Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PassTheChocolate's posts are also irrelevant. He (or she) seems very bitter, nasty, and most importantly uninformed right now.
Pot. Kettle. Black. It takes a special level of selfishness and malevolence to be so reckless with the lives of others, including the victim. That makes me angry, you betcha.
Quote:
If you can't argue without resorting to sarcastic, personal attacks, you won't get a worthy response from me. Learn to play nice and discuss like an adult.
You haven't offered a worthy response yet. When you lie and promote ignorance at the expense of others, you get no less than what I've given you. The rules and my personal restraint are keeping it pretty tame. The most productive thing you can do at this point is not respond.
We can comprehend your & the other posters posts quite well, thanks. You support & condone a rapist. That's almost as reprehensible as the rapist himself. Congratulations.
Why would I ever possibly want to try to see the side of the rapist? He's a rapist. I don't condone or support rapists. It's people who have committed that act in the past, and probably still do it, that condone & support rapists.
So TMB and I are rapists now? Is that what you're saying?
Far more than you are able to grasp, since you seem to agree with them. Anyone who actually looked at this objectively, and considered all the facts, and science, would not be standing out there threatening anyone.
And those of you who can't see value in considering the alternatives, based on the actual facts of the case, I suggest you put on a helmet. It's not support for a rapist or victim blaming when you think an alternate ending might exist. It's respect for the truth and REAL concern for the victim. If the possibility exists, she should consider it. And if any of you actually had any real compassion for her, you'd do the same. If you can't get something as simple as his family income right, you're probably not really all that interested in the rest. You dismiss a hell of a lot, including the very REAL and very SIGNIFICANT effects and contribution of alcohol to the incident. SHE even acknowledges it, TWICE, in her victim impact statement, then absolves herself. She woke up on a gurney with no recollection of what happened and the media and you, the public, filled in the blanks in the most reckless and irresponsible way possible. It's so, so wrong.
Er, no. I believe the only statement I've made here is your insulting generalization of all who did not agree with your position did not in any way bolster your contention you're any more unprejudiced, unbiased or facing reality than those you're taking issue with. That in no way indicates agreement with anyone's position.
What constitutes "wrong" in your eyes does not necessarily equate to a factual and impartial assessment. EVERYTHING stated on here, an open opinion forum, is nothing more, and carries no more relevance than opinion, or haven't you grasped that yet?
Once again; your insulting generalizations do not in any way constitute authoritative and well informed reality.
Some can't grasp that there ARE facts - those facts in many criminal and even civil cases are decided by the jury when there is no actual concrete proof. The jury hears two stories - the defense's and the prosecution's - and hears and sees all evidence - witness testimony, test results, blood alcohol levels, voicemails or texts, etc etc. Then the jury decides what happened based on EVERYTHING they have heard and they decide what evidence that was up in the air, disputed between both parties, was fact. Then they will decide in a verdict.
The prosecution has the burden of proof. They're the ones needing to prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt (reasonable doubt not an unreasonable doubt - meaning there can be doubt but it would have to be UNreasonable, something highly unlikely, so much that it's probably an irrelevant possibility). The defense needs to prove NOTHING. They can really claim whatever best suits their client, and of course introduce any evidence in their favor.
For the jury to find for the prosecution, they must have believed beyond a reasonable doubt their side of the story and taken as fact what they said, not the defense. The jury did not believe Brock. It doesn't matter if some city data posters do, the jury who knew everything, more than we know and can speak on, had all relevant info and decided on it. I will take their word about it over random apologetic city data posters. Sorry that I know how the law works. No one gets to try to spin this into ME being an idiot or being too biased when there is a small minority in this thread who is still somehow stuck on the "equal responsibility so why is one a criminal and the other a victim issue." Clearly you lack a basic understanding of law so let me explain some basic ideas and statutes for you. You're welcome.
You don't get to say "well they're both drunk they're both irresponsible why is he being persecuted/prosecuted here and not her?" Legally, that's not true. Legally the victim did nothing wrong. She was never accused of a crime, not even by Brock, and she was also never convicted of one, unlike Brock. In the eyes of the criminal law she did not do anything wrong. She did not commit a crime. Get it? SHE DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME NOR DID BROCK CLAIM SHE DID. Getting drunk is not a crime and being raped or assaulted while drunk doesn't make the assault any less of a crime or her any more responsible for it.
Though it's already been said a million times and taken as fact by jury who found this side of the story more convincing, the victim was found unconscious with Brock on top of her and touching her. So deeply out that they couldn't rouse her for 3 hours and that a witness checked her pulse. By law someone who is passed out at any time before or during the sexual act cannot consent to it. This is California statute. Don't like it? Oh well, sucks for you because that's just how it is, and that's how it is in most states as well.
She was so drunk she can't remember a thing after midnight and by law someone in that state cannot consent. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, that's the law. Too bad. Go talk to your state legislature, then. She was so drunk she left an incomprehensible voicemail - submitted as evidence - to her boyfriend. It is NOT crazy that he was convicted on these counts given the evidence presented and the wording of the statutes. If you don't like it that's just too bad for you, isn't it?
Er, no. I believe the only statement I've made here is your insulting generalization of all who did not agree with your position did not in any way bolster your contention you're any more unprejudiced, unbiased or facing reality than those you're taking issue with.
My insulting generalizations are meant to address the behavior of those I take issue with. The facts of the case "bolster" my "contention". The suggestion that I take issue with them merely because they don't agree with me is infantile. I take issue with them because they are careless and malevolent. That is more than evident in their responses, much of which are erroneous and/or dismissive of the facts readily available to them. I'm not interested in getting people to "agree" with me. As you can see, this isn't a popularity contest. I'm interested in justice. Being right comes with being informed. And I care more about being informed.
Quote:
What constitutes "wrong" in your eyes does not necessarily equate to a factual and impartial assessment. EVERYTHING stated on here, an open opinion forum, is nothing more, and carries no more relevance than opinion, or haven't you grasped that yet?"
No, it doesn't, as a general rule. But, and it clearly eludes you, these people don't know the difference between fact and opinion. "He's a rapist. Period. End of story." If you're OK with that, well, it's a free country. But I'm also free to express my disgust with it. You might be entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to respect for those opinions. Especially when they have a negative impact on others. It's been asserted more than once in this discussion that I must be a rapist because I am suggesting the possibility of an alternate ending here. That's quite different from asserting that you're stupid for actually being stupid.
Again, sexual assault is not rape. Seems the only time you care about the letter of the law is, well, never.
The FBI defines rape as:
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
It was not sexual assault, it was rape.
A colloquial definition of rape is often that all encompassing one and that's the definition I choose but states do differ and separate their definition of rape from other forms of assault, like what happened here.
There's nothing wrong with unofficially calling this "rape" as long as you understand the charges and story IMO. I think this is a rape but the statutory definition in CA doesn't call it that. The charge isn't really any lesser though in magnitude because there doesn't need to be actual traditional intercourse for a woman to feel violated and have a lot of issues coping with what happened. Any sexual assault is very damaging especially if you cannot remember and know you were unconscious at some point, I would imagine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
