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.
Its easy to misconstrue what I am saying here as defending Brock and his actions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What I do find necessary to defend is a system that does not always work well, but--on the whole--does work well for our society. Regrettably, that sometimes requires us to defend decisions we don't always agree with.
I do know without an independent judiciary, free to make tough decisions, this country would be much worse off.
I hear what you're saying, believe me. It's like this "medical error" stuff we health care professionals are always hearing about.
But I think for me, and it seems for some others on here, the galling thing is the attitude of other posters, particularly those who talk like dechatelet that partially undressing someone stone cold unconscious and putting dirt and debris up her most private parts is not any big deal. Whether Brock should have received 6 months or 6 years, a jury of his peers found him guilty of three counts of felony sexual assault! That's what the misogynists on this board (not you) need to keep in mind!
No evidence has been presented here or in the press that he was guilty of anything more than consensual foreplay -- which is not a crime.
If he wasn't committing a crime, why did he run when the Swedish students arrived? And don't say he was just embarrassed. Embarrassment didn't seem a factor when he photographed the woman's breasts and shared it with his buddies. Why didn't he stay and think the Swedes, just like his friends, would admire that he was getting "20 minutes of action" and admire his athletic sexual prowess? Why did he run just like he did when he was caught with beer as an underage minor?
Agreed! He was convicted, by a jury of his peers, of three counts of felony sexual assault! The idea that Brock is guilty of nothing but a little hanky-panky is preposterous!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Who knows, and who cares?
His running away in no way changes the FACT that there was no actual sexual intercourse, and the FACT that she might well have consented.
Once you can show that she didn't consent and that there was actual sexual intercourse, get back to me.
I won't hold my breath waiting....because you won't be able to show either of those things.
He was convicted of three counts of felony sexual assault by a jury of his peers. Do you understand what the word convicted means? If not, here's a definition: Conviction legal definition of conviction The outcome of a criminal prosecution which concludes in a judgment that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The juncture of a criminal proceeding during which the question of guilt is ascertained. In a case where the perpetrator has been adjudged guilty and sentenced, a record of the summary proceedings brought pursuant to any penal statute before one or more justices of the peace or other properly authorized persons.
Three, count 'em, one. . . two. . . THREE! Do you need to have it depicted in stick figures to understand how many? Here they are: III.
Do you understand what a jury is? Jury legal definition of jury In trials, a group of people who are selected and sworn to inquire into matters of fact and to reach a verdict on the basis of the evidence presented to them.
Now what part of this do you not understand, that you continue to argue that this guy is innocent of a crime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman
So you think it's perfectly okay to run away from unconscious person who could be in a life threatening situation? What ever happened to common decency that dictates you get that person some medical help? If he wasn't caught in the act of rape, he had no reason to run. The fact that he ran proves that she didn't consent before she passed out, not to mention once a person passes out they can no longer consent. Would you feel the same way if a man was about to sodomize an unconscious man, you maybe?
Love it!
And yes, I'd say she was in a life-threatening situation! It sounds like she could have died of alcohol poisoning if she hadn't been discovered soon and taken in for treatment. Community turns drinking death into legacy of prevention
MarkG's post was fine. Your interpretation of it was wrong. Here's what you actually said.
Here's what I replied to you.
There's nothing wrong with what I wrote. It's correct. The JUDGE makes the final call on the sentence. Period. He could have just as well gone with the Prosecutor's recommendation of 6 years, or even averaged the two, but he didn't. He went with the probation officer's ludicrous suggestion of 3 months in a local jail instead of doing hard-time in prison like he should have.
What lies?
Probation officers are often glorified social workers who don't like to see criminals get proper penalties. You combine that with a judge who has some bias toward this fellow Stanford student athlete and this is what you get. The sentencing decision was over the top in this case so it got noticed. What chance did the victim have for justice with everyone involved in the sentencing aligned and empathizing more with the perpetrator than the victim. Then the judge actually states that the light sentence is just because of how it would impact the perpetrator. This is all about Turner, and heck with the victim. There is NO reason he should not have gotten some actual prison time, all things considered including age and no priors, considering the crime - even a year or two.
This "boys will be boys" ruling is a vicious slap in the face of every sexual assault victim, especially those who have chosen to step forward and seek justice. I hope it becomes a focal point to highlight just how awful things still are. This case needs to become a catalyst for change.
He really looks like a good ol' boy. That's why he got the slap on the wrist. If he was not white, or a poor white, he'd have been thrown in jail for 10+ years
Oh, please. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that post unless you're looking for something wrong with it - particularly given ALL of my posts in this thread defending the victim, indicting the criminal and saying the family is as in denial as Joe Paterno's family is.
And still you accuse me of being a rapists apologist. What a lie.
Probation officers are often glorified social workers who don't like to see criminals get proper penalties. You combine that with a judge who has some bias toward this fellow Stanford student athlete and this is what you get. The sentencing decision was over the top in this case so it got noticed. What chance did the victim have for justice with everyone involved in the sentencing aligned and empathizing more with the perpetrator than the victim. Then the judge actually states that the light sentence is just because of how it would impact the perpetrator. This is all about Turner, and heck with the victim. There is NO reason he should not have gotten some actual prison time, all things considered including age and no priors, considering the crime - even a year or two.
Your argument is downright silly.
A statement like "probation officers are often glorified social workers" show how little you know about the sentencing process. The pre-sentence unit for the district court where I reside is staffed with extremely competent people who had held their positions for years. They are reasonably well paid and enjoy merit protection in their jobs. This guarantees that the people who work in this unit spend decades developing long careers there. We are talking about people with extensive training in psychology that reaches a graduate school level.
A good pre-sentence recommendation involves more than most people believe. The most important aspect in a case like this is the psycho-sexual evaluation. This testing is actually a pretty reliable predictor of future behavior. If an offender does poorly on this, he is at great risk of committing future offenses and will not get a long as opposed to a short jail sentence. If he does well, it is a low risk.
I find it amusing that people who know nothing about a case beyond what they read in the newspapers or hear on t.v. believe they know more than an experienced pre-sentence worker and a trial judge. You fail to take into account that sentencing decisions have to consider more than what is good for the victim. They have to take into account the cost to the taxpayers of lengthy periods of incarceration and what a long prison sentence will accomplish (or won't).
Thanks, but I prefer the decision that was made to your opinions.
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.
