U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 05:51 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,145 posts, read 14,425,972 times
Reputation: 8990

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatIfigured View Post
She was too ashamed to explain to her friends, her family, and especially her boyfriend why she made the choices she made. Much easier to just play the victim, no matter the cost to so many other people.
I actually felt sympathy for her at first. She woke up in a hospital to being told she was sexually assaulted with no recollection of what happened, and the grand narrative is that she is now worth less and/or destroyed by it. That narrative also destroys victims and I hate when they feel that way.

But she doesn't remember, and the facts and expert testimony offer a far less frightening scenario. It's embarrassing, but it's not sexual assault. She chose the worst case scenario and it's clearly paying off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 06:06 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,145 posts, read 14,425,972 times
Reputation: 8990
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Yeah...I looked over the documents you provided but I'd not call it cherry picking. It's not like we have to believe him or her solely....there were passersby who from a distance thought the situation looked funny and that she wasn't moving - that's why they stopped in the first place. The police officer noted that she was completely unresponsive...and somehow Turner who was lying right on top of her and thrusting somehow wasn't aware that she was passed out? NOT PLAUSIBLE. Doesn't matter what he said when all the surrounding evidence contradicts his statement. If he was so innocent why did he run away...scared little boy? All this and more points to what the situation actually was.
It is plausible. The "surrounding evidence" doesn't contradict his statement. It only shows she was out when the two guys on bikes got there. The evidence and the facts suggest they arrived there together. There is no evidence she was dragged there unconscious. The evidence and facts show that he was intoxicated and experts tell us that intoxication impairs judgment. There is no evidence that tells us he knew when she passed out. THAT is necessary for establishing intent. Because the law.

Quote:
People who are murdered can't testify and yet SOMEHOW people are convicted of murder even WITHOUT witnesses but through other evidence. So quit harping on what little Turner said or didn't say. Let's look at what disinterested parties observed and what a trained police officer observed.
Someone asked if he obtained consent. I responded that he said he did. That's not harping. That's responding. And this isn't a murder case. It's a sexual assault case that is to be tried on its own evidence and merits. Disinterested parties also have to establish that there was intent. They can't.

Quote:
Oh, and yeah, let's look at the decision made by the court - he WAS guilty even though the sentence given was too light.
So the court is reliable because they convicted but not really because the sentence was too light. Makes sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:13 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,145 posts, read 14,425,972 times
Reputation: 8990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
She was never anonymous. The entire college town knew who she was. And their friends and their friends, etc.

You have no idea if your fantasy is what really happened. None. Zip; zero; zilch.

That "fantasy" is far more likely than hers. I'm guessing it's the reason the judge went 'easy' on him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:13 PM
 
10,900 posts, read 4,421,881 times
Reputation: 27526
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinaTwo View Post
I will say this that after reading more about this case it seems as if this guy is and has been vilified more than if he had murdered her. He didn’t get any sex to speak of and he’s a sex offender for life. He and his parents received death threats and hate mail and now her making the circuit and publishing a book will dredge everything up all over again. He can’t set foot on any campus lest he be outed as the rapist from CA. There’s really violent rapists out there who never generated the amount of animosity this guys received. I wonder why that is.
This is concerning to me, as well.

He has been completely ruined over this drunken tumble with a woman he didn't know, and as he said, wouldn't recognize if he met her again another time. She either initiated sexual behavior, or returned the sexual behavior that he initiated, and agreed to go to his dorm with him, at which time they were rolling around on the ground and she passed out because she had purposely gotten herself drunk to the point of losing consciousness.

And for that, his life is ruined and she's become some sort of a hero.

We've lost our minds.

What should have turned out to be an embarrassment for each of them - a chance to take stock of their vulgar, dangerous behavior - has resulted in him being a pariah, and her being the long-suffering greatly wronged victim.

Scary, is what it is. And it does make me wonder about people who hold her up as a paragon of virtue.

And I also wonder about what she's like, in person. Before and after this incident. I don't sense a lot of support for her, from people who actually know her.

