The two friends quickly decided to approach the young man.... 'When he got up we saw that she still wasn’t moving at all, so we walked up and asked something like, "What are you doing?"' Arndt recalled in an interview with the Swedish news outlet Expressen on Tuesday.
The two men spoke briefly with Turner, then 19, before he got spooked and tried to run away. Jonsson chased after him and tackled him to the ground while Arndt stayed with the victim and made sure she was alive.
'She was unconscious. The entire time. I checked her and she didn't move at all,' Arndt said in another interview with CBS News. The two then called 911 and restrained Turner until police arrived to make an arrest.
७ जून, २०१६
"One of the two Stanford graduate students who came to the aid of a rape victim on campus last year is speaking out..."
"... just days after a judge let her attacker off with a light sentence."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०७ टिप्पण्या:
How did she become unconscious?
Can you even put that incident in the category of a "date" and confusion over consent?
Doesn't seem like it.
But surely you can't question whether the judge being a man had any impact on the sentence, that would be sexist, right?
@captain
Doing shots
These two young men are absolute heros. Stanford should give them full scholarships or something equivalent.
I read the victim's statement in the WaPo. One of the most moving thing I have EVER read. Chilling.
Hey everybody. Read some more of the facts of this case before you comment. I highly urge you to read her letter.
She got drunk. That's not a crime. She has ZERO fault in the matter.
Thank you Tank. It was just a question. Nowadays, whenever a news story is vague about something, I get suspicious.
Her behavior does not mitigate the nature of the crime, but it certainly reflects poorly on her judgement. She does not have ZERO fault.
Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement.
David Begley, in all your background reading on the facts of the case were you able to discern who was responsible for her being unconscious?
Actually, both of them were really drunk. She just happened to be more drunk.
It's not a crime to get drunk. It's a really dumb thing to get drunk with other drunk people you don't know who are obviously trying to get laid.
Boycat:
She admitted it she got drunk. She was out of college and living with her parents. She wrote that her alcohol tolerance was reduced because she was out of college. True from my college experience.
This poor woman has been victimized over and over. The sentence was an outrage. The prosecution wanted six years and he got six months.
She had NO ability to consent.
The defendant's testimony and statement at sentencing only makes the sentence worse.
I highly recommend that you read her letter. One of the most remarkable things I have EVER read. It is that powerful.
Static Ping:
You are out of line. This is not a joking matter. A terrible crime was committed. Even under Islamic law, Brock was guilty. Two male witnesses.
I don't understand how their paths crossed. Did he stumble across her passed-out as he returned from the library? Or did he slip her a mickey in a drink? Pre-meditated, or crime of opportunity. Either way, that is one seriously sick dude.
David,
I don't think anyone is joking about this. We just tire of foolish people being turned into martyrs.
She drank herself into a stupor and bad things happened to her.
She didn't deserve it but it was a foreseeable outcome.
Under Islamic law, she would be stoned for drinking alcohol.
David Begley said...
Hey everybody. Read some more of the facts of this case before you comment. I highly urge you to read her letter.
She got drunk. That's not a crime. She has ZERO fault in the matter.
**************
Anyone grow up a Catholic?
Anyone remember the idea of "an occasion of sin", which you were admonished not to allow yourself to get into?
Yes, she's a moron, and yes she didn't commit a crime, but NO she does NOT have ZERO fault in the matter. She was utterly irresponsible, and bears some fault for letting herself get into that situation.
Captain Billy:
Getting drunk is not a license to rape. People are expected to obey the law. This was not a close case. She had no ability to consent.
My point re Islamic law was that there were two eyewitnesses. Very rare in a rape case. The defendant, Brock Turner, asserted consent as a defense. He testified. He was found guilty on three counts. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whole:
Not only am I Catholic but I went to Jesuit schools. A single lapse of judgment did not mean a horrible crime should be committed against her.
A CRIME was committed against this woman.
Do people who don't have burglar alarms have some responsibility for a burglary?
The general rule is that if someone is falling down drunk, you help that person. You don't rape or robe the helpless.
David,
I say, "She didn't deserve it but it was a foreseeable outcome."
You answer, "Getting drunk is not a license to rape."
Is English your second language?
Captain Billy
Forcible rape is CLEARLY not a foreseeable outcome to getting drunk at a frat party. Society assumes most people are law abiding. It further assumes that people help the falling down drunks.
When I was in high school I came across I guy drunk and passed out in his car late at night. The engine was running. I helped him. I didn't rob him. And if he was a woman, I would not have raped her.
"Forcible rape is CLEARLY not a foreseeable outcome to getting drunk at a frat party. Society assumes most people are law abiding. It further assumes that people help the falling down drunks."
****************
How many moons are circling your world tonight??
OF COURSE it is ONE of many "foreseeable" outcomes. Others are: being beaten and robbed, or leaving the party, staggering around and falling over a bridge to drown, stepping into speeding traffic and being hit, and on and on. THAT'S WHY SENSIBLE PEOPLE DON'T DO IT!
Yes, society may assume MOST people are law-abiding, but certainly not all. That's why we not only have laws, but admonishments about doing stupid things.
And thanks for that last bit of gratuitous virtue-signaling.
David,
"Forcible rape is CLEARLY not a foreseeable outcome to getting drunk at a frat party"
You must have attended some genteel frat parties. You really need to get out more.
I'm not sure you're clear about the definition of foreseeable.
