Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

She passed out dead drunk behind a freakin' dumpster outside on a public street with a strange not so nice guy nearby. Do not candy coat just how serious her poor judgement was.

The PP doesn't seem to think women should take any precautions ever.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying whether or not women "take precautions" has nothing to do with any kind of culpability discussion when it comes to rape.

Who said it did?

Lock you car doors. Don't get black out drunk. Lessons learned!

How about some responsibility on the part of the people committing the crimes? How about don't rape?

Uh. Rape, sexual assault is not allowed. Who the hell is telling men that it is o.k. to rape? No one. Good guys (the Swedes) may very well have prevented this guy from doing even worse things to this woman.

Ironically, this woman was saved and her assailant brought to justice by MEN.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Probably in the minority on this forum but I completely agree with you. And for her to equate her experience with that if someone who is raped by a stranger (i.e. Pulled off the sidewalk without warning and raped with life threatened) trivializes the latter's assault. These crimes are absolutely different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing, my bitches. Lots of women report rapes. A far fewer amount than are reported are ever a) pursued by law enforcement and b) tried in a courtroom, due to lack of evidence or witnesses or reliable testimony from either side. This case:

A. Was prosecuted
B. Be went to trial
C. Went to unanimous jury conviction

Which means,

A: Emily Doe's accusation of rape was credible and provable
B. Emily Doe's accusation and recollections were backed up by eyewitness statements on part of the Swedes
C. A preponderance of evidence proved Brock Turner DID RAPE her

Given these facts it is incredible any of you would come here and the to say she was not raped. *You don't get to do that.* law enforcement said she was, a DA said she was, two witnesses say she was, a jury said she was, AND SHE SAID SHE WAS! So it is not up to you to say it was "a hookup gone wrong" or her lying about giving consent.

Emily Doe wrote a very powerful letter. In it, she absolved herself of all responsibility for her actions from the moment she chose to drink a bunch of shots. Good for her, if it helps her move on.

Yes, she was raped, and the rapist was caught and convicted. She's upset that his apology did not fully take responsibility for his actions. Her letter didn't do that, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

She passed out dead drunk behind a freakin' dumpster outside on a public street with a strange not so nice guy nearby. Do not candy coat just how serious her poor judgement was.

Do you get how drinking works? Do you get what state of mind you're in before you pass out? Do you think she walked behind the dumpster stone sober and started doing shots? She drank, too much, at a party. Brock brought her behind the dumpster AFTER she was unable to consent.

But good news for you! She was raped! So was she adequately "punished" for her poor judgment? Or should the swedes have hopped on too?

I was a "party animal" myself back in the day. I do understand what it means to be VERY drunk but still participating and still aware of what is happening and still wanting to participate in what is happening...even though you are very, VERY drunk. A person that is NOT aware of what is happening, is not participating - is absolutely being assaulted.

Me waking up behind a dumpster feeling lousy the next morning with a pounding headache, clothes pulled up/off and a lot of regret "WTF did I do???!!" does not automatically mean rape or sexual assault occurred. But it might have occurred. Maybe? People don't go to jail for what might have happened.

In this situation with Emily Doe - it did occur. Thank God for those Swedes.

You get that this wasn't the case here, right? She didn't fall asleep after having a good time behind a dumpster. She was unconscious the whole time she was behind the dumpster. If she merely fell asleep, she would've woken up when the Swedes were trying to wake her up, or when they transported her to the hospital, or when she was being medically evaluated, or when they changed her into scrubs, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, she was blackout drunk for some amount of time before passing out. She doesn't remember any of it, but before she became unconscious, she was walking, talking, etc. From the outside, there's no way to tell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

She passed out dead drunk behind a freakin' dumpster outside on a public street with a strange not so nice guy nearby. Do not candy coat just how serious her poor judgement was.

The PP doesn't seem to think women should take any precautions ever.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying whether or not women "take precautions" has nothing to do with any kind of culpability discussion when it comes to rape.

Who said it did?

Lock you car doors. Don't get black out drunk. Lessons learned!

How about some responsibility on the part of the people committing the crimes? How about don't rape?

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing, my bitches. Lots of women report rapes. A far fewer amount than are reported are ever a) pursued by law enforcement and b) tried in a courtroom, due to lack of evidence or witnesses or reliable testimony from either side. This case:

A. Was prosecuted
B. Be went to trial
C. Went to unanimous jury conviction

Which means,

A: Emily Doe's accusation of rape was credible and provable
B. Emily Doe's accusation and recollections were backed up by eyewitness statements on part of the Swedes
C. A preponderance of evidence proved Brock Turner DID RAPE her

Given these facts it is incredible any of you would come here and the to say she was not raped. *You don't get to do that.* law enforcement said she was, a DA said she was, two witnesses say she was, a jury said she was, AND SHE SAID SHE WAS! So it is not up to you to say it was "a hookup gone wrong" or her lying about giving consent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing, my bitches. Lots of women report rapes. A far fewer amount than are reported are ever a) pursued by law enforcement and b) tried in a courtroom, due to lack of evidence or witnesses or reliable testimony from either side. This case:

A. Was prosecuted
B. Be went to trial
C. Went to unanimous jury conviction

Which means,

A: Emily Doe's accusation of rape was credible and provable
B. Emily Doe's accusation and recollections were backed up by eyewitness statements on part of the Swedes
C. A preponderance of evidence proved Brock Turner DID RAPE her

Given these facts it is incredible any of you would come here and the to say she was not raped. *You don't get to do that.* law enforcement said she was, a DA said she was, two witnesses say she was, a jury said she was, AND SHE SAID SHE WAS! So it is not up to you to say it was "a hookup gone wrong" or her lying about giving consent.