Last edited by ClaraC; Yesterday at 06:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Central IL
15,346 posts, read 8,761,179 times
Reputation: 36039
Quote:
Originally Posted by PassTheChocolate View Post
It is plausible. The "surrounding evidence" doesn't contradict his statement. It only shows she was out when the two guys on bikes got there. The evidence and the facts suggest they arrived there together. There is no evidence she was dragged there unconscious. The evidence and facts show that he was intoxicated and experts tell us that intoxication impairs judgment. There is no evidence that tells us he knew when she passed out. THAT is necessary for establishing intent. Because the law.

Someone asked if he obtained consent. I responded that he said he did. That's not harping. That's responding. And this isn't a murder case. It's a sexual assault case that is to be tried on its own evidence and merits. Disinterested parties also have to establish that there was intent. They can't.



So the court is reliable because they convicted but not really because the sentence was too light. Makes sense.
I don't even care if he SAYS he got consent...so what if he did? He certainly has no reason to lie about that (huh?). It just doesn't carry a lot of weight and needs some corroboration, if not directly then indirectly.

And has been said countless times, consent isn't one-and-done...the passersby thought she looked unconscious and apparently even after they went closer she STILL appeared unconscious...and Turner was on top humping her at that point. Sorry, we don't have a stopwatch counting the exact second but this stuff doesn't have to be proven 100% - only beyond a reasonable doubt.

That doesn't mean tying yourself into knots to find out every tiny way that Turner might be able to squeak out of this. He's assumed innocent but the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that standard was reached. Let's blame the judge about all the extra publicity Turner suffered - if he'd been given a reasonable sentence this wouldn't have blown up in the media.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:04 PM
 
10,900 posts, read 4,421,881 times
Reputation: 27526
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
I don't even care if he SAYS he got consent...so what if he did? He certainly has no reason to lie about that (huh?). It just doesn't carry a lot of weight and needs some corroboration, if not directly then indirectly.

And has been said countless times, consent isn't one-and-done...the passersby thought she looked unconscious and apparently even after they went closer she STILL appeared unconscious...and Turner was on top humping her at that point. Sorry, we don't have a stopwatch counting the exact second but this stuff doesn't have to be proven 100% - only beyond a reasonable doubt.

That doesn't mean tying yourself into knots to find out every tiny way that Turner might be able to squeak out of this. He's assumed innocent but the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that standard was reached. Let's blame the judge about all the extra publicity Turner suffered - if he'd been given a reasonable sentence this wouldn't have blown up in the media.
When I line up all the information, it seems to me I've laid it out correctly.

He didn't carry her off. At some point, she clearly consented.

He wasn't "humping" her, as you state, so maybe you're not looking at the same set of facts I am. You may want to go back and review the facts of what happened. The young men on bikes believed they saw him "humping her", but in fact, he was not, as forensics proved. It may be, that when they also believed initially she was unconscious, she was not.

And I'm not tying myself into knots.

I'm really baffled, and a little afraid, of how we as a culture are fine with this young man's life being ruined.

Can you say you honestly don't pause a little, and wonder if he's been unjustly vilified? If that concern doesn't cross your mind, you and I are not alike.

And a follow up question, if you had a son or a grandson, would you be happy to hear he was dating Chanel Miller?

Last edited by ClaraC; Yesterday at 07:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Central IL
15,346 posts, read 8,761,179 times
Reputation: 36039
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
When I line up all the information, it seems to me I've laid it out correctly.

He didn't carry her off. At some point, she clearly consented.

He wasn't "humping" her, as you state, so maybe you're not looking at the same set of facts I am. You may want to go back and review the facts of what happened. The young men on bikes believed they saw him "humping her", but in fact, he was not, as forensics proved. It may be, that when they also believed initially she was unconscious, she was not.

And I'm not tying myself into knots.

I'm really baffled, and a little afraid, of how we as a culture are fine with this young man's life being ruined.

Can you say you honestly don't pause a little, and wonder if he's been unjustly vilified? If that concern doesn't cross your mind, you and I are not alike.

And a follow up question, if you had a son or a grandson, would you be happy to hear he was dating Chanel Miller?
Sorry - "dry humping" - yes, there's a difference. How did that become the only physical assault on her when pine needles and other debris were found internally? Oh yeah, I forgot - she consented to have that stuff pushed inside of her...what other explanation would be plausible.