CLEARLY I must stop trying to engage with you because I cannot compete with your dazzling use of capitals. I HAVE MET MY MATCH; I SURRENDER.
And another thing. Brock Turner has ZERO remorse. He and his family are just sorry he got caught and then convicted of three felonies.
His dad considers rape to be "twenty minutes of action." This statement was made after the verdict.
Turner says that at some FUTURE date he is going to tour schools and give public service speeches. I doubt those future events will occur. He just said he would do it in order to get a light sentence.
David Begley: "Captain Billy Forcible rape is CLEARLY not a foreseeable outcome to getting drunk at a frat party."
LOL
The left as a whole screams from the rooftops that simply being AT a frat party, or near any man, could easily lead to rape, "rape rape", "rape rape rape", etc.
Where have you been?
David Begley is here to set all you rape apologists straight!
And by "straight", I don't mean heterosexual, which itself is a microagression!
This latest sequence of purposeful misconstruing and virtue-signaling posts could easily get David laid at the next lefty confab!
Well played Begley. Well played indeed.
God help me, I can't help myself.
David,
No one is defending Brock Turner. We are merely observing that Susie Martyr was a moron.
Brock Turner's remorse level is not related to Susie Martyr's status as a moron.
You attended a Jesuit College?
I can't think of a single point of disagreement here on this case. We have a little imprecise language and people who want to get a good righteous spank in on the imprecise.
Caught red-handed 0% ambiguity of consent (if you believe the two witnesses she was absolutely unconscious) near 100% certainty of guilt (he tried to say it was just digital penetration) you would think the sentence would be more than 6 months. However, 6 years also seems excessive to me. Now maybe we have a genuine point of disagreement. Okay, I relent, 6 years is fine. The important thing is that he's guilty and wears the scarlet R for life. Thank goodness the victim gets some closure and also some hero/advocate status.
Captain and whole:
What kind of world do you guys live in where violent crime is foreseeable due to getting drunk?
I know it is a hard and cruel world out there, but really?
As to the legal concept of foreseeablility, my reference is proximate cause in tort cases as outlined in Palsgraff v. Long Island RR. But for the victim getting drunk, she got raped. IOW, rape was a natural and foreseeable consequence of getting drunk.
I was at plenty of frat parties with drunk women. None of them were raped.
And drop the virtue signaling crap. It is simple human decency and a societal norm that one doesn't rape a drunk woman who has no ability to consent. Christ, he didn't even know her name. He told the cops he couldn't pick her picture out of a lineup.
I read part of the victim's statement. Nobody should have to go through that. Turner is the kind of predator who gives men a bad name. Thank goodness that Jonnson and Arndt are the kind of good Samaritans who redeem our kind at least a little.
Seriously: what kind of sick creature would do this? What possible mitigation can he offer?
A lawyer, I knew it.
I'm leaving now to watch Person of Interest. Bu Bye
Another sad aspect is that the victim had no recollection whatever of events until subjected to rape analysis at hospital. And, she actually read details of her assault days later in the newspaper, which filled in the blanks for her.
Her 12 page note is heartbreaking. She was blackout drunk. And, did she pass out in the midst of sex, or the rapist just happened to find her passed out behind a dumpster?
Doesn't really matter, the guy is guilty.
Captain Billy:
Being a moron doesn't mean crimes can be committed against her. And maybe she isn't a moron. Maybe she got carried away a single time. Poor judgment by a young woman. You, undoubtedly, never made such mistakes.
The problem some you appear to have is how the Left has turned normal college behavior into alleged rape. Yes, it has been exaggerated. But this case is black and white. Stone cold stranger rape of an unconscious woman next to a dumpster.
"Being a moron doesn't mean crimes can be committed against her." Hard for me to read this exchange. I read all the comments above this and no one ever suggested that anyone is allowed to commit crimes against her. Why do you keep ignoring this?
"Q. And what did the victim want? A. The probation officer interviewed the 23-year-old woman on May 3 and quoted her as saying she preferred Turner receive counseling: "I don't want him to feel like his life is over and I don't want him to rot away in jail; he doesn't need to be behind bars."
But on Thursday, she disputed the officer's account and complained to the judge that Turner failed to show remorse or take responsibility for the assault. "I did not say he does not deserve to be behind bars," she said. "The probation officer's recommendation of a year or less in county jail is a soft time-out, a mockery of the seriousness of his assaults, an insult to me and all women." "
MikeR
Her alleged moron status supposedly contributed to the rape. Contributorily negligent as it were. Her drunkness allowed for the occasion of crime.
Full Moon:
You didn't read the whole account. The probation officer spent all of 15 minutes with her and much of the time was spent on her legal process questions.
If you spent ten minutes reading the accounts it is clear Brock Turner has no remorse.
David Begley said...
Full Moon:
You didn't read the whole account. The probation officer spent all of 15 minutes with her and much of the time was spent on her legal process questions.
If you spent ten minutes reading the accounts it is clear Brock Turner has no remorse.
Provide a link, so we can all read the full account.
Here is the letter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/06/04/you-took-away-my-worth-a-rape-victim-delivers-powerful-message-to-a-former-stanford-swimmer/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_most-draw5
Althouse's link is good too. Many stories on the net; San Jose Mercury is local and WaPo is national.
Amber, the Blacked-Out Possibly Raped College Girl says:
I didn't deserve what may, or may not, have happened to me.