Emily Doe found out from the Swedes what happened to her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing, my bitches. Lots of women report rapes. A far fewer amount than are reported are ever a) pursued by law enforcement and b) tried in a courtroom, due to lack of evidence or witnesses or reliable testimony from either side. This case:

A. Was prosecuted
B. Be went to trial
C. Went to unanimous jury conviction

Which means,

A: Emily Doe's accusation of rape was credible and provable
B. Emily Doe's accusation and recollections were backed up by eyewitness statements on part of the Swedes
C. A preponderance of evidence proved Brock Turner DID RAPE her

Given these facts it is incredible any of you would come here and the to say she was not raped. *You don't get to do that.* law enforcement said she was, a DA said she was, two witnesses say she was, a jury said she was, AND SHE SAID SHE WAS! So it is not up to you to say it was "a hookup gone wrong" or her lying about giving consent.

Emily Doe found out from the Swedes what happened to her.

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing, my bitches. Lots of women report rapes. A far fewer amount than are reported are ever a) pursued by law enforcement and b) tried in a courtroom, due to lack of evidence or witnesses or reliable testimony from either side. This case:

A. Was prosecuted
B. Be went to trial
C. Went to unanimous jury conviction

Which means,

A: Emily Doe's accusation of rape was credible and provable
B. Emily Doe's accusation and recollections were backed up by eyewitness statements on part of the Swedes
C. A preponderance of evidence proved Brock Turner DID RAPE her

Given these facts it is incredible any of you would come here and the to say she was not raped. *You don't get to do that.* law enforcement said she was, a DA said she was, two witnesses say she was, a jury said she was, AND SHE SAID SHE WAS! So it is not up to you to say it was "a hookup gone wrong" or her lying about giving consent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

She passed out dead drunk behind a freakin' dumpster outside on a public street with a strange not so nice guy nearby. Do not candy coat just how serious her poor judgement was.

The PP doesn't seem to think women should take any precautions ever.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying whether or not women "take precautions" has nothing to do with any kind of culpability discussion when it comes to rape.

Who said it did?

Lock you car doors. Don't get black out drunk. Lessons learned!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

She passed out dead drunk behind a freakin' dumpster outside on a public street with a strange not so nice guy nearby. Do not candy coat just how serious her poor judgement was.

The PP doesn't seem to think women should take any precautions ever.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying whether or not women "take precautions" has nothing to do with any kind of culpability discussion when it comes to rape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

She passed out dead drunk behind a freakin' dumpster outside on a public street with a strange not so nice guy nearby. Do not candy coat just how serious her poor judgement was.

The PP doesn't seem to think women should take any precautions ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP's comparison to drunken driving is apt. Someone who kills a person while driving drunk may not be an evil human being or a risk to others generally speaking. But most of us would agree that being intoxicated doesn't absolve you of responsibility for any harm done while you're behind the wheel.

On that basis, it seems like the Stanford guy should be held responsible for any and all crimes he committed while intoxicated, even if he's unlikely to do anything like that ever again and even if it was the alcohol that impaired his judgment.

But I agree with some of the PPs about the responsibility of the woman in this situation. Not legal responsibility of course, but personal responsibility. Her impaired judgment played a huge role in what happened to her, and her choices caused that impaired judgment. (As opposed to someone who is drugged without their knowledge or someone who is mentally impaired.)

Anyone who gets hit by a bus is a victim, and deserves sympathy as well as justice. But if you were high or drunk out of your mind and wandering in the middle of the street, you are partially responsible for what has happened to you. Getting blackout drunk isn't the same thing as wearing a short skirt.

I say that as someone who did a lot of stupid things in college, and I look at this woman and think there but for the grace of God....Hopefully all our kids, both boys and girls, will look at this story and take the lesson that binge drinking is a ticket to terrible, terrible situations.

This is disgusting and ignorant. I don't think anybody would agree that it was a great idea for her to be blackout drunk. But that doesn't mean she deserved to be raped. The problem here is not that she got drunk, it's that this guy thought he could rape her. Rape is not okay. Ever. It's not excused. Ever. It's illegal. Just because she was drunk does not then mean she should be raped. She was a victim, you idiot. If she's supposed to know better by not getting so drunk, why should he not know better than to commit a crime? Rape is rape. It's illegal. Doesn't matter what the victim was doing. Period. She was raped. Illegally. Because rape is illegal. I'm trying to get the point across by saying this multiple ways, but I don't think you'll get it anyway.

No one said she *deserved* to be raped. Yes, obviously rape is wrong. But she chose to drink excessively and put herself in a vulnerable position. She has to at least take responsibility for that. It's more than a "bad idea" - it's being irresponsible with her own personal safety.

She chose to drink a lot. But she didn't put herself in a "vulnerable situation," unless you are calling THE ENTIRE WORLD a vulnerable situation. Women get raped drunk, sober, in their homes, in churches, on streets, at parties, in libraries, at sporting events, on public transportation, etc., etc., etc. Where, exactly, would you like us to go?

She passed out dead drunk behind a freakin' dumpster outside on a public street with a strange not so nice guy nearby. Do not candy coat just how serious her poor judgement was.

The PP doesn't seem to think women should take any precautions ever.