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 Today, 09:45 AM
 
10,906 posts, read 4,421,881 times
Reputation: 27549

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by loves2read View Post
So alcohol canít be used to turn someone into a vulnerable victim???
It can, and it has. Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker, as they say.

I don't think he can be held responsible for what she was drinking. That seems . . . a little paternalistic, especially considering she is older than he is.

He's not responsible for the condition she placed herself in, and the circumstances she chose.

Would you want it to be that way? That men around you, whom you don't even know, make your decisions for you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Central IL
15,352 posts, read 8,761,179 times
Reputation: 36059
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma View Post
Study: Juries often get it wrong

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

They made a decision based on emotion. They know about the "campus rape crisis" and that affected their decision.
One in EIGHT is not "often"...it's not even "occasionally". Of course juries screw up, because lawyers screw up...and police officers screw up...and on down the line. How is it you're so certain you know what affected their decision?

There is nothing (ha) about our system that is 100% foolproof...so do we get rid of juries? Do we just get rid of the jury in THIS case? What is your suggestion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:52 AM
 
10,906 posts, read 4,421,881 times
Reputation: 27549
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
One in EIGHT is not "often"...it's not even "occasionally". Of course juries screw up, because lawyers screw up...and police officers screw up...and on down the line. How is it you're so certain you know what affected their decision?

There is nothing (ha) about our system that is 100% foolproof...so do we get rid of juries? Do we just get rid of the jury in THIS case? What is your suggestion?
Do you honestly think one time in 8, juries getting it wrong isn't FREQUENTLY? One in 8? That's insanely high.

Considering the jury is charged with being certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are getting their verdict right.

I personally think our court system is the most bizarre thing, although many other countries use the same crazy system.

Imagine trying to make an important decision based on that system. You're trying to buy a car, say, and are interested in the best one for you.

You CERTAINLY wouldn't sit there, mute, while one person who will profit from you buying the car, and one person whose job depends on you not buying the car, present their sides and call on other people who are very very limited in what they can say, like, for example, they got one of those cars and it was a lemon and so did 3 people they knew. Hearsay, not admissable, sorry. Overly prejudicial, sorry. Strike that comment from your memory.

And now, all of you go into that room over there and arrive at a consensus, and you can't go about your life until all of you agree buy it or don't.

The best way to go about making a decision is for the decision maker to listen to many voices, research the question, ask questions, talk amongst their friends about their experiences, read consumer reports, etc.

None of which can be done in a court of law. It's the weirdest way to arrive at a decision I've ever heard of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Watervliet, NY
4,402 posts, read 1,658,025 times
Reputation: 8053
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
He wasn't having sex with her, is the thing. He was attempting to pleasure her. He wasn't pleasuring himself.

That's so key here, and it deserves a lot of focus. He wasn't doing something for his own pleasure, as in all your examples in this post.

Which would make it appear, IMHO, that he believed she was conscious.



Doesn't matter. You still need the person's consent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:48 PM
 
10,906 posts, read 4,421,881 times
Reputation: 27549
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraPagan View Post
Doesn't matter. You still need the person's consent.
Yes. And I'm guessing he had it at one point, and then she passed out and he didn't notice because she was flat on the ground to begin with, and he was roaring drunk.

Is it your opinion he carried her there unconscious, or happened upon her passed out there on the ground and then began fingering her?

Last edited by ClaraC; Today at 01:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:39 PM
 
Location: interior Alaska
4,583 posts, read 3,394,878 times
Reputation: 14216
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
Is it your opinion he carried her there unconscious, or happened upon her passed out there on the ground and then began fingering her?
She had road rash, which suggests she fell on the pavement. It doesn't matter whether they arrived at that point together or he happened across her - once she was passed out in the street, it was impossible for him to have her consent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:06 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,155 posts, read 14,425,972 times
Reputation: 8995
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Again, remembering everything that took place and being able to articulate why you were laughing when apprehended shows attention to detail and a sense of awareness, which is not something that I'd expect someone who was so impaired as to not know right from wrong to have.

Turner laughing: https://www.theguardian.com/society/...estimony-laugh
I remembered reading about the laughing after my last post to you but can't remember where. It wasn't in the Sheriff's report, however, which is why I asked where you read it. Why didn't these guys say this when questioned right after the incident?

He also didn't appear to remember everything. In fact, they address that in the article above. His story changed. When asked why, he said he was freaked out and couldn't think clearly.

Quote:
Also, being drunk doesn't absolve you of criminal liability, though being drunk to the point where you don't have your whereabouts about your is a wise argument to try to escape criminal liability before a jury, etc. But I argue that this wasn't what we were dealing with here based on what I wrote above. That's where reasonableness comes into play.
Intoxication was a consideration in his sentencing. It didn't absolve him, of course, but one can't reasonably ignore its role in the incident. As the alcohol intoxication expert said, alcohol can make us do things we might not do sober.

Regardless, in order to reasonably and honestly characterize one as a "rapist", you need intent. Patterns of behavior. A history. Pathology. None of that was established. This is why it appears to be a case of two drunk people making really bad decisions. But we'll never really know, will we? Because all we have is the testimony of two guys who saw mere seconds of an entire night and Turner's version.

He was convicted anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:08 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,155 posts, read 14,425,972 times
Reputation: 8995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostnip View Post
She had road rash, which suggests she fell on the pavement. It doesn't matter whether they arrived at that point together or he happened across her - once she was passed out in the street, it was impossible for him to have her consent.
She didn't have road rash.

Can you tell us when she passed out?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:24 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,155 posts, read 14,425,972 times
Reputation: 8995
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma View Post
They made a decision based on emotion. They know about the "campus rape crisis" and that affected their decision.
They certainly don't pull jurors from some special pool of objective and epistemically driven people. They much like the people on this thread. And it is scary ay eff.

Speaking of the campus rape crisis, you might need a drink after reading this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...policy/538974/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:31 PM
 
Location: In my skin
9,155 posts, read 14,425,972 times
Reputation: 8995
Quote:
Originally Posted by warhorse78 View Post
Actually, she can tell what happened to her prior to her blackout and the aftermath. This could help other possible rape victims realize the signs that they could have been assaulted, and how to get the strength to overcome it.
What happened prior to her blackout was that she got drunk. How does that help victims overcome their assault?
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