Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be very confusing for an 18 or 19 year old boy when he is with a girl and they both been drinking heavily in regards to where the line is...especially if he has no explicit conversations with anyone about the exact parameters of what constitutes consent.

In many cases, you are asking a boy whose judgment is impaired to make judgment calls on the amount of impairment of the girl, something that can be very hard for him to do. A boy can be drunk and not realize the girl is as drunk or drunker than he is.

I would expect a kid who gets into Stanford to realize that he should not finger a woman who is unconscious behind a dumpster.

But he was a DRUNK kid who got into Stanford. Brains and rational thought go out the window when you're that drunk. Women can't trust someone like that to care what they're doing.

True fact: I drank a lot of alcohol in college and did not finger any unconscious women behind a dumpster.

True fact: Not everyone has the same intelligence level, emotional maturity, social experience, impulse control, ability to handle alcohol,etc.

True fact; alcohol doesn't spontaneously turn normal healthy people into rapists

+1

As a young girl, I got drunk plenty of times (with groups of people who were also drunk). No man during these times ever tried to rape me. The time I was sexually violated (I won't call it rape because I don't consider it rape, really) was when I was sleeping in bed with my sober then-boyfriend and he started having sex with me - while I was still sleeping.

Alcohol does not a rapist make.

Based on your experiences, what advice will you give your kids about alcohol, sexual violations, and rape?

Not PP but my discussions with my kids about alcohol will be completely separate from my discussions with them about sexual violations and rape because they are two different animals.

If only life's experiences could be so neatly compartmentalized.

You can roll your eyes into the back of your head if you want. It doesn't change the fact that far too many high school and college-aged students, as well as young adults, are engaging in highly risky behavior. Getting extremely drunk and counting on others to look out for you is incredibly unsafe. The PP related her experiences of being drunk and being with other people who were drunk but fortunately no one took advantage of her. What's wrong with being sober and aware? Too many people commenting here want to be free to do whatever they want and hope that others will be responsible.

Anonymous wrote:So when you are black out drunk you can still be conscious, right? And perhaps even "consenting"? And maybe even if a guy was sheltered and hadn't had much to drink before he might not handle alcohol well and be able to distinguish that the girl is *that* drunk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when you are black out drunk you can still be conscious, right? And perhaps even "consenting"? And maybe even if a guy was sheltered and hadn't had much to drink before he might not handle alcohol well and be able to distinguish that the girl is *that* drunk.

If you are ever raped will you indulge these mental gymnastics in order to excuse the man who rapes you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy. Shit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/laurenduca/status/739505679635992577

Actually, the father is correct.

Both of them were drunk. Both. She was so drunk, she had no idea of anything, and didn't come-to until she was in the hospital, with no recollection. She was black-out drunk. While no one deserves to be raped, she placed herself in a very dangerous state. I do want to know where her friends were, where her sister was, where ANY responsible person was - probably drunk themselves. It would have been a cold day in hell, in college, when I would have left one of my friends (or a perfect stranger) alone, that dangerously drunk.

His son, in his drunken state, assaulted this girl. Very, very wrong. He IS taking responsibility for his actions. What disturbs me, is not only is she NOT taking responsibility for her own stupidity, but she has all the pity in the world. The net result of that is the message that people can get as stupid-drunk as they want and expect NO harm to come of them. That is NOT a message I have EVER given my children, and ever will.

This statement from the victim? “You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today,” she read in court from her victim impact statement,

What kind of worth does one have when one is so drunk, one can't even function? What kind of confidence? What kind of intimacy?

And this? "I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me."

She completely brushes aside her responsibility in becoming a 'wounded antelope'.


The judge did good in this case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when you are black out drunk you can still be conscious, right? And perhaps even "consenting"? And maybe even if a guy was sheltered and hadn't had much to drink before he might not handle alcohol well and be able to distinguish that the girl is *that* drunk.

Yes but it doesn't matter if she was consenting. Once she became unconscious, he should have stopped.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, obviously there was enough to convict him. The jury convicted him. My point was that if she had had a better memory of the night - if she had been a better witness herself and provided more details about what happened - there may have been even more that they could have charged him with. In case you think I'm implying that she is in any way responsible for this assault I am not. But the reality is drinking to the point of blacking out has made her memory of the night very vague. Thank goodness those Swedes came along when they did because without them I don't know that this ever would have been brought to justice which is scary. She would have woken up behind that dumpster with her clothes a mess, abrasions on her body and no memory of what had happened to her. Scary!

I didn't think you were implying anything about her. I just think part of the reason we kind of accept insane sentences like these is because we imagine there are some facts up in the air. He was charged and convicted of sex crimes that permit a 14 year sentence. The problem isn't that he wasn't charged with enough, its that the judge didn't punish him commensurate with the offense he was convicted of.

Also, a small irony of the Swedes coming along is that they're probably the reason the more serious initial charge wasn't sent to the jury; they interrupted him before he could earn himself more jail time.