I believe it is far more likely for a daughter or granddaughter of mine to experience assault than it is for a son or grandson of mine to be falsely accused. Of course that's hypothetical since in this case he wasn't falsely accused.

In the end, I don't think his life will be ruined - that's been the excuse used for centuries to keep women quiet when usually the men get bragging rights and sympathy from other males rather than any lasting negatives. I don't doubt this will "turn around" for Turner. Especially if he'd volunteer time to teaching other young men about consent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:21 PM
 
Location: interior Alaska
4,582 posts, read 3,394,878 times
Reputation: 14196
I'm not sure why people are assuming she left the party in his company, or that if she did leave the party with him, she left the party intending to have sex with him. And even if she did leave the party intending to eventually have sex with him, it'd be quite a rare individual who wanted to be schtupped while unconcious laying on pavement in public view. Sure, there are people who have exhibitionist fantasies, but they'd at least find a location/position less likely to result in road rash.

1. People who are unconscious cannot consent to sex. She was unconscious when he was engaged with her, and sufficiently deeply unconscious that she didn't awaken until some time later. This is not disputed.
2. The positioning strongly suggests that she fell to the ground, after which he had his way with her and/or continued to have his way with her, which would mean he couldn't realistically have been mistaken about whether she was an active participant.
3. He's clearly guilty of sexual assault under the letter of the law. The question is whether he deserves leniency due to the circumstances. To me there's nothing in the situation that would make me inclined to cut him any slack other than that it's a first offense.

I doubt he'd have done real time, or gotten much media attention, if he'd just pled to a lesser charge and stated that he now understands it's wrong to have sex with comatose people and he's very sorry. Much of the backlash he's gotten hasn't been for the rape itself, but for the subsequent attempts to play the victim. His counsel and that initial judge didn't do him any favors there, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:22 PM
 
10,900 posts, read 4,421,881 times
Reputation: 27526
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Sorry - "dry humping" - yes, there's a difference. How did that become the only physical assault on her when pine needles and other debris were found internally? Oh yeah, I forgot - she consented to have that stuff pushed inside of her...what other explanation would be plausible.

I believe it is far more likely for a daughter or granddaughter of mine to experience assault than it is for a son or grandson of mine to be falsely accused. Of course that's hypothetical since in this case he wasn't falsely accused.

In the end, I don't think his life will be ruined - that's been the excuse used for centuries to keep women quiet when usually the men get bragging rights and sympathy from other males rather than any lasting negatives. I don't doubt this will "turn around" for Turner. Especially if he'd volunteer time to teaching other young men about consent.
You're completely wrong.

His life has been completely ruined, and if he were to commit suicide at this point, it would be understandable.

He is now, in a situation that is worse than what used to be a leper colony. LITERALLY.

Google registering as a sex offender for life. For LIFE. This man is young, and he may live to be 85 as a complete recluse.

He will never be able to participate in society, ever, EVER, again. He can't be around children, even his family members. If he has siblings who have children, he can't be there for Thanksgiving of Christmas, if children are present.

He can't marry and produce children. He can't rent a place where children reside, like an apartment complex. He will have to register where he is living, for life, as a sex offender, and anyone in the neighborhood will be made aware of his presence, by a knock on the door by Law Enforcement.

He will have to darken his home on Halloween, so children won't ring his doorbell that night, and he can expect a law officer to visit him on halloween to ensure he's not handing out candy.

I think it might change your perspective on this case. Sincerely. Google what this will mean to him, and imagine living like that.

Even murderers don't live like he will have to live.

What you don't know, you don't know, Renee. Live as a registered sex offender is HELL.

Last edited by ClaraC; Yesterday at 08:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:22 PM
 
490 posts, read 107,461 times
Reputation: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
I agree with the intent because people convicted of these kinds of crimes have been too quickly forgotten even though recidivism rates are very high. .
That's a myth. And most re-arrests are for probation violations, not sex offenses.




https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Quote:
In sum, the BJS data show that people who served time for sex offenses had markedly lower recidivism rates than almost any other group.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top