Only Six Months For Rape?

[Bible_Belt]

Turner’s crimes could have seen him receive a maximum of 14 years in prison

14 years is for someone with prior convictions. First-time offenders will always get a very light sentence compared to the max. I know a guy who drugged and raped a 12 y/o. He did six months in county and a year or two of house arrest. (But now he is dying of cancer at age 40. Karma's a b!tch.)

One recent murder of a police officer in Chicago was committed by a guy with 47 felony convictions. Leniency is the norm in the criminal justice system. This is not an isolated example.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

Turner’s crimes could have seen him receive a maximum of 14 years in prison

14 years is for someone with prior convictions. First-time offenders will always get a very light sentence compared to the max. I know a guy who drugged and raped a 12 y/o. He did six months in county and a year or two of house arrest. (But now he is dying of cancer at age 40. Karma's a b!tch.)

One recent murder of a police officer in Chicago was committed by a guy with 47 felony convictions. Leniency is the norm in the criminal justice system. This is not an isolated example.

It is perfectly logical that the time increases with each subsequent offense. I agree on leniency in the case of almost every nonviolent crime.

I certainly have a change of heat in the case of violent crime. IF he did what she says he did, I think 6 months is way too short.

 

[Asmodeus]

I read (I do not have the exact citation for these details--although similar are in the first link below) the two swedes rode by on their bikes and and saw the accused very active on top while the woman laid motionless. One of the swedes essentially said it was the absolute motionlessness of her hands, arms, legs, her entire body and lack of any sound from her, despite all the action of the man on top that made him think something was really off. He was looking to see her respond to the man on top of her and all he was doing, but she was completely response-less, so he told his friend he felt compelled to backtrack. She was still perfectly still with no sound despite the accused's thrusting on top of her. When they re-approached and spoke to the man, he ran. One chased him while the other checked to see if the woman was alive and breathing, before assisting his friend to secure the man, who had ran, till the police arrived to investigate further.

The woman was found to be completely unconscious, by the men and subsequent professionals who arrived at the scene. Multiple methods to help her regain consciousness, prior to transporting her, and at the hospital were employed repeatedly, including shake and shout, and even the administration of pain. All were unsuccessful. She even vomited prior to transport, without regaining consciousness. Despite the many attempts she did not regain consciousness till much later at the hospital.

She was found unconscious, with her underwear removed, and naked and exposed from the waist down.

Whether any kind of true consent was ever given before she lost consciousness...or if any kind of consent continues once she has lost consciousness, I have no idea.

The details presented in the case led 12 jurors to unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt convict the man, on three of the charges that were brought against him are known to them They know the facts that were presented in the case. (I know I don't.)

The court sentencing memo (the one linked is for the prosecution as it's the only one I found) offers a little more into what the jurors were told.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2858504-Brock-Turner-Sentencing-Memo.html

A different article sharing a bit of the perspective from of one of the bike riders who intervened. https://www.buzzfeed.com/emaoconnor...brock-turner?utm_term=.gr1z1QBP32#.wjaJr2GNlm

I think it offers a lot of insight, into the life altering experience it has been, to read each of their statements, as well.

I think the victim's statement offers great insight into a woman's very personal experience.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbak...ad-to-her-ra?utm_term=.pejR1wW8na#.li3rkQDq1m

The man's statement shows his personal and presented perspective as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nt-in-stanford-sexual-assault-case/?tid=a_inl

FYI, Here is some clarification on California Rape Laws
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-rape-laws.html

So she was unclothed then... Thank you for that clarification, two articles state she was partly clothed still. The facts are hard to decipher in these cases as they will not likely release all the evidence for it.
I still say that the court of public opinion should stay out of these things and let the actual judicial courts handle judgment.

I rather welcomed @LiveYourDream and the contribution she provided. She gave some valid facts about the case, cleared up some information on both sides (including something of mine). She showed that the girl was unconscious and completely intoxicated, still that there was no actual evidence of penetration though it could be possible. She is a woman, on a man's site, but I have not seen any ***** behavior from her... In fact she has been rather helpful. I do not white knight... If anything I have become the nemesis of all the white knights in the costal Virginia area for all the bad crap that I have done and the reputation that I have earned.

 

[BlueAlpha1]

EyeB ALSO demands you look it up yourself, and will never cite evidence.

Good find Livefree.

Can we ban EyeBRollin for being a troll and expressing anti-white racism?

 

[LiveFreeX]

Sorry Asmodeus but there is absolutely no reason a middle aged woman would be on a PUA site other than to cause trouble for men. PUA tactics are used AGAINST women to gain advantage. If she wants to have a logical conversation, she would be out on a date with someone, there is something strange about a woman that comes here and has hundreds of posts. If you look at EyeB/Sho/WildFyre they all come here to push an agenda, LYD is doing the same albeit from a slightly different angle and disarming you at the same time as you rush to defender her (this is not the first time). [9 Followers] indicates exactly the white knight, pandering male, orbiting woman's worship attitude that so many posters have. She engages your natural defenses and at the same time subtly pushes the woman's rights agenda...

If LYD is the woman she says she is, loves to put a man first etc etc, then she would not be sitting on the net, staring into a forum full of men, she would be out there with said man. Goes double for EyeB, likely these are huffington post/loveshack punters as 99% of what they post is fluff and bs. Grewd is another white knight and if you check out what she/he posts a lot of it is knightly defense and lynch mobbing. Pre-purge the only people to do this were Fatal Gay and Jaylan. Post, it seems as though that number has grown exponentially and now 70% of this forum subscribes to male white knighting/SJW bs with most men hanging off the words of posters with 0 real world 'pick up' experience. Of course women are going to take a woman's side and fully expect you to do the same 'unquestionably' as was indicated in previous posts, they even use shaming tactics to do it.

Danger has the most reasonable point of view. The definition of rape has morphed to include "When I feel like it". Of course the judge believed the woman right away and all 13 were in agreement despite the gapping flaws of the case. We live in a feminist society, totally slanted against men and men's rights, one that openly encourages lynching based on 'feels'. The case requires more investigation beyond what has been presented. Applying Game theory, which very few regular people even know exists, we know that woman often lie, are irresponsible and put themselves into said position knowingly then use regret later to make rape accusations. An ex-gf I dated even did this, she emailed me several YEARS after and said "You kind of raped me, didn't you?" because I had dumped her abruptly. In North America, even this would have resulted in a court case.

Rapists are violent offenders, not university students. Go look down your street at the drug gangs, who frequently use Real Rape to get there way, how many of those 'rapists' are reported and make the news versus 'campus rape' cases.

Lets look at another newsworthy case that I followed: Rateh Parsons

The girl committed suicide 2 years AFTER the alleged rape. Now most people were out calling for blood at the first articles release. The subsequent articles were slanted heavily in favor of Rateh and the entire case had been twice proven by authorities to find no conclusive evidence. A teen girl went to a party, got fall down drunk and had sex with a group of young popular boys. They took a picture of her. The articles then stated that the boys had killed her by rape and bullying and made it unclear whether she had killed herself and for what reason.

The articles left out that the mother and best friend tried twice to pull her out of the house and she told them both to 'take a hike' while she went in to lay with her 'rapists'. Later that week the photo made the rounds at the local school and she was teased. Upon regretting the situation, her mother COACHED her to claim rape (all of this is in obscure and factual news articles). She then tried to claim the boys raped her. An investigation was done with a special rape unit and the evidence was found to be inconclusive. A year later she had moved out and was living with a boyfriend on the far side of town. They broke up and she killed herself. The mother who could not accept responsibility for her sh1tty parenting, went to several special interest (feminist) groups and put pressure on (Stephen Harper) our ex prime minister and the government to re-open the case. Feminists were parading in the streets and calling for blood. Then new 'cyber-bullying' laws were put into place and the boys were retroactively charged and held accountable for Rateh's semi-related suicide. Rape was redefined, and now we have the 'rape culture' epidemic. This is what sparked the government to push the Canadian 'get them while their young' sex-ed curriculum, and allowed the government to piggy back LGBT bullying with it. Her mother was the biggest proponent of said law and movement... all based on 'feels' and white knighting. There are now countless 'rape' cases that are accepted along the basis of hurt feelings, ruined reputations and regretted sex. I have no doubt the judge threw the book at this man, prior cases have paved the way for it.

