Stanford Swimmer Who Raped Unconscious Woman Gets Short Sentence Because Jail Would Have a ‘Severe Impact on Him’ (document, legal)

[jazzcat22]

College students are taught to make sure every sexual action is consensual---to say "is it okay if we kiss?" and then "is it okay if I touch your breast." This may not be as romantic and spontaneous as sexual encounters used to be but it would leave no room for the Brock apologists. Check out this article on "affirmative consent":

To combat sexual assault, colleges say yes to affirmative consent - Chicago Tribune

It's defined as "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity," according to state laws in California and New York that set the standards for policies at many colleges across the country, including Illinois, which has not written an affirmative consent standard into law. The consent must be "ongoing" throughout any sexual encounter; silence or lack of resistance does not indicate agreement.

So---if the victim was passed out---which she says she was and which 3 times the legal level of blood alcohol made this likely---and the two grad students saw her passed out, then there is no doubt that there was not ongoing consent throughout the entire encounter (20 minutes of action!)---her silence and lack of resistance did not indicate agreement.

Speaking of our golden boy, did you hear how Stanford tried to quiet girls on the women's swim team from speaking to the judge about Brock's creepy behavior and drunken antics at parties:

This looks really bad for Stanford | New York Post

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

Those rapes you describe are "different" somehow from this rape, more "serious" than this rape. (According to you.)

Do you honestly not see any degree of severity in sexual assault and rape? Are all equally bad? Is what happened at Stanford equal, in your mind, to what happened in the fictional UVA gang rape?

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

Do you honestly not see any degree of severity in sexual assault and rape? Are all equally bad? Is what happened at Stanford equal, in your mind, to what happened in the fictional UVA gang rape?

The UVA incident is, as you said, fiction. It's irrelevant. This assault was pretty bad. The woman was unconscious. He put debris inside her; treated her like an inanimate object.

[Cherokeeblue]

This is a case where Justice was not served. He knew what he was doing. Don't blame on the alcohol He probably knew he could get away with it. I hate that rule where they can try some criminals twice. They should of made this a mistrial. Picked New jurors and retired him in another state. The judges the jurors are just too lenient. It's time for a change.

[The Dark Enlightenment]

I'd like to put that question to everyone else commenting here. Do you recognize degree of severity in sexual assault and rape? Is that even a legitimate concept for you which is relevant to the appropriate punishment? Is what happened at Stanford equal, in your mind, to what happened in the fictional UVA gang rape? If Brock Turner deserves a long prison term, what do people who commit crimes like the one described in the Rolling Stone account deserve?

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

I'd like to put that question to everyone else commenting here. Do you recognize degree of severity in sexual assault and rape? Is that even a legitimate concept for you which is relevant to the appropriate punishment? Is what happened at Stanford equal, in your mind, to what happened in the fictional UVA gang rape? If Brock Turner deserves a long prison term, what do people who commit crimes like the one described in the Rolling Stone account deserve?

No one committed the crimes described in the Rolling Stone article about UVA. You can't compare reality with fiction. Question is irrelevant.

[The Dark Enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

No one committed the crimes described in the Rolling Stone article about UVA. You can't compare reality with fiction. Question is irrelevant.

I said "people who commit crimes like the one described in the Rolling Stone account". And yes, such crimes certainly do occur. I have seen many reports of women being held for hours while they were raped and beaten by multiple attackers.

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by MissTerri

You are assuming that the fondling started out as mutual but there is no evidence of that.

And there is no evidence that the fondling DIDN'T start out as mutual.

There's no evidence that she consented

And there's no evidence that she DIDN'T consent.

************************************************** *

I guess you don't understand the concept in criminal law of "innocent, unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

There was not only no proof of guilt in this case, there wasn't even evidence of guilt.

[jazzcat22]

Originally Posted by dechatelet

And there is no evidence that the fondling DIDN'T start out as mutual.

And there's no evidence that she DIDN'T consent.

************************************************** *

I guess you don't understand the concept in criminal law of "innocent, unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

There was not only no proof of guilt in this case, there wasn't even evidence of guilt.

Would you agree that the second she passed out, consent stopped? That even if she had begged for it a minute before, once she passed out she was no longer giving consent? How would he know if he was hurting her or she no longer wanted to continue? (I understand he wouldn't care---he wasn't looking for a partner to have a mutually satisfying 20 minutes of action with, but you get my point).

No evidence of guilt, huh? Interesting that a nonguilty guy would run away when caught....

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by tamajane

While it may seem like common sense that we recognize a person in trouble, a lot of younger people don't, and further if a guy tries to help a woman now he may be shamed for "white knighting".

Exactly.

When the feminist movement started, I remember women being offended if you held the door open for them.

Originally Posted by randomparent

What? Since when are men being shamed for helping a person in distress? Neither my husband, who is reading this over my shoulder, nor I have ever heard of such a thing. It's certainly never been the case for us. Ignore a person who needs aid? What world do you live in that this is happening?

