Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm so glad I've only see a few ignorant messages like yours in response to this verdict and article.

It is not illegal to get black-out drunk. This is what the victim did.

It is illegal to stand on a public sidewalk/park/area/etc. drinking alcohol. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to drink and then drive. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to be drunk in public, being a nuisance. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to sexually assault another person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to digitally penetrate another person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to rub your erect penis on an unconscious person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to rape another person. This is what Brock did.

Maybe by breaking it down for you, you'll be able to understand that what she did was not illegal. What he did, was illegal.

She did own up to the fact that it was not smart to drink that much. But again, not illegal. He's never owned up to the fact that what he did was illegal. Even now, after being convicted, he nor his father/family believe what he did was illegal. He did what he did because he drank is their mentality. The alcohol is the perpetrator and Brock and his victim are the real victims!

Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't of been so drunk is wrong.
Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't been running along in the dark is wrong.
Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if her skirt wasn't so short is wrong.

I refuse to teach my daughter that doing any of the above could lead to her being raped. Why? Because I expect you to teach your son that rape/sexual assault is illegal. End of story.

I've taught my kids that when you're drunk out of your mind and unconscious or high on drugs, you're putting yourself in a very vulnerable position because there are bad people in this world who will take advantage of you if they can. Wish that weren't true, but it is.

Yup. For those of us that live here in reality, you protect yourself and don't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Rape is not ok so not excusing it at all, but there is no need to make yourself a target by what you are wearing, who you are with, where you are, etc. People do have *some* control over their lives.

I was raped at 11:08 am on a Tuesday. It was not dark out. I was not alone. I was at work. There were security cameras. I was wearing a new pair of black slacks that I'd yet to take to get altered, so they were a smidge too long and the hem dragged the ground a bit because I wanted to wear flats that day instead of heels. I had on a turquoise silk tank top under my black suit jacket. He put his hand over my mouth and a knife to my neck that pierced my skin enough to let me know he was serious about killing me if I screamed or fought too much. I did fight and the knife sunk in deeper. I bit the hand he had over my mouth and he pushed so hard that I thought my front teeth would cave in. He ripped my slacks and pulled them down just far enough to spread my legs enough. He didn't take off his pants; he just unzipped them and pulled himself out and then raped me. The zipper from his jeans kept digging into my skin with each movement. I still have a small zipper-tooth scar from this. He winked when he was done. He punched my temple and then twice in my kidneys before he ran.

I wasn't impaired. I wasn't wearing any provocative clothing. I wasn't alone or in a dark, sketchy place. I was working. My co-workers had no idea that just down the hall, my life pre-11:08 am on that Tuesday morning was ending. I'm not even what most people would call pretty. I just wanted to know why, why, why. It took lots of therapy to learn that there is no why. I didn't do anything wrong. Some men rape because they want to. That's life. My rapist wanted to rape that day and I was his unlucky victim.

By your logic, when I was in full control, I shouldn't have been raped. But rapists aren't logical. There are thousands of other stories like mine of people who weren't "being vulnerable " who were raped. We shouldn't have to teach our girls not to get raped because boys should just know and have been taught DON'T RAPE.

Wow - terrible reading comprehension. I said people have *some* control over their lives. I even starred the "some" to get that point across. Sorry you were raped. As you know, we obviously never have 100% control over what happens.

But even so, if you had a daughter you wouldn't encourage her to take responsibility for her personal safety? At least lessen her chances of becoming a target?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

If she was even conscious when she got back there, she did not "fall asleep," she passed out. At which point continued sexual activity is rape.

And read the victim's statement. Rape trials are still f-ed up against women. Or would you consent to pine needles shoved in your vagina or rectum?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

Do you know the dad? If not, how do you know what he meant?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

there were witnesses though. the two swedes. he was assaulting an unconscious woman. do you refute this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brock Turner would have raped her even if she had been unconscious from a health related illness.

CNN just announced he is appealing the sentence.

Of course he is

Barf.

Now, now, everyone has a right to appeal.

Double barf.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm so glad I've only see a few ignorant messages like yours in response to this verdict and article.

It is not illegal to get black-out drunk. This is what the victim did.

It is illegal to stand on a public sidewalk/park/area/etc. drinking alcohol. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to drink and then drive. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to be drunk in public, being a nuisance. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to sexually assault another person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to digitally penetrate another person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to rub your erect penis on an unconscious person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to rape another person. This is what Brock did.

Maybe by breaking it down for you, you'll be able to understand that what she did was not illegal. What he did, was illegal.

She did own up to the fact that it was not smart to drink that much. But again, not illegal. He's never owned up to the fact that what he did was illegal. Even now, after being convicted, he nor his father/family believe what he did was illegal. He did what he did because he drank is their mentality. The alcohol is the perpetrator and Brock and his victim are the real victims!

Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't of been so drunk is wrong.
Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't been running along in the dark is wrong.
Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if her skirt wasn't so short is wrong.

I refuse to teach my daughter that doing any of the above could lead to her being raped. Why? Because I expect you to teach your son that rape/sexual assault is illegal. End of story.

I've taught my kids that when you're drunk out of your mind and unconscious or high on drugs, you're putting yourself in a very vulnerable position because there are bad people in this world who will take advantage of you if they can. Wish that weren't true, but it is.

Yup. For those of us that live here in reality, you protect yourself and don't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Rape is not ok so not excusing it at all, but there is no need to make yourself a target by what you are wearing, who you are with, where you are, etc. People do have *some* control over their lives.

I was raped at 11:08 am on a Tuesday. It was not dark out. I was not alone. I was at work. There were security cameras. I was wearing a new pair of black slacks that I'd yet to take to get altered, so they were a smidge too long and the hem dragged the ground a bit because I wanted to wear flats that day instead of heels. I had on a turquoise silk tank top under my black suit jacket. He put his hand over my mouth and a knife to my neck that pierced my skin enough to let me know he was serious about killing me if I screamed or fought too much. I did fight and the knife sunk in deeper. I bit the hand he had over my mouth and he pushed so hard that I thought my front teeth would cave in. He ripped my slacks and pulled them down just far enough to spread my legs enough. He didn't take off his pants; he just unzipped them and pulled himself out and then raped me. The zipper from his jeans kept digging into my skin with each movement. I still have a small zipper-tooth scar from this. He winked when he was done. He punched my temple and then twice in my kidneys before he ran.

I wasn't impaired. I wasn't wearing any provocative clothing. I wasn't alone or in a dark, sketchy place. I was working. My co-workers had no idea that just down the hall, my life pre-11:08 am on that Tuesday morning was ending. I'm not even what most people would call pretty. I just wanted to know why, why, why. It took lots of therapy to learn that there is no why. I didn't do anything wrong. Some men rape because they want to. That's life. My rapist wanted to rape that day and I was his unlucky victim.

By your logic, when I was in full control, I shouldn't have been raped. But rapists aren't logical. There are thousands of other stories like mine of people who weren't "being vulnerable " who were raped. We shouldn't have to teach our girls not to get raped because boys should just know and have been taught DON'T RAPE.

Anonymous wrote:Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

Anonymous wrote:Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm so glad I've only see a few ignorant messages like yours in response to this verdict and article.

It is not illegal to get black-out drunk. This is what the victim did.

It is illegal to stand on a public sidewalk/park/area/etc. drinking alcohol. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to drink and then drive. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to be drunk in public, being a nuisance. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to sexually assault another person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to digitally penetrate another person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to rub your erect penis on an unconscious person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to rape another person. This is what Brock did.

Maybe by breaking it down for you, you'll be able to understand that what she did was not illegal. What he did, was illegal.

She did own up to the fact that it was not smart to drink that much. But again, not illegal. He's never owned up to the fact that what he did was illegal. Even now, after being convicted, he nor his father/family believe what he did was illegal. He did what he did because he drank is their mentality. The alcohol is the perpetrator and Brock and his victim are the real victims!

Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't of been so drunk is wrong.
Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't been running along in the dark is wrong.
Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if her skirt wasn't so short is wrong.

I refuse to teach my daughter that doing any of the above could lead to her being raped. Why? Because I expect you to teach your son that rape/sexual assault is illegal. End of story.

I've taught my kids that when you're drunk out of your mind and unconscious or high on drugs, you're putting yourself in a very vulnerable position because there are bad people in this world who will take advantage of you if they can. Wish that weren't true, but it is.

Yup. For those of us that live here in reality, you protect yourself and don't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Rape is not ok so not excusing it at all, but there is no need to make yourself a target by what you are wearing, who you are with, where you are, etc. People do have *some* control over their lives.

I was raped at 11:08 am on a Tuesday. It was not dark out. I was not alone. I was at work. There were security cameras. I was wearing a new pair of black slacks that I'd yet to take to get altered, so they were a smidge too long and the hem dragged the ground a bit because I wanted to wear flats that day instead of heels. I had on a turquoise silk tank top under my black suit jacket. He put his hand over my mouth and a knife to my neck that pierced my skin enough to let me know he was serious about killing me if I screamed or fought too much. I did fight and the knife sunk in deeper. I bit the hand he had over my mouth and he pushed so hard that I thought my front teeth would cave in. He ripped my slacks and pulled them down just far enough to spread my legs enough. He didn't take off his pants; he just unzipped them and pulled himself out and then raped me. The zipper from his jeans kept digging into my skin with each movement. I still have a small zipper-tooth scar from this. He winked when he was done. He punched my temple and then twice in my kidneys before he ran.