At one point one of the boy's fathers edited a Wikipedia article claiming that the boys were rapists when it was found to be untrue. They were busted on distributing 'child porn' because one of the boys was 18 at the time. There was suddenly a huge out-cry about this, the boy's father was found to be a serving soldier and was HEAVILY reprimanded. Because they couldn't find a way to sentence this soldier to jail, they instead found a way legally to find him guilty of using the DOD's computers to edit the wiki case, basically he was found guilty of using company resources and time for personal use. This is the extent SJWs will go to ruin someone's life that is not congruent with their 'feels'. This soldier was guilty of NOTHING other than being related to one of the boys and stating the facts. Thousands of soldiers use company computers for personal matters, but since they couldn't get him on anything else, they made sure they got him for that, then heavily publicized the case. Now the boys are registered sex offenders and their lives will likely be ruined....

At one point the hacker group Anonymous was even involved.

If you are wondering why I have an interest in this case, I moonlight as a gumshoe.

http://www.cbc.ca/ns/features/rehtaeh-parsons/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...in-court-to-face-child-porn-charges-1.1320435

 

[LiveFreeX]

In a way 'False Rape Accusations' have gone on to change the Canadian national anthem. From the Army.ca forums.

Quote from: PuckChaser on June 11, 2016, 14:28:23
Praise be to the Spaghetti Monster, it is through him we remain al dente.


Change the flag colours to match a rainbow. Pot leaf instead of maple leaf. Remove God from the lyrics so it doesn't upset other religions or us atheists. Remove sons so it's gender neutral. Remove command because it's an example of the fascist dictator government trying to control the people. Include an apology to the first Nations, remove 'our land', because that's settler talk, mention safe spaces.

Re: Parliament to consider changes to "O Canada"
« Reply #76 on: June 10, 2016, 12:21:38 »

It's not so much that they want to change the words. For me, it's two things.

1. That they want to change the words because of some PC BS.

2. That they want to change the words to something that is grammatically incorrect and sounds ****ty to boot.

My future plan for the anthem and flag aside, for some reason changing the anthem doesn't surprise me but it also doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is all the other issues we could be tackling instead, which are arguably more important, are in limbo.

This is what happens when we let women, white knights and feelz dominate our culture.

 

[Serenity]

But wait a minute, how do you know for sure if he was guilty?

What if he was drunk past the point of being able to make reasonable decisions?

Look at the evidence, it speaks for itself. If he's drunk past the point of making reasonable decisions and found fingering and unconscious woman, then he's still guilty.

@LiveFreeX The concern for middle eastern rapists in Europe have been voiced heavily. I live in Europe, I hear about it constantly. Could you also stop with the name calling such as white knight and mangina? It's childish and immature.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Could you also stop with the name calling such as white knight and mangina?

Call it like I see it. Stop acting like one and I'll stop calling you out for it.

It's childish and immature.

You need a tissue? Maybe I can get the SS ops to create you a safe space.

 

[Serenity]

Call it like I see it. Stop acting like one and I'll stop calling you out for it.


You need a tissue? Maybe I can get the SS ops to create you a safe space.

I wish you weren't behind a screen and keyboard.

 

[LiveFreeX]

I wish you weren't behind a screen and keyboard.

Trust me pal, the feeling is mutual.

 

[Serenity]

Is he still guilty if he is unaware that she is unconscious?

Yes.

