[The Lizard of Oz]

Further. This was prosecuted EXPLICITLY as a "rape culture" hysteria case.

Quote:

The prosecutor implored jurors to disregard that Turner comes from a "good family,'' attended a "good school'' and was a star swimmer. The assault was a crime of opportunity that takes place often on colleges, she said.

"He may not look like a rapist, but he is the ... face of campus sexual assault," Kianerci said.

It was prosecuted to make an example of this kid because he stuck a few fingers in a drunken slut's cunt.

So now they have their "Haven Monahan" in the flesh.

How evil.

By the way: this lying bitch's "victim statement" was READ ON LIVE TV tonight by some CNN cunt anchor as if it was literally a new sacred text that was just discovered in the Temple.

There were thousands and thousands of US soldiers who went through worse than hell -- worse than torture -- in the Pacific theater during World War 2 and never wrote a f'ing word about it. But this whore's statement is an immediately sacred manuscript that deserves to be read to the nation.

This is straight up evil. Recognize it when you see it.

[GlobalMan]

Wow. If his account is indeed accurate and true, not only is this the furthest thing from rape there could ever be, but it is also quite scary that men have to now worry about roving pairs of violent white knights intruding on any public lustful escapades with a willing and enthusiastic lover because they've been trained to view all males with natural virility as a threat to public safety.

What you have is in fact actually a sweet and beautiful scene, two young drunk kids slipping and falling and going at it right where they fell. Not too long ago in history someone would have walked by these kids and smirked, passing by with a smile at the thought of young lust. Now such a scene is cause to use violence to restrain the male and send him off to the gulag for societal castration.

A disgusting and sad outcome if there ever was one.

[The Lizard of Oz]

It's extremely important to realize what happened in this thread.

We are supposed to be the ones who have drunk the "manosphere kool aid", right? We are the ones who see false rape accusations everywhere, even when "the system is working", right?

Wrong. Just the opposite is the case. The full court Year Zero media press on this -- the incredible social pressure brought to bear in support of this disgusting "victim statement" -- caused otherwise good and thoughtful forum members to instantly parrot the most grotesque lies, quite as if they were good Year Zero comrades.

IT WAS THAT EASY.

Otherwise thinking people were instantly terrorized by the Big Lie of "Campus Rape" and themselves drank the nasty YZ kool aid without even knowing it.

That's terrible.

[HonantheBarbarian]

Alright, after reading the opposite views, I hear you guys.

But one thing I dont get is why he ran away?

If im fingering a girl (consensually) behind the dumpster, and were both enjoying it/having a good time, and two bicycle fags approach me asking what im doing id promptly tell them to fuck off and get back to what I was doing.

Yeah you could argue that he was scared, but the fact that he ran away is a bit of an issue.

But with all these new perspectives coming to light, and some good points made by TLOZ, im not sure where I stand until I see some more facts.

[Paracelsus]

Couple of thoughts here:

(1) I think jumping straight to the suggestion the jury got it wrong is disingenuous given the way we talk about how rape victims should be reporting to police and then leaving it up to a court to decide, that a court is the arbiter of fact. You have to remember courts are very familiar, back to fucking Blackstone in 1760, with the idea that the horror of a crime of rape is so great is can and sometimes does overwhelm juries' reasoