Woman Sexually Assaulted by Brock Turner Says 'Rape Is Not a Punishment for Getting Drunk'

Yahoo ^ | 09/22/2019 | Tom Gliatto

[FormerFRLurker]

It is disgusting to see what you take to be good conservative people think that a young girl who drank too much deserves to have people hump on her and penetrate her vagina. I suppose their daughters never did anything wrong.

+1 .

[cherry]

don’t defend the victim....it goes against the “diss the victim” mantra.../sarcasm/

[trisham]

bump

[rollo tomasi]

How can she be unconscious during a party where witnesses testified they saw them conversing? Did you even read the transcripts?

[SuzanneC]

So, that’s not as bad? If she was penetrated against her will or without her permission, no matter with penis, fingers or object, that’s rape. I really don’t get men who want to be so ‘precise’ with words. You make me sick!

[rollo tomasi]

Laws/judges are starting to catch up, especially after the Duke/Lacrosse case.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, that was a disgrace wasn’t it.

[rollo tomasi]

They didn’t deserve the rape charge, however, were idiots hiring a stripper in the first place.

[DoughtyOne]

I wouldn’t advise it, but boy were my eyes opened when the male strip clubs opened up.

Moms would make plans with their daughters to go to them, and then make absolute fools of themselves.

Certain men used to do that also, but it was something that was always considered somewhat shady. These married moms had no such thought as they did what men had been ripped for.

It just legitimized that behavior for women, and then men as well. When reported on public media, it was portrayed as a lark, how to be somehow cool.

How was that supposed to be good for our culture?

[AppyPappy]

“There’s no excuse for a woman not being safe alone in a group of men after getting totally blitzed.”

Or around men these days

[Simon Foxx]

Take a deep breath Suzanne. You’re projecting and being overly-emotional. Legal definitions matter.

BTW Suzanne, my greatest success as a JAG prosecutor was to take a case they didn’t even want to take to trial - a “he-said - she said” “date-rape” type scenario between two enlisted troops in the same MP unit.

Circumstantial evidence convinced me the victim was telling the truth, as well as statements the accused made the day after.

Not only did I get a conviction, but I sent the guy to Ft Leavenworth for 7 YEARS (which was an unheard-of sentence for this type of scenario).

So, to be blunt, I am on your side. There’s no need to get nasty.

[FormerFRLurker]

Conversation =/= Consent to sex.

So what if she talked with him for a bit before passing out? She was unconscious when he started penetrating her, and that’s what makes it sexual assault.

One of conservatism’s main attractions for women is the tough on crime stance. That means throwing the book at homegrown criminals as well as keeping out probable terrorists. Fail to deliver on that promise often enough, and many conservative-leaning independent women might decide to stay in the kitchen on Election Day. In key battleground states, which tend to have more independent and less reliably conservative voters, that could make the difference between victory and defeat for conservatives. It’s like women make up 50% of the electorate or something.

I recently got off a thread in which another FReeper wanted to hang MS-13 gang members from every lamppost that bore their graffiti. Not for the multiple horrific offenses MS-13 gang members commit, but just for the graffiti. I specifically asked him that. Now juxtapose that position with the many pro-Turner comments on this thread and you’ve just given the Left some great ammunition in the propaganda wars. Stuff like this is how the Left can spin it to look like conservatives favor one standard of criminal justice for the affluent and white and another for poor minorities. We need to be proactive, not reactive.

Long term strategy matters. We can’t let Trump’s presidency lull us into complacency. And if it means sending one convicted criminal to prison where he belongs, I’m okay with that.

[rollo tomasi]

A) You said she was unconscious the entire time with the defendent which was false

B) To gain consent there must be some sort of communication

C) I don’t believe in labels such as “liberal”, “classical liberal”, “conservative”, “libertarian”, “moderate”, etc..., however, I do believe in Due Process.

D) I don’t believe in getting plastered in an environment full of people looking to “hook-up”, especially if I was in a serious relationship.

E) Already said the guy was a piece of crap and deserved jail under the circumstances and his response to getting caught.

[FormerFRLurker]

A) No, actually I said she was unconscious the entire duration of the sexual act. Conversation is not a sexual act.