Sure, I was drinking with friends. There was Mary, Caroline, and then a bunch of guys we just met at the bar, I don't remember their names. One guy had a sports hat on. it was Oakland or Cleveland or New York or something.
We all were just having fun, and then I drank a Darth Vader. Maybe I drank two Darth Vaders, I can't really remember.
I don't remember going to pee, but I do remember coming back from peeing, and everyone was waiting to leave.
Then we were at one of the guys' apartment. Wait: we were outside the apartment, because I remember throwing up outside the apartment. Mary held my hair back, which was nice, but then she left, telling me to "be safe."
Inside the apartment I remember guys playing video games and drinking red punch, so I had a plastic cup of punch. It was a plastic cup, I remember that. Plastic cup. I think I spilled it, but maybe I didn't. I just remember people laughing. I might have kissed someone, but we were all just happy from the punch. I think it had rum, maybe.
Anyway, I woke up in a bed, and there was vomit and shit on the sheets. I think the vomit was mine but I don't believe I shit the bed, I know I would remember that. I think I would remember that.
I was naked below the waist, so something happened. i found my panties in the bathroom, wet and hanging over the shower rod. I thought: 'What the Fuck'?
I remember there was a blonde skinny guy, and there was a dark-haired guy with a chin beard. I saw them, but I can't remember where I saw them or when I saw them, but they are who I remember: I remember them. I probably could recognize them, if it was just them; otherwise, they looked like every other dude, really.
In the morning I went back to my bedroom, took some of the Vicodin I had left from my ski-boarding injury, and went to sleep.
I thought being raped would be different.
I am Laslo.
Laslo just made my case. The Brock Turner case is not remotely like the fictional (and probably common) account Laslo wrote. What the Left has done with turning drunken screwing into felony rape is the problem. That's how the UVA/Rolling Stone and Duke cases got spun up from fantasies.
I have not read much about this. It appears that he got an absurdly lenient sentence. He was a white, privileged frat boy. People were hoping that this would be taken as an aggravating factor and that the sentence would be especially stiff to teach those rapist frat boys a lesson......,I've read that this demonstrates the imbalance and racismin our justice system. If he were black, this reasoning goes, he would have received a much harder sentence. Give me a break. Bill Cosby raped dozens of women over dozens of years. He will die old and rich and not in prison. Luck happens. The coed was unlucky and Bill Cosby and the rapist were lucky.
"She got drunk. That's not a crime. She has ZERO fault in the matter."
I have heard about this all day. My conclusion is that a stupid girl got so drunk she was unconscious and a stupid young guy who was also drunk did something deserving punishment. Six months plus expulsion from school would probably be reasonable.
His father should get six more months for that stupid fucking letter,
Stupidity seems to be familial.
If there is evidence of violent rape, I might change my mind but I have not heard any.
And drop the virtue signaling crap. It is simple human decency and a societal norm that one doesn't rape a drunk woman who has no ability to consent.
I am so goddammed sick of all the virtue signaling.
My 26 year old daughter graduated from college two years ago and never saw any sexual harassment among students. She did have two friends, a guy and girl she worked with when she was a waitress during college, who got into a fight when both were drunk. She called the cops and when the guy went after her, she locked herself in her car until the cops came.
Neither were students.
The hysteria is bad enough., The hook-up culture in college has given these young guys a feeling of entitlement to sex with girls who seem to think nothing of casual sex when drunk. Not passed out but I remember girls who got drunk and passed out when I was in college. We were disdainful of them but that was another era.
I feel bad for this girl but nothing I've seen suggests she was drugged.
The rescuers thought at first they had encountered an innocent "hookup," which seems to imply that young men and women humping one another alfresco on Stanford's scenic, manicured campus isn't unusual.
Personally I'd have just took the rapist behind the building and given him a facial restructuring and sex change.
Save a lot of lawyer fees and court cost (not to mention jail room and board.)
Mike K
Her letter describes some of the medical evidence. It was rape. And appreciate the fact that the jury heard all the evidence and convicted Brock Turmer of three felonies. All prosecution witnesses were subjected to rigorous cross examination.
The casual sex/hook up culture has created a real problem.
Mark Caplan:
The Swedish graduate students were on the bike path and came upon the crime scene behind the dumpster. They knew something was wrong when they saw she was not moving. Not normal.
I didn't think it was funny, simply a statement of fact. Oh well.
Yeah, the guy's a pig and 6 months seems far too little for what he did. She didn't deserve what happened to her.
Still, if you put yourself in a risky situation there is risk involved. It is not wise to get drunk in general, and especially with strangers you don't know. it is not wise to walk around in the worst part of the city alone at night wearing expensive jewelry and a big wad of cash. It is foolish to go swimming when the area is infested with sharks. Yes, in an ideal world no one would ever take advantage of a drunk person even if the other person was also drunk, the drug addicts would leave you alone, and the sharks would be too scared of the humans to attack. Sadly, the world is a dangerous place. It always has been.
Static ping:
Generally agree with your last paragraph. But one would think the chance of rape on Stanford's campus is small.
@David Begley
How is this case different from Laslo's scenario? The victim admits to being blackout drunk. During the time she was blacked out but functioning she was dancing with and kissing Brock Turner/perpetrator. They left the party together. No one has claimed that he dragged her unconscious from the party. Turner was also very intoxicated. At some point during their drunken sexual encounter she passed out. Since he was also very drunk he may not have instantly noticed her lack of participation. He should have stopped doing anything to her the moment she went unconscious. Charging rape seems over the top to me.