The real world where people sue.

Say you pull someone out of a burning car that has been in an accident and is about to explode, and later you or your insurance company gets sued because moving them injured them.

Stuff like that does happen.

Originally Posted by thefragile

I have an idea: get off the thread.

No, I would rather stay here and enjoy people finding someone guilty without any evidence.

It's interesting to see all their rationalizations.

Originally Posted by ATG5

The "evidence" is that you hadn't even heard of the other major rape case involving Brian Banks in the same state or the other rape cases similar to this that involved black men.

Why would I have heard about them?

Did CNN, etc., talk about them for days on end?

I support the side of logic.

Thanks for making me laugh.

You're making every excuse for Brock, despite the fact that he a) sexually assaulted an unconscious woman

There is no evidence of that.

She might well have been conscious and consented when the sex play began.

and b) was found guilty of sex crimes.

Innocent people have been found guilty, as I'm sure you are aware.

There were witnesses who saw him with the unconscious woman and then he ran.

That doesn't look good for him -- but it doesn't disprove the possibility that she was conscious and consented when the sex play began.

Plus, there was no sexual intercourse -- hence, no rape -- and both of them were drunk.

You attempt to ignore all of that, and then when I ask you to explain all of that, you ignore it

Wrong.

I've explained it over and over again.

I can't help it if you can't process the truth.

You might consider working on that problem.

Non-existent case? FYI...[b]the evidence found him guilty

Evidence doesn't find people guilty, juries do.

And there was no evidence that he raped her (there was no sexual intercourse), there is no evidence that she didn't consent, and there is no evidence that she wasn't conscious when the sex play began.

There is also no evidence that he was aware that she had passed out.

And what part of unconscious do you not understand? You do not continue to engage in sexual activities with someone who is unconscious.

He might not have been aware that she was unconscious.

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

The smoking gun is that he RAN AWAY when two people confronted him.

That's not sufficient evidence of guilt.

Originally Posted by kdog

There's plenty of evidence because he was CONVICTED.

Juries have been known to convict innocent people.

The mere fact of conviction doesn't prove anything.

No one is arguing that he didn't do the crime

Wrong.

You apparently haven't been paying attention to this thread.

The only thing the evidence shows is that he fondled a woman who might well have consented to that fondling.

That is not a crime.

Originally Posted by Howest2008

Moving upward toward 100 pages and the Apologists still aren't convinced that " Golden Boy " did it (!!!!)

Because there is no evidence that he did.

Originally Posted by charolastra00

P.S. If you are ACTIVELY HAVING SEX WITH SOMEONE and previously consented, then revoke your consent halfway through, that's OK. If your partner continues to have sex with you AFTER YOU REVOKE YOUR CONSENT, then it is rape.

It is rape only if there is actual sexual intercourse.

There wasn't in this case.

Furthermore, a crime requires "mens rea" -- Latin for "criminal intent" -- which would not have been there if he wasn't aware that she had passed out.

It hasn't been shown that he was aware of that -- any more than it has been shown that she didn't consent to the sex play in the first place.

She doesn't even remember what happened, and no one was there when the sex play started.

Originally Posted by jazzcat22

College students are taught to make sure every sexual action is consensual---to say "is it okay if we kiss?" and then "is it okay if I touch your breast." This may not be as romantic and spontaneous as sexual encounters used to be but it would leave no room for the Brock apologists. Check out this article on "affirmative consent":

To combat sexual assault, colleges say yes to affirmative consent - Chicago Tribune

It's defined as "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity," according to state laws in California and New York that set the standards for policies at many colleges across the country, including Illinois, which has not written an affirmative consent standard into law. The consent must be "ongoing" throughout any sexual encounter; silence or lack of resistance does not indicate agreement.

So---if the victim was passed out---which she says she was and which 3 times the legal level of blood alcohol made this likely---and the two grad students saw her passed out, then there is no doubt that there was not ongoing consent throughout the entire encounter (20 minutes of action!)---her silence and lack of resistance did not indicate agreement.

As I said, he can only be guilty if he was aware that she had passed out -- and that hasn't been proven.

As for this constant asking of one's partner if it is okay to continue to have sex, I suspect that a lot of college guys are going to throw up their hands and try out the gay lifestyle.

Less drama, no kids, no false accusations, no impoverishment through alimony after a divorce.

Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment

I said "people who commit crimes like the one described in the Rolling Stone account". And yes, such crimes certainly do occur. I have seen many reports of women being held for hours while they were raped and beaten by multiple attackers.

People here don't want to talk about real crime.

They just want to go after a rich, white, heterosexual male jock who goes to an elite university.

He PERFECTLY fits the profile of what liberals, leftists, and feminists HATE and are out to get -- right down to his blond hair and blue eyes.