B) Again conversation =/= consent. There is no evidence that she gave sexual consent during her conversation with Turner.

C) I also believe in due process. Brock Turner was given due process and a fair trial by a jury of his peers. He was found guilty. That’s good enough for me.

D) I also don’t support that lifestyle, but nothing justifies what he did.

[rollo tomasi]

A) Noted, apologies, however, there were no witnesses prior to walking back and she drank freely, only after the incident. Conversation is not a sexual act, however, securing consent needs that.

B)Where was the evidence that she did not give consent?

Do you understand hearsay, sexual liberation, due process (You are for it supposedly), blind justice? For instance, why is a female not responsible for her drunkenness, but a man is? No double-standards with the law, at least that is the theory. More judges are beginning to realize this based on many cases where the female lied and actually gave consent or hearsay without evidence to the contrary. Lead into C and D. The only reason he was busted is because of his reaction (Circumstantial but enough to lean), had he just continued the behavior and said she consented to the witnesses, there was enough evidence by other witnesses outside the party that they were hooking-up.

[rollo tomasi]

BTW, in California, consent under intoxication based on

If the victim passed out at some point or had trouble walking on their own; (People v. White (App.4 Dist. 2015) 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 299)

People at the party agreeing that the victim needed to “sleep it off”;

Putting the victim in a shower for cleanup after vomiting; and

So drunk the victim is vomiting and hit the wall (Meaning unable to function). (People v. Braslaw (App.1 Dist. 2015) 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 575)

Accuser displayed none of these actions when third party witnesses observed the two interacting outside.

[FormerFRLurker]

B)Where was the evidence that she did not give consent?

Her blood alcohol level was 0.22 at the time of the incident. No way had she *just* passed out with that kind of BAC. She had to have been unconscious *at the time of penetration.* That is sexual assault. For the sake of argument, let's assume he managed to obtain consent from her before she passed out. Under California law, that is *still* sexual assault because California law defines consent as positive cooperation with knowledge of the nature of the act that must continue *for the duration of the act* (https://www.wksexcrimes.com/is-it-rape-if-your-partner-changed-hisher-mind-during-intercourse/). Consent ends the moment one party changes her (or his) mind or when one party becomes too incapacitated to participate. The Brock Turners of this world may not like it but them's the rules in California.

For instance, why is a female not responsible for her drunkenness, but a man is?

She and she alone is responsible for blacking out. He and he alone is responsible for his sexual assault of her. Drunkenness is not an excuse for criminal behavior, which penetrating an unconscious person is. If I stagger into a convenience store stinking drunk, overpower the cashier, and make off with the contents of the register I do not expect the judge to give me a more lenient sentence because I was so intoxicated I believed the cashier was giving me the money out of the kindness of her heart. If a woman commits criminal behavior while under the influence of alcohol I would want the book thrown at her too. It just happens that the criminal behavior in this case was committed by a male.

[rollo tomasi]

He is drunk as well, the double standards are fine from a social context, however, the legal process should be neutral. For instance, they were hooking-up prior to the walk back according to witnesses. No one saw her pass out initially, which fits the legal definition. The reaction after created the circumstantial evidence.

(Generalization) Couple hooks up, walk back, start making out, he is drunk and be led on, during the process she passes out, remembers the scene from Animal House of equivalent while being drunk, continues on when consent was given before. Apparently the female is given a pass for getting plastered enough to pass out, but the male commits a crime doing the same while being led on. If consent is given, even before the incident, too bad, maybe women should watch the amount they drink when coming in contact with males. This "I give consent but continue to drink a lot more before sealing the deal" double standard is being called out by judges for good reason.

[FormerFRLurker]

If a woman has sex with a passed-out male that is rape as well. The law is gender-blind even if the applications of it aren’t always so.

Lock up the female rapists. Don’t give the male ones a free pass.

[SauronOfMordor]

If you get drunk and then decide it’s a good idea to drive a car, you are held fully responsible for that stupid drunken decision.

A drunk woman is absolved from any responsibility for drunkenly agreeing to sex, while the equally drunk man is held fully responsible.