Had the victim awoke in an apartment I bet she would likely never have reported this as a rape. For all we know she regularly gets black out drunk and has sex with strange men. Perhaps she was only forced to play the victim role this time because others saw, involved themselves and put her in the position of claiming rape or admit to being promiscuous.
This woman is being presented as a complete victim with no culpability for what happened. As a woman I find this disturbing.
Six months seems too low to me, but hey, I guess he is just another "justice involved youth" so allegedly what he really needs is taxpayer-funded rehabilitation, job training, and laws saying prospective employers aren't allowed to inquire about his criminal history...isn't that correct, Lefty geniuses?
If this was a case of consensual incapacitation, then they should both receive counseling for the behaviors, and perhaps orientation, that progressed to a dysfunctional conclusion. If the behavior was premeditated or elective, and therefore criminal, then the individual who engaged in involuntary exploitation of another should be held accountable for crimes committed against the individual and society.
Cacimbo, why do you believe the rapist's story over the victim's?
Many believe that the Title IX approach taken by the Dept. of Education and forced on many schools is crazy. Kangaroo courts, we say, let the criminal justice system handle it.
Well, the criminal justice system has handled this, and the young man has been convicted of three felonies. He has been kicked out of school, he is going to jail for six months followed by three years of probation, and he will be on a sex offenders list for the rest of his life. While not the stiffest sentence one can imagine, it is not a wrist slap. A wrist slap would be a suspended sentence with expungement after a certain period of good behavior.
Reading all of this, I see the victim says what she really wanted was an acknowledgement of wrong-doing and an apology early on. Instead she got the defense lawyer special, in which her poor judgment was featured and the guy's lawyer implied that any drunken, incapacitated woman is fair game, and she really wanted it. Result: three felony convictions.
The real moral of this sad tale is that the world is a dangerous place--and that one of the dangerous places is the Garden of Eden. There was a serpent in Eden. Young people are sent off to places like Stanford without moral armor, and they do foolish things that ruin their lives...just like Adam and Eve.
We were warned.
CC
There was a jury trial. Medical evidence was presented. Photographs. The victim and other witnesses testified. They were crossed. Twelve citizens convicted Brock Turner of three felonies. This case was not Laslo's fictional scenario.
If you believe in the rule of law and the jury system, then this is not a close case. Not everything is political although the Left has tried. If, however, one is an ideologue then one can make snarky and ignorant comments
"But one would think the chance of rape on Stanford's campus is small."
Why would one think that after years of being told that 22 out of every 7 college women are raped every single day?
The same people who are saying that this young woman is culpable for what happened are those who also want to make a big deal of Bill Clinton's affairs and call those (but not this) rape.
The irony is not lost on the younger generation, who find the fact that old white men are blaming the victim of this crime to be complete fulfillment of all their negative assumptions.
Old-man-splaining at its worst.
Sober targets of rapists have available a "Final Solution" to such animals. Among those are: "Two to the chest and one to the head"; Or, "Four inches with the point, twist and repeat".
Of course, most colleges/universities forbid those on campus the statutory and Natural Law right to self-defense---And, the means to enforce that right.
And another thing. Brock Turner has ZERO remorse. He and his family are just sorry he got caught and then convicted of three felonies.
1) Remorse is pointless. If I'm killed, the killer feeling bad does me precious little good.
2) The perp being an unmitigated asshole does not mean the victim made good decisions.
3) The victim making bad decisions does not mean she DESERVED to be raped. It means she made poor decisions and, while exceptionally terrible, I do hope that this has taught a valuable lesson about always being in control in unfamiliar situations to the best of your ability.
What kind of world do you guys live in where violent crime is foreseeable due to getting drunk?
If your girlfriend/wife/daughter got passed-out drunk at a party, if NOTHING bad happened, wouldn't you recommend not doing that again because bad stuff absolutely can happen?
As to the legal concept of foreseeablility, my reference is proximate cause in tort cases as outlined in Palsgraff v. Long Island RR. But for the victim getting drunk, she got raped. IOW, rape was a natural and foreseeable consequence of getting drunk.
I'm not seeing anybody saying "Legally, she is partially responsible". What I'm seeing is "She was raped. It is terrible. To minimize that risk, getting blacked out drunk at frat parties --- or, honestly, with any group of people outside of your immediate family --- is a bad plan."
Mark--
I think the only rape allegation anyone has made against Bill Clinton (other than what may have happened on Bill's junkets on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express, which could be statutory rape) is the one by Juanita Broaddrick, who says she was raped. Paula Jones says he exposed himself to her and suggested a blow job, which she declined. Then of course, there is Kathleen Willey, who says she was groped in the Oval Office when she went to see if she could get some help with a job. I think the principal point about Monica Lewinsky is that she was a 22 year old intern and he was POTUS. Many normal people would say that even if she was willing, he should not have been. Most of the rest of the stuff out there is about his being unfaithful to his wife. What he was convicted of and lost his law licence over was lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky.
I hope that clears it up for you. Remember, as always with the Clintons, you get two for the price of one.
Damikesc
Glad to know you always have a plan and remain in control at all times. Were you the same in college?
"Mark said...
The same people who are saying that this young woman is culpable for what happened are those who also want to make a big deal of Bill Clinton's affairs and call those (but not this) rape."
No dumbshit, Juanita Broaddrick accused him of rape. As in forced intercourse. And Kathleen Wiley accused him of sexual assault. Neither of those were "affairs."
And I don't see anyone in the thread saying the woman was culpable. Some of said that she shares some of the blame. Getting blind drunk with a stranger is not a good idea.
My entire sympathy is with the victim. But the perpetrator ruined his life, too. Why did he think it was a good idea to have sex with a drunken woman that he couldn't pick out of a lineup? Did he think he was in a brothel? Is Stanford a brothel? Don't people go off to school with some standards? I know, I know, it's human nature. But for heaven's sake, aren't young people taught that self-restraint is a virtue?
If not, why not?
Amadeus
Religion is dead and morality is relative. That's why.
Glad to know you always have a plan and remain in control at all times. Were you the same in college?
I avoid getting blacked-out drunk (ever. Even at home). It's not really that hard to avoid it. Do you have difficulty doing the same?
But for heaven's sake, aren't young people taught that self-restraint is a virtue?
No.
And, yes, I didn't get blacked out drunk in college, either. Might've missed out on some "killer ragers, dood" --- but I didn't get assaulted or rape anybody.
So, if avoiding assaulting somebody or getting raped isn't worth avoiding some "really happening parties", then YMMV. For me, it was worth it. I find drunk people obnoxious asses as is. A whole bunch of drunken asses doesn't seem all that compelling.
She didn't go to the party to get blacked-out drunk. Quit trying to blame this woman. You look like you are apologizing for a stone cold dumpster rapist.
My real point is that the world (even Stanford) is a dangerous place for everyone, and one way to deal with that is to remain in control of your senses and to practice at a minimum a degree of self-preservation. Beyond that, some level of consideration for the rights and feelings of others prevents trouble.
What a waste.
David, what site are you reading because it CLEARLY isn't this one?
Was evidence presented that she was FORCED to consume alcohol? I'm pretty sure it wasnt, so her INTENTIONS are irrelevant. She got blacked out drunk by choice.
Does that warrant rape? No. Is it an idiotic decision? According to you, clearly no. To others, it seems like a bad idea.
But continue on. Please. Continue slashing those straw men. They probably has it coming.
"Is Stanford a brothel?"
No, but underlying all of this is a sexual-social culture that is seriously warped. It is unlikely that this is the first time that this guy--and other guys--have had sex with some half (or more) drunk woman they just met at a party. There's an expectation that this can and will happen. The men feel entitled but the women (as a group) are equal contributors to the entitlement. Indeed their expectation of being able to micro regulate any sexual situation is a sense of entitlement too.
The hook up culture is dangerous. There's no excuse for having "sex" with an unconscious person, but if drunkenness results in diminished responsibility for the woman, why not for the man too? Where were the woman's friends when she got blackout drunk? Where were the man's friends to intervene and curb his worst instincts? Nowhere, because they expect drunk fucks with strangers or near strangers to occur. It's time to take a much harder look at the sexual culture of the campus (or some) and start doing some effective intervention and behavior modification before these things happen, not after.
From a legal dictionary:
"Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised over the years, and they vary from state to state.
Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape. ...
Many states also have redefined lack of consent. Before the 1970s, many courts viewed the element of force from the standpoint of the victim. A man would not be convicted of rape of a competent woman unless she had demonstrated some physical resistance. In the absence of physical resistance, courts usually held that the sexual act was consensual. In the early 2000s in many states, the prosecution can prove lack of consent by presenting evidence that the victim objected verbally to the sexual penetration or sexual intrusion.
Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape. But this qualifier does not mean that a person may make sexual contact with a minor or incapacitated person who actually consented. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or an incapacity to consent on the part of the victim. Persons who are physically or mentally helpless or who are under a certain age in relation to the perpetrator are deemed legally incapable of consenting to sex."
This case is all about lack of consent. She was too drunk to consent. Straw men has nothing to do with my argument or this case.
Apparently you cannot read.
I've said repeatedly her poor decisions do not warrant rape.
So, again, continue slaying those straw men. I bet they'd consent.
But thanks for writing, in depth, on an argument nobody is disputing. Seems like a great use of time.
But to make it more clear, Begley, pointing a toy gun at an armed person is a stupid idea. Doesn't mean you deserve to be murdered for doing so.
Damikesec
This was a criminal case. What exactly is your point? Admittedly she made a poor decision by getting drunk. She did not intend to get blind drunk.
Your entire argument goes to her implied consent. A defense to a rape conviction.
You: She got drunk but could still consent. Bad idea but people do drunk sex all the time. She went outside to have drunk sex with a stranger. But she passed out.
Me: She was legally incapable of giving consent. She was incapacitated.
As I said, you seem poorly versed in reading. I no longer feel the need to try and explain it to you further.
But continue beating on the implied consent drum. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, argued that. Nobody HERE did so, but I doubt that will slow you down.
Remorse isn't pointless. It goes to the likelihood that the defendant will do the same thing again because he doesn't think what he did was so bad -- except for its effect on his own life -- and because he doesn't feel bad enough for guilt to affect his future behavior in a positive way.
Remorse is always taken into account at sentencing. It's not always fair to do so; in some cultures, a show of remorse is seen as weakness and that can make time in prison very unpleasant. But there's usually a reasonable connection between lack of remorse and the length of the sentence imposed.
Someone who is remorseless and is released after a short time is more likely to do the same thing again than someone who has lots of time to sit and think about what landed him in prison (or county jail, as here).