I still don't think that this guy was going to rape her. If that had been his intention he would have just done it rather than spending all that time doing that other stuff to her. This wasn't foreplay on his part and he knew that she was passed out cold. He was doing what he wanted to do and making the deliberate decision to leave no evidence behind while maintaining the ability to get up and leave in a hurry if someone came along. He did not anticipate the Swedes tackling the sh*t out of him however. Good for those Swedes!!!! And without those Swedes there would be no case. That is a very sobering thought.

He *did* rape her.

I guess I was going by the old fashioned P in V definition of rape. I don't think that occurred here because he did not want to leave his DNA on the victim. Some posters think that if the Swedes hadn't have come along when they did that he would have progressed to P in V penetration thus upping the severity of his crime and probably the amount of time he received from the judge.

What he did to this young woman was awful but it could have been even worse.

And I just looked at what he was actually convicted of: 6 charges, 3 of them felony. He was convicted of Assault with intent to rape. So it does not sound as though he was convicted of rape. He was convicted of felony sexual assault.

That is some really desperate hair splitting.

Anonymous wrote:So when you are black out drunk you can still be conscious, right? And perhaps even "consenting"? And maybe even if a guy was sheltered and hadn't had much to drink before he might not handle alcohol well and be able to distinguish that the girl is *that* drunk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when you are black out drunk you can still be conscious, right? And perhaps even "consenting"? And maybe even if a guy was sheltered and hadn't had much to drink before he might not handle alcohol well and be able to distinguish that the girl is *that* drunk.

hmm. i don't know. I think she was unconscious. there are times when people say they blacked out (don't remember) but they were still up and about (people tell them the next day what they did but they don't remember it) I don't think that's the case here.

Anonymous wrote:So when you are black out drunk you can still be conscious, right? And perhaps even "consenting"? And maybe even if a guy was sheltered and hadn't had much to drink before he might not handle alcohol well and be able to distinguish that the girl is *that* drunk.

Anonymous wrote:So when you are black out drunk you can still be conscious, right? And perhaps even "consenting"? And maybe even if a guy was sheltered and hadn't had much to drink before he might not handle alcohol well and be able to distinguish that the girl is *that* drunk.

Anonymous wrote:So when you are black out drunk you can still be conscious, right? And perhaps even "consenting"? And maybe even if a guy was sheltered and hadn't had much to drink before he might not handle alcohol well and be able to distinguish that the girl is *that* drunk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, obviously there was enough to convict him. The jury convicted him. My point was that if she had had a better memory of the night - if she had been a better witness herself and provided more details about what happened - there may have been even more that they could have charged him with. In case you think I'm implying that she is in any way responsible for this assault I am not. But the reality is drinking to the point of blacking out has made her memory of the night very vague. Thank goodness those Swedes came along when they did because without them I don't know that this ever would have been brought to justice which is scary. She would have woken up behind that dumpster with her clothes a mess, abrasions on her body and no memory of what had happened to her. Scary!

I didn't think you were implying anything about her. I just think part of the reason we kind of accept insane sentences like these is because we imagine there are some facts up in the air. He was charged and convicted of sex crimes that permit a 14 year sentence. The problem isn't that he wasn't charged with enough, its that the judge didn't punish him commensurate with the offense he was convicted of.

Also, a small irony of the Swedes coming along is that they're probably the reason the more serious initial charge wasn't sent to the jury; they interrupted him before he could earn himself more jail time.

I still don't think that this guy was going to rape her. If that had been his intention he would have just done it rather than spending all that time doing that other stuff to her. This wasn't foreplay on his part and he knew that she was passed out cold. He was doing what he wanted to do and making the deliberate decision to leave no evidence behind while maintaining the ability to get up and leave in a hurry if someone came along. He did not anticipate the Swedes tackling the sh*t out of him however. Good for those Swedes!!!! And without those Swedes there would be no case. That is a very sobering thought.

He *did* rape her.

I guess I was going by the old fashioned P in V definition of rape. I don't think that occurred here because he did not want to leave his DNA on the victim. Some posters think that if the Swedes hadn't have come along when they did that he would have progressed to P in V penetration thus upping the severity of his crime and probably the amount of time he received from the judge.

What he did to this young woman was awful but it could have been even worse.

And I just looked at what he was actually convicted of: 6 charges, 3 of them felony. He was convicted of Assault with intent to rape. So it does not sound as though he was convicted of rape. He was convicted of felony sexual assault.

That is some really desperate hair splitting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have never actually been drunk, but sometimes I wonder if a drunk male will always have the good sense to do this, or if there will be a lot of miscommunication. Again, I have never been drunk, but I have observed other people being drunk, and I wonder how much control they really have over themselves and how considerate they are capable of being. As I get older and I see more and more stories like this I feel thankful for my prudish ways.

Well, let's see. The people who have killed people while drunk driving aren't given leniency because they're so drunk they didn't know what they were doing. Because they were too drunk, right. I mean, I don't think this guy was planning to go out and rape someone just like I don't think most drunk drivers are planning to go out and kill innocent people with a car. But it doesn't matter. You do the crime, you pay the price.

Your example further supports that alcohol can't be ignored as a contributor to criminal acts.