 

[Yewki]

They were both intoxicated, voluntarily, beyond reason. Both put themselves in a situation where they could not make good decisions

Yeah, the guy f*cked up. But so did the girl. Moral of the story, don't be a dumba** and drink until you pass out on the ground unconscious barely alive. Drink responsibly

I don't really have sympathy for the girl. Overall I think the ruling was fine, hopefully both learned their lesson

 

[Sho-No-Luv]

Ok, so when the woman is too drunk to be aware, she is a victim....when the man is too drunk to be aware, he is still guilty?

She was passed out you idiot!! Stop condoning bad beaviour.

Give up dude or just admit that you and Livepedox, and Dumbalpha condone rape.

Btw, she was not his first victim and won't be his last he will reoffend again.

Next
time he will kill someone Gtoh, with this nonsense the three of you are sick and full of hatred. And when someone won't agree with your hate and foolishness the shaming labels are thrown out.
,
You guys hide behind keyboard, f!cking cowards..

 

[oOh Nasty]

There's an infestation of white knights registering on the DJ Forums as of late.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Morale of the story, if you're caught fvcking a girl, or in the process, then don't run away.

Moral of the story is don't bang chicks that are half passed out. Doesn't matter if that's consensual or not, it's just asking for trouble. Certainly don't be an idiot and bang her behind a dumpster. He should get six months for the fondling, and six years for being a fvckign retard.

As for the girl? Getting hammered at a frat house of a school you're not a student of isn't exactly the smartest behavior. Lucky for her she "softened up" any jury by going online and talking about how her "innocence" was "stolen" from her.

Pro Tip:

If you want to keep your "innocence," don't get passed out drunk in frat house with a bunch of idiotic horny dudes.

Jesus Christ people are morons.

 

[Serenity]

Ok, so when the woman is too drunk to be aware, she is a victim....when the man is too drunk to be aware, he is still guilty?

Depends on who does what. If the swimmer was laying passively on the ground and the girl was actively doing something sexual to him, then she would be guilty. However, in this case it's opposite, he's active and she's passive. He's aware enough to perform sexual actions, she's not aware enough to resist, participate, give consent or know what's even happening.

So yes, he's guilty.

 

[oOh Nasty]

Two idiots getting what they deserve. Girls rarely blame themselves for deciding to keep drinking past the point of consciousness.

 

[Serenity]

In this case yes, but what if both were too drunk to be aware, but both awake?

The active and passive part still applies. If they're both actively participating, then there is nothing to make a case of and it's not rape. If one of them are active and the other passive (yet still awake, but without a clear sign of consent and didn't really want it) then the active participant have committed rape or sexual assault, given the passive participant did not want it but was too drunk to express it.

Obviously if both were passive nothing would happen at all. What makes it rape or sexual assault is the imbalance where one of them wants it and the other doesn't, that's what I consider to be the core point about what makes it wrong.

There is one other possibility which is very very common. That's when there's one active and one passive person, but the passive person have nothing against it when they do figure out what happened. Like you wake up, figure out you had sex last night, can't remember wanting it but decide it's fine. Meaning nothing more will come from it, because nobody has a problem with it.

 

[Serenity]

Two idiots getting what they deserve. Girls rarely blame themselves for deciding to keep drinking past the point of consciousness.

Incorrect, they often blame themselves a lot for what someone else did to them. They think "what if", like if they just didn't drink that much, if they just didn't go at all, if they just didn't talk to that guy. Is it right that they should restrict their lives because someone else will take advantage of it? Or is it right that other people shouldn't violate their lives so they can live freely and feel safe? What kind of society would you like to live in? One where people have to restrict their lives because we allow people to do whatever the fvck? Or one where we weed out those few so the rest of us can live with a higher degree of freedom and safety?

Have you ever been so drunk you can't remember what happened? If yes, how would you feel about waking up with a sore a55hole because someone fvcked you while you were unconscious? By what you're saying you would blame yourself for drinking too much, and not the idiot who didn't care about whether you actually wanted a d!ck in your a55 or not.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Incorrect, they often blame themselves a lot for what someone else did to them.