And by "do the same thing again," I don't mean rape someone, because I don't think that was his intention when he went out and got drunk. It's going out and getting drunk and losing control of himself that's likely to happen again. The next time, he might get drunk, get into a fight, and kill someone.
And it's clear from the sentencing that the judge was thinking in exactly these terms because he said, "I think he will not be a danger to others.”
Damikesec
Why don't you succinctly and clearly state your position on this matter? What exactly are you trying to say?
She made a bad decision to get drunk. So what? Irrelevant to the legal case. This is about a rape conviction by a jury.
You specialize in ad hominem attacks. Why don't you elevate the discussion?
According to Dave Begley, really bad decisions necessarily mean that somebody DESERVED to be harmed. Intriguing thought process.
Instead of "You know, it's really bad that happened to you. In the future, please try and avoid those situations" ... we SHOULD be saying "Hey, no lessons to learn here. You're a victim. No need to change any decisions you made here"
"Yeah, it's a really bad that the scammers claiming to have a fortune waiting for you from a Nigerian price robbed you blind. In the future...nah, go ahead and do the same thing again. No point in avoiding victimization in the future"
"Yeah, you were raped. You didn't deserve that....but don't get blacked out drunk with people you don't know? Fuck that noise. You don't want to be a square! No need to make different choices to potentially avoid bad outcomes. Hell, leave your door wide open at all times also. No harm can EVER come from that"
Remorse isn't pointless.
If he says "Sorry", she wasn't any less raped. If a murderer says "I'm sorry", the victim is still dead. Remorse is pointless. I don't give a shit if a criminal feels bad for what they did.
It goes to the likelihood that the defendant will do the same thing again because he doesn't think what he did was so bad -- except for its effect on his own life -- and because he doesn't feel bad enough for guilt to affect his future behavior in a positive way.
If you're ALREADY willing to rape an unconscious woman, then there isn't much that can be done to fix up your fucked up thinking. If you see a clear line to not cross but cross it anyway, feeling bad later isn't going to do much.
Someone who is remorseless and is released after a short time is more likely to do the same thing again than someone who has lots of time to sit and think about what landed him in prison (or county jail, as here).
Let's be frank, most criminals --- at least based on rates of incarceration later --- don't think about "Man, what I did was wrong". What they think about is "what did I screw up that let me get caught?"
And by "do the same thing again," I don't mean rape someone, because I don't think that was his intention when he went out and got drunk. It's going out and getting drunk and losing control of himself that's likely to happen again. The next time, he might get drunk, get into a fight, and kill someone.
Intentions are pointless. OJ, probably, didn't go out and INTEND to brutally slaughter two people. Yet he did so. That he did so at all is the problem. That he didn't plan on doing it doesn't provide any real solace.
And it's clear from the sentencing that the judge was thinking in exactly these terms because he said, "I think he will not be a danger to others.”
And I bet a nothing prison sentence will really make that likely. He got 6 months for raping a woman. 6 months. Yeah, I can imagine the lessons he learned.
That was, frankly, incoherent. And it completely misrepresented what I have written here.
The issue isn't about the future conduct of the victim. Irrelevant. The issue is about what happened that night.
You continue to blame this woman for a single mistake to get to legal consent to rape.
What this woman could do but probably won't is to civilly sue him for the intentional torts of assault and battery. Million dollar judgment not dischargable in bankruptcy. He would be paying her for the rest of his life.
That was, frankly, incoherent.
I'll quote myself:
"As I said, you seem poorly versed in reading. I no longer feel the need to try and explain it to you further."
Thank you for living up to expectations.
And it completely misrepresented what I have written here.
It summarized your views perfectly. If it's not what you liked, perhaps you need to work harder.
The issue isn't about the future conduct of the victim. Irrelevant. The issue is about what happened that night.
As I said, you don't seem capable of understanding it. Best to just move on. You don't get it and seem unable to get it. C'est la vie.
You continue to blame this woman for a single mistake to get to legal consent to rape.
Me discussing "legal consent to rape"
If he says "Sorry", she wasn't any less raped.
If you're ALREADY willing to rape an unconscious woman, then there isn't much that can be done to fix up your fucked up thinking.
And I bet a nothing prison sentence will really make that likely. He got 6 months for raping a woman. 6 months. Yeah, I can imagine the lessons he learned.
I've said repeatedly her poor decisions do not warrant rape.
Does that warrant rape? No.
3) The victim making bad decisions does not mean she DESERVED to be raped.
I'm not seeing anybody saying "Legally, she is partially responsible". What I'm seeing is "She was raped. It is terrible. To minimize that risk, getting blacked out drunk at frat parties --- or, honestly, with any group of people outside of your immediate family --- is a bad plan."
I'm sure your examples of "You continue to blame this woman for a single mistake to get to legal consent to rape." will soon be forthcoming.
What this woman could do but probably won't is to civilly sue him for the intentional torts of assault and battery. Million dollar judgment not dischargable in bankruptcy. He would be paying her for the rest of his life.
Can you explain WHY she wouldn't? I'd LOVE to read this.
My take is that she is a kind and forgiving person and wants to move on with her life.
You still have not written a succinct and comprehensive view of this matter.
And please leave out the ad hominem and snark. It doesn't advance the discussion.
Give that you've REPEATEDLY lied about what I've written, ad hominem and snark is all you warrant.
