. That got me too.

Out of curiosity, are you more interested in that or what kind of mother raises a serial groper/liar/creeper/sex-offender/felon?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the women's swim team at Stanford speak up about Brock's creepy behavior but they were pressured not to go forward.

Thanks for posting this. It's being reported here: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/brock-turner-stanford-women-s-swim-team-105204

O.k. I think that this is significant new info. If women on the Stanford swim team felt threatened and creeped out by him - both during practice and at parties, it indicates a much stronger pattern of disturbing behavior leading up to this sexual assault.

I was having a hard time seeing a regular nice guy suddenly - out of the blue - snapping and purposefully sexually assaulting a woman. But if there was a pattern of increasing aggressive/creepy behavior....that would make more sense.

I think this is what many of us were trying to get at when everyone was wringing their hands about how such a nice boy could do this: we've known men like this who can present nice in one direction, but are creepy and criminal in another. The Brocks of the world aren't nice to all of us.

Sorry. I was seeing young, inexperienced guy being led behind the dumpster by an older heavy drinker. I still wonder about that whole scenario and how on earth (why!!) they wound up back there. Not all women are nice to men either...but you're right there are some guys who appear one way in front of the crowd and are completely different around their prey.

I was getting a different picture from the interviews with witnesses in the police reports and released court documents. There is no witness evidence that he was "led" anywhere. She was 22 and he was 19 at the time of the incident, so not such a big difference in age.

And in terms of drinking, she had not been drinking much in the months leading up to the incident. He, on the other hand, had been drinking heavily the whole time he was at Stanford, according to his own letter and had even been charged with MIP during the fall. There is also photo and text evidence of his use of marijuana and acid, so he seemed to have experience with the effects of both drugs and alcohol. Add in the witness testimony that he had been kissing and grabbing women without their permission at the party just shortly before the timeline places him with Emily when the Swedes rode by on their bikes and I was seeing a picture that correlated with the jury verdict of guilty.

She was a self described "party animal" in her college days. She had a tolerance if she was able to drink 4 shots in quick succession and her mom was willing to drop her off on a college campus...the girl is a drinker. She may have been drinking less than normal in the months leading up to this but the girl had a BAC 3X the legal limit. She was drinking cups of vodka.

You can not with a straight face call that a "light" drinker. And you can not compare her experience to that of a 4 month freshman. You can't. They are vast worlds apart in experience.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not going to apologize for being skeptical. The victim was not some dumb naive fraternity party newbie. But the guy accused of this did seem to be a socially awkward, naive, fraternity party newbie. Women can absolutely be the instigators of sexual encounters with men. Especially drunk women. I've seen it enough times to know that they can be. Just because Brock is guilty does not mean that Emily was attacked. She could have passed out in the act. Which would put a different light on what Brock was seen doing. There is a difference between jumping a woman behind a dumpster with the intent of sexually assaulting her and having a mutual sexual encounter with a woman, having her pass out mid act and the guy not fully appreciating how out of it she had become. If you think the two scenarios are The Same, then you have a twisted view of sex.

Brock has had his day in court and he was found guilty and sentenced. Now it's just a matter of trying to figure out how/why this happened. It sure doesn't seem as though Brock went to that party expecting to leave it a sex offender. And Emily did not go to that party looking to become a victim of sexual assault. But that is what happened.

Asking why that happened two these two specific people in this specific situation is appropriate given the amount of coverage this case has received. It's possible that Brock was nothing but an ahole opportunist who finally got his chance. It's also possible that two reasonably good people both made some extremely bad (and atypical) errors in judgement that night.

People, maybe you, keep posting this distinction as if it is somehow material in this case. It's not. The law treats both of these scenarios as crimes, which is why Turner was convicted. And it's not twisted to believe that most men, drunk or sober, know to stop humping or fingering a woman when she is unconscious. I'm guessing that 99.9% of men would never do that. If you think this is a difficult thing for a man, even a drunk man, to figure out, then I might suggest it is you who has a twisted view of sex.

Anonymous wrote:There is no question in my mind that BAT committed a crime here. Not debatable.

My question is: what mother drives her daughters (who have been doing shots of whiskey) to a frat party?!!!

I know. That got me too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the women's swim team at Stanford speak up about Brock's creepy behavior but they were pressured not to go forward.

Thanks for posting this. It's being reported here: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/brock-turner-stanford-women-s-swim-team-105204

O.k. I think that this is significant new info. If women on the Stanford swim team felt threatened and creeped out by him - both during practice and at parties, it indicates a much stronger pattern of disturbing behavior leading up to this sexual assault.

I was having a hard time seeing a regular nice guy suddenly - out of the blue - snapping and purposefully sexually assaulting a woman. But if there was a pattern of increasing aggressive/creepy behavior....that would make more sense.

I think this is what many of us were trying to get at when everyone was wringing their hands about how such a nice boy could do this: we've known men like this who can present nice in one direction, but are creepy and criminal in another. The Brocks of the world aren't nice to all of us.

Sorry. I was seeing young, inexperienced guy being led behind the dumpster by an older heavy drinker. I still wonder about that whole scenario and how on earth (why!!) they wound up back there. Not all women are nice to men either...but you're right there are some guys who appear one way in front of the crowd and are completely different around their prey.

I'm the "rape apologist" commenter, and I stand by it. Anyone who has read all of the coverage and still feels that he was an innocent kid led astray by a lying older harlot is delusional and, intentional or not, clearly defending a rapist. Thank goodness some other women are coming forward, but it's a shame that they'd have to in order for people to believe the victim and to trust that the jury made a sound decision based on evidence presented.

I'm not going to apologize for being skeptical. The victim was not some dumb naive fraternity party newbie. But the guy accused of this did seem to be a socially awkward, naive, fraternity party newbie. Women can absolutely be the instigators of sexual encounters with men. Especially drunk women. I've seen it enough times to know that they can be. Just because Brock is guilty does not mean that Emily was attacked. She could have passed out in the act. Which would put a different light on what Brock was seen doing. There is a difference between jumping a woman behind a dumpster with the intent of sexually assaulting her and having a mutual sexual encounter with a woman, having her pass out mid act and the guy not fully appreciating how out of it she had become. If you think the two scenarios are The Same, then you have a twisted view of sex.

Brock has had his day in court and he was found guilty and sentenced. Now it's just a matter of trying to figure out how/why this happened. It sure doesn't seem as though Brock went to that party expecting to leave it a sex offender. And Emily did not go to that party looking to become a victim of sexual assault. But that is what happened.

Asking why that happened two these two specific people in this specific situation is appropriate given the amount of coverage this case has received. It's possible that Brock was nothing but an ahole opportunist who finally got his chance. It's also possible that two reasonably good people both made some extremely bad (and atypical) errors in judgement that night.

There is no question in my mind that BAT committed a crime here. Not debatable.

My question is: what mother drives her daughters (who have been doing shots of whiskey) to a frat party?!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the women's swim team at Stanford speak up about Brock's creepy behavior but they were pressured not to go forward.

Thanks for posting this. It's being reported here: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/brock-turner-stanford-women-s-swim-team-105204

O.k. I think that this is significant new info. If women on the Stanford swim team felt threatened and creeped out by him - both during practice and at parties, it indicates a much stronger pattern of disturbing behavior leading up to this sexual assault.

I was having a hard time seeing a regular nice guy suddenly - out of the blue - snapping and purposefully sexually assaulting a woman. But if there was a pattern of increasing aggressive/creepy behavior....that would make more sense.

I think this is what many of us were trying to get at when everyone was wringing their hands about how such a nice boy could do this: we've known men like this who can present nice in one direction, but are creepy and criminal in another. The Brocks of the world aren't nice to all of us.

Sorry. I was seeing young, inexperienced guy being led behind the dumpster by an older heavy drinker. I still wonder about that whole scenario and how on earth (why!!) they wound up back there. Not all women are nice to men either...but you're right there are some guys who appear one way in front of the crowd and are completely different around their prey.

I was getting a different picture from the interviews with witnesses in the police reports and released court documents. There is no witness evidence that he was "led" anywhere. She was 22 and he was 19 at the time of the incident, so not such a big difference in age.

And in terms of drinking, she had not been drinking much in the months leading up to the incident. He, on the other hand, had been drinking heavily the whole time he was at Stanford, according to his own letter and had even been charged with MIP during the fall. There is also photo and text evidence of his use of marijuana and acid, so he seemed to have experience with the effects of both drugs and alcohol. Add in the witness testimony that he had been kissing and grabbing women without their permission at the party just shortly before the timeline places him with Emily when the Swedes rode by on their bikes and I was seeing a picture that correlated with the jury verdict of guilty.

Anonymous wrote:Right, because we've never heard of a celebrity having a baby after 45.

Wait and see about the Stanford women's swim team, if you prefer. If this story has legs, it will be reported elsewhere.

There are often facts that don't make it into the trial. Sometimes these facts are against the defendant, sometimes for.

Many people are calling for the judge's removal, potential jurors are refusing to serve under him. There are consequences to the hysteria and name-calling. Whether someone agrees or disagrees, there is never a good reason to call someone a rape apologists, an enabler, a victim blamed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the women's swim team at Stanford speak up about Brock's creepy behavior but they were pressured not to go forward.

Thanks for posting this. It's being reported here: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/brock-turner-stanford-women-s-swim-team-105204

O.k. I think that this is significant new info. If women on the Stanford swim team felt threatened and creeped out by him - both during practice and at parties, it indicates a much stronger pattern of disturbing behavior leading up to this sexual assault.

I was having a hard time seeing a regular nice guy suddenly - out of the blue - snapping and purposefully sexually assaulting a woman. But if there was a pattern of increasing aggressive/creepy behavior....that would make more sense.

I think this is what many of us were trying to get at when everyone was wringing their hands about how such a nice boy could do this: we've known men like this who can present nice in one direction, but are creepy and criminal in another. The Brocks of the world aren't nice to all of us.

Sorry. I was seeing young, inexperienced guy being led behind the dumpster by an older heavy drinker. I still wonder about that whole scenario and how on earth (why!!) they wound up back there. Not all women are nice to men either...but you're right there are some guys who appear one way in front of the crowd and are completely different around their prey.

I'm the "rape apologist" commenter, and I stand by it. Anyone who has read all of the coverage and still feels that he was an innocent kid led astray by a lying older harlot is delusional and, intentional or not, clearly defending a rapist. Thank goodness some other women are coming forward, but it's a shame that they'd have to in order for people to believe the victim and to trust that the jury made a sound decision based on evidence presented.

Right, because we've never heard of a celebrity having a baby after 45.

Wait and see about the Stanford women's swim team, if you prefer. If this story has legs, it will be reported elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the women's swim team at Stanford speak up about Brock's creepy behavior but they were pressured not to go forward.

Thanks for posting this. It's being reported here: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/brock-turner-stanford-women-s-swim-team-105204

In Touch Weekly? The same magazine that's saying Jen is pregnant at 47?