I wasn't impaired. I wasn't wearing any provocative clothing. I wasn't alone or in a dark, sketchy place. I was working. My co-workers had no idea that just down the hall, my life pre-11:08 am on that Tuesday morning was ending. I'm not even what most people would call pretty. I just wanted to know why, why, why. It took lots of therapy to learn that there is no why. I didn't do anything wrong. Some men rape because they want to. That's life. My rapist wanted to rape that day and I was his unlucky victim.

By your logic, when I was in full control, I shouldn't have been raped. But rapists aren't logical. There are thousands of other stories like mine of people who weren't "being vulnerable " who were raped. We shouldn't have to teach our girls not to get raped because boys should just know and have been taught DON'T RAPE.

Anonymous wrote:Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

Anonymous wrote:Most of the women posters here are identifying with the alleged victim and making a lot of assumptions in her favor about what happened that night. How was there rape beyond a reasonable doubt when she remembers nothing about the course of events and he testified he got consent? If she was unconscious the whole time and got dragged behind the dumpster, then it's obviously rape. But if they both drunkenly ran off to hook up in the only nearby secluded place (behind a dumpster) and started mutually getting it on, then it's not rape. Even if she went to sleep in the middle. And I haven't heard of any actual evidence, like a third-party witness, distinguishing those two situations. It's not good enough that the girl says in her statement that she's not the kind of person who would do that. She doesn't remember. Or, if she is going to deny consent based on her moral character (I have a boyfriend), she can't complain about being asked about promiscuity, etc., since that goes to the question of whether she consented.

Rape trials used to be so f-ed up against women -- who had to prove that they tried to fight off the attacker, etc. in order to disprove consent -- but now they are so f-ed up against men. The public presumption has completely switched from consent to no-consent whenever someone is prosecuted for rape. And the man on trial is lambasted even for having a lawyer defend him or appealing, which is how the legal system works.

Also, everyone is misinterpreting the dad's use of the word "action." He wasn't saying that his son got 20 mins of action from a girl. He was saying that 20 mins of behavior shouldn't result in a long prison sentence. He used action like a neutral word for behavior/conduct because he couldn't say 20 minutes of "sex" or "raping".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm so glad I've only see a few ignorant messages like yours in response to this verdict and article.

It is not illegal to get black-out drunk. This is what the victim did.

It is illegal to stand on a public sidewalk/park/area/etc. drinking alcohol. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to drink and then drive. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to be drunk in public, being a nuisance. The victim did not do this.

It is illegal to sexually assault another person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to digitally penetrate another person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to rub your erect penis on an unconscious person. This is what Brock did.

It is illegal to rape another person. This is what Brock did.

Maybe by breaking it down for you, you'll be able to understand that what she did was not illegal. What he did, was illegal.

She did own up to the fact that it was not smart to drink that much. But again, not illegal. He's never owned up to the fact that what he did was illegal. Even now, after being convicted, he nor his father/family believe what he did was illegal. He did what he did because he drank is their mentality. The alcohol is the perpetrator and Brock and his victim are the real victims!

Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't of been so drunk is wrong.
Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't been running along in the dark is wrong.
Telling a woman that she wouldn't have been raped if her skirt wasn't so short is wrong.

I refuse to teach my daughter that doing any of the above could lead to her being raped. Why? Because I expect you to teach your son that rape/sexual assault is illegal. End of story.

I've taught my kids that when you're drunk out of your mind and unconscious or high on drugs, you're putting yourself in a very vulnerable position because there are bad people in this world who will take advantage of you if they can. Wish that weren't true, but it is.

Yup. For those of us that live here in reality, you protect yourself and don't put yourself in a vulnerable position. Rape is not ok so not excusing it at all, but there is no need to make yourself a target by what you are wearing, who you are with, where you are, etc. People do have *some* control over their lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, but the fact that she was raped does make her the victim here, you know that right? The rape isn't justified just because she was drunk, you know that right?

He's a convicted felon. Once he's served his time, paid his debt to society, then that's it. He doesn't have to apologize, although it's nice. By serving his sentence, he has taken responsibility for his crime.

You're right that the victim doesn't have to do anything. Most of them are not ruined for life, though, as some PPs have said. It's a bit insulting to think that of her.