Yeah, she is just too decent and nice to pursue it. You cannot be serious.
Also two practical considerations. Plaintiff's lawyer would not get paid for a long time. Turner has poor job prospects.
Then why not make that claim initially instead of her altruism?
Damikesec
From your first post: "I'm not seeing anybody saying "Legally, she is partially responsible". What I'm seeing is "She was raped. It is terrible. To minimize that risk, getting blacked out drunk at frat parties --- or, honestly, with any group of people outside of your immediate family --- is a bad plan."
As best I can figure, that is your central point.
She did not plan to get drunk or raped for that matter.
This case is about what happened. Going forward, she will minimize all risk. She could barely function; unable to eat or sleep, etc. She won't get drunk again with strangers. Big deal. What does that prove.
On a bigger societal point, even a drunk young woman at a Stanford frat party should be safe from criminal rape. Stanford is a top ten university.
She has ZERO fault in the matter.
Agree with those who have commented that she did indeed have "fault in the matter". When you consume so much alcohol that you don't remember being raped, you have been terribly irresponsible with your body.
I think Brock should have gotten a heavier sentence. My only problem with this case is that the victim doesn't remember anything of the alleged rape. Not a thing. This leaves room for a tiny bit of doubt in the Brock's favor that he, being intoxicated as well, may have believed she gave consent somehow.
I thought her letter was moving and it swayed me; however, I do not think she has appropriately taken responsibility for her actions, either. I am in no way comparing her responsibility to his. I just think it is healthy to discuss the danger YOU place yourself in when you allow yourself to get intoxicated. I do not believe she didn't know that she was getting there. We all know, unless we are drugged.
David, you keep ignoring that she put herself in a bad situation. You're as bad as campus rape activists who tend to get pissy when it is suggested to not get drunk with people you don't know and that, maybe, learning some self defense wouldn't be a bad idea. The concept that a victim could nothing to minimise their risks is insane.
Rape is bad. Doing things to avoid rape is good. Not sure why this is controversial to you.
You SHOULD be able to leave your doors unlocked....But we live in the real world.
By the way, I have been drugged. I have sympathy for that as well, but I also feel partly responsible for it. I left my cocktail unattended.
Damikesec:
Agreed that she put herself in a bad situation.
But this is a criminal case and even those who get drunk are legally entitled to believe they won't get raped. She was legally incapable of giving consent. This case is not about risk minimization. A legal line was crossed when Turner realized (or should have realized) she was too drunk to consent or was unconscious. The two grad students saw her immobile on the ground. The medical evidence was consistent with rape.
I view this matter through the prism of the law.
Again, at no point did the rape get denied. A discussion of dumb decisions that led to a bad outcome should be done because it's a bigger concern to avoid a repeat of it since you cannot undo what was done.
Legally entitled to believe they won't get raped? That's a whole lot of nonsense. You can believe anything you want. When your actions cause you to black out and you are helplessly attacked the law does not guarantee an outcome that agrees with your belief. Your choice, of course.
Damikesec
She won't make the same mistake again,
Darcy:
I am in my car and have the green while proceeding through the intersection. A car runs a red light and hits my car. I get injured. While driving my car I am legally entitled to believe other cars will obey the traffic laws and I won't get injured.
The victim says
"The consequences of sexual assault needs to be severe enough that people feel enough fear to exercise good judgment even if they are drunk, severe enough to be preventative."
I don't think a legal system will ever work that way
she also said he "should face the consequences of challenging his crime"
She's mad he tried to defend himself in court and since that harmed her, it should add to his punishment. I don't think that's ever going to work as a legal standard.
A better analogy would be you proceeding through the intersection anyway knowing that a car was barreling toward you and might hit you, David.
My speculation:
1. she ended up behind a dumpster but Turner didn't drag her there violently or against her will
2. She was black out drunk
a. "a person experiencing an en bloc blackout may not appear to be doing so"
b. "may have little impairment in their ability to move about, drive a vehicle, & perform routine tasks"
c. "The subject also is frequently able to describe exactly the point at which their last memory occurred.
3. Turner was drunk. probably not black out drunk. So did he willfully violate someone who he could perceive as not consenting? probably not
4. at some point she falls asleep or unconscious. Yes he should have stopped. But he was drunk and not able to think it through.
5. CA law allows for probation in rape cases that aren't done through violence or threats.
She won't make the same mistake again,
Based on what? You'd like to believe, but young people are notoriously dumb, especially ones who people will describe criticism of her decision making as justifying or excusing rape.
I am in my car and have the green while proceeding through the intersection. A car runs a red light and hits my car. I get injured. While driving my car I am legally entitled to believe other cars will obey the traffic laws and I won't get injured.
You're right. Yet, somehow, I still look to make sure a car stopped, even at a red light, before I go. how things are supposed to work is little solace to me when they don't work that way.
Again, you should be able to leave your car unlocked with your keys in plain sight. If you did so, while a victim, you'd also be an idiot.
When I'm walking and come to a crosswalk that has a sign stating "Traffic must stop for pedestrian in crosswalk", I don't bother to look and check for oncoming traffic before crossing. I'm legally entitled to believe that the traffic will stop. That's good enough for me.
Amadeus 48 said... Don't people go off to school with some standards? I know, I know, it's human nature. But for heaven's sake, aren't young people taught that self-restraint is a virtue?
If not, why not?
You're serious? Why not? Because teaching standards and self-restraint wouldn't be "sex positive." If taught to women it'd be sexist, and if taught to men it'd be bolstering the patriarchal rape culture (somehow). The line now is "do whatever you want as long as you have a condom/condoms and get consent (or believe you have consent)." Self-restraint doesn't enter into it.
The victim's statement is very poignant. This section really stood out:
"Next in the story, two Swedes on bicycles approached you and you ran. When they tackled you why didn't say, 'Stop! Everything's okay, go ask her, she's right over there, she'll tell you.' I mean you had just asked for my consent, right? I was awake, right?"
and
"Had Brock admitted guilt and remorse and offered to settle early on, I would have considered a lighter sentence, respecting his honesty, grateful to be able to move our lives forward.
...
I am severely disappointed and feel that he has failed to exhibit sincere remorse or responsibility for his conduct. I fully respected his right to a trial, but even after twelve jurors unanimously convicted him guilty of three felonies, all he has admitted to doing is ingesting alcohol. Someone who cannot take full accountability for his actions does not deserve a mitigating sentence."
"Had Brock admitted guilt and remorse and offered to settle early on, I would have considered a lighter sentence, respecting his honesty, grateful to be able to move our lives forward."
This isn't generally how competent criminal defense works. It would be interesting to know whether he had been offered a lenient plea deal at any time based upon "admitted guilt and remorse". Not likely. So the victim's suggestion here is mostly meaningless.
Brock Turner, model student. See below.
But why the orange tux?
"Turner was previously arrested in 2014, when a police officer saw him and a group of friends walking and drinking beers on campus. When the officer yelled, "Stop! Police!" the group ran away from him and continued running after he yelled it again.
One of the men who was detained identified Turner as one of his swim teammates whom he was drinking with when the detective first saw him. The detective then called Turner and asked him to return to the scene, and when he did, he was wearing a "bright orange tuxedo" and smelled of alcohol, the document said. He had a backpack with beers inside, as well as a beer in his hand, and admitted to trying to hide the beer because he was not 21 years old."
The prosecutors' sentencing document says it was "abundantly" clear that on the night of the rape, Turner was "on the prowl" and attempted to "hook up" with women who were strangers to him. The rape came one week after he was similarly aggressive with another female, at a different fraternity party, at the same location, the document said.
Brock Turner: rapist, liar and apparent owner of a bright orange tux.
See below from the San Jose Mercury News.
"The judge imposed that condition, even after Turner portrayed himself in his letter to the judge as an inexperienced drinker. "Coming from a small town in Ohio, I had never really experienced celebrating or partying that involved alcohol." He also wrote, "Living more than 2,000 miles from home, I looked to the guys on my swim team as family and tried to replicate their values in how they approached college life."
But according to prosecutor Alaleh Kiancerci's sentencing memo, texts and photos found on Turner's cell phone, which police seized, indicate that he used alcohol and drugs in high school, well before the January 2015 assault. Kiancerci pointed out the lies to the judge during the sentencing hearing, but Persky did not comment on Turner's dishonesty.
The cell phone material included: "Video depicting the Defendant smoking from a bong and drinking out of a bottle of liquor immediately after taking a 'bong hit,' which was captured on the Defendant's phone on December 27, 2014'' -- more than a month before he assaulted the young woman."
"Let's take a closer look at virtue-signalling"
^ (Consider that akin to a blogpost title)
I say that virtue-signalling cuts [at least] both [if not in many, though I suspect many is more like the reality] ways.
This comment thread is ripe for that discussion.
Begley got accused of being a virtue-signaler on account of his position. Assuming, for the moment, and also for the sake of actual discussion, that he is, how is the very commenter who first brought that accusation to the table against Begley not ***also*** a virtue-signaler?--ot to mention a number of commenters thereafter.
Virtue-signalling is a mantle embraced all the way around, from what I can tell. There are many examples of it, and those examples include those who are knee-jerkedly hard/bad-assed. The virtue being signaled: I am a hard-ass, a bad-ass. I am better and I belong better because of the virtue I just signaled.
(By the way, to be clear, I state that Begley didn't start the virtue-signaling treadmill. Another commenter 'n' so did.)
Allow me to state something in a different fashion, please, again for the sake of discussion, and to try to further such a weird notion (that is, real discussion) these days:
In this particular case, whatever poor decisions this raped woman made, it does not justify the criminal actions that the raping man chose.
--
That's the proposition. Debate that.
Or, if you don't like that proposition, how I about I state the case in a number of different propositions? (I can think of only at least 8-10; but then, I'm neither a lawyer nor an internet bronco.)
---
Well, actually, I'm not going to state it in a number of different ways (I'm tired and heading for bed). I'm going to state it one other way, which might be more to the liking of some other commenters here:
In this particular case, the raped woman chose to make such poor decisions that the raping man has been victimized by the criminal justice system.
That's another proposition. Debate that.
@Darcy: "This isn't generally how competent criminal defense works."
You're confusing pre-conviction and post-conviction legal advice. Once there's been a conviction, many defendants make a statement of remorse and apologize to the victim. It may or may not influence the judge's sentencing decision, but it's not always done in hopes of a lighter sentence. Believe it or not, quite a few defendants really do feel remorse and regret over doing something stupid -- i.e., not intentionally criminal -- that ends up hurting someone else. And even some defendants who did do something intentionally criminal are remorseful over the unintended consequences of their acts.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा