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.
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.
If 200,000 people know who you are, in a country of 320 million, you're ostensibly anonymous.
None of us can say with certainty what actually took place, but I'm convinced that's essentially what happened. And it's not mere "fantasy". It's a conclusion drawn from examining the circumstances, and based on reasonable inference. I do know for certain that the fantasy spun by "Emily" and the media isn't what happened.
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.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Plenty of people - most people, I should think - derive gratification from contact with someone else's bodies. It's the drive to visit bases 1 through 3, and also, like, the motivation of every subway groper ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiluvr1228
What I'm not understanding here is how the woman is getting a pass because she was drunk but the guy is getting crucified even though he was drunk also.
I would say this is the dumbest thing I've ever read, but I just read the above post, so it's in second place now. Their situations (her passing out, him engaging with her unconscious body) are not equivalent. The equivalent would be if they were both drunk, he passed out in the road, and she shoved something up his rear.
This is arguably a reason to reform the sex offender registry program. (It's clearly had unintended consequences, and it clearly wants at least some changes, but that's a different thread.) It's not a reason not to convict a rapist of rape.
This is arguably a reason to reform the sex offender registry program. (It's clearly had unintended consequences, and it clearly wants at least some changes, but that's a different thread.) It's not a reason not to convict a rapist of rape.
Turner wasn't convicted of rape. That charge had to be dropped because the forensic exam proved that no rape occurred. So he's on the registry for LIFE and a 3rd tier sex offender too- even though he didn;t commit rape.
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.
I'm not sure why anyone would assume anything different. We know they were seen interacting with one another at the party. Is there any indication that each left the party alone and somehow met up shortly afterward? Did she leave of her own free will, or are we to believe that Brock dragged/carried her out of the frat house and threw her behind that imaginary dumpster?
There are REAL victims in this world, my friend, and they deserve your advocacy. This woman doesn't.
Haha - that's an interesting interpretation I've not heard before - you should be a criminal lawyer! But just because an argument can be made doesn't mean it is even plausible, much less accepted unless the jury is full of idiots, so there's that.
Study: Juries often get it wrong
Quote:
A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases are reaching incorrect verdicts. The study, which looked at 271 cases in four areas of Illinois, found that as many as one in eight juries is making the wrong decision – by convicting an innocent person or acquitting a guilty one.
I admit I'm clueless about quick hookups between strangers who just met minutes/hours earlier, but I truly can't understand some of her statements in that 12 page victim statement when she was still Emily Doe. She said "The night after it happened, he said he didn’t know my name, said he wouldn’t be able to identify my face in a lineup, didn’t mention any dialogue between us, no words, only dancing and kissing. Dancing is a cute term; was it snapping fingers and twirling dancing, or just bodies grinding up against each other in a crowded room?" Well, yeah, this was 2016, a drunken frat party. I thought a lot of it WAS/IS bodies grinding against each other, not Fred and Ginger ballroom dancing. She went on to say "I wonder if kissing was just faces sloppily pressed up against each other?" Well, yeah, that's how lots of non-Hollywood depicted kisses are in real life, especially when people are very drunk and/or just not skilled kissers. Less than romantic dancing and kissing is beside the point. It sounds like she was a willing participant. Perhaps she wouldn't have been if she was sober. But should women have agency over their bodies and behavior? Because she was drunk should there have been bouncers about the party that would have removed him or her because she couldn't soberly, mindfully, wisely decide if she wanted to kiss? Because it couldn't be guaranteed she wouldn't regret it in the morning (if she could even remember it)?
According to her: "He said he had asked if I wanted to dance. Apparently I said yes. He’d asked if I wanted to go to his dorm, I said yes. Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, can I finger you? Usually there’s a natural progression of things, unfolding consensually, not a Q and A. But apparently I granted full permission. He’s in the clear. Even in his story, I only said a total of three words, yes yes yes, before he had me half naked on the ground. Future reference, if you are confused about whether a girl can consent, see if she can speak an entire sentence. You couldn’t even do that." Actually, I thought that colleges now stipulate this---that every new action has to be be asked about and given permission before attempted. How else could someone determine whether it was okay or not? How should Brock have determined whether it was consensual or not? This was someone he had just met. He didn't know her. There weren't any clues as to whether she wanted or not, other than her willingly going with him and saying yes. And just as she claims that sex shouldn't be a Q and A---then why should he have expected/waited for more than the one word of yes? Is the rule of thumb to wait for someone to say yes 20 times? Or profess that they have never been more into sex than right at this moment? And just as she was entitled to be drunk, so is he---so both their judgment was limited.
She also said: "The night after it happened, he said he thought I liked it because I rubbed his back. A back rub." Well, yeah, a back rub would appear to indicate that she wanted things to proceed, not stop. I don't think most rape victims rub the rapists' back. But a woman who is willing to have sex at the time and then regret it the next day might...
Don't get me wrong. I am no Brock Turner apologist. I hate frat boys. I hate drinking to excess. Having sex with strangers may not be wise. But she is not the heroine of this story, just a co-player, with equal rights...and responsibilities.
Again, one does not have to black out to be intoxicated and exercise poor judgment.
And where did you read he was laughing when apprehended?
It is irrelevant because how you function under the influence is not the same for everyone. And how did you conclude that drunk people are reasonable?
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.
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.
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.
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. Oh, and yeah, let's look at the decision made by the court - because they had access to all this evidence - he WAS guilty even though the sentence given was too light.
Yep. This isn't a case where its Turner's word against Miller's word. No, there were two, disinterested parties there who witnessed the assault. As I mentioned before, I'll take their word over Turner's in this case any day.
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.
There would be one less sex offender on the face of the Earth if he chose to do so
That said, his life doesn't have to be ruined, though he certainly has to work differently to make ends meet now than he would have otherwise if he didn't sexually assault Miller.
As for him not being allowed to marry and have children, I don't know where you get that from. There are different classes of sex offenders. Generally, only those sex offenders who are convicted of sexually assaulting children are banned from having any children, to include their own. If Turner got such a ban anyway, he can petition to have his restriction type downgraded after a certain time.
In any event, I am not sorry for Turner in the least as I have zero sympathy for those who sexually assault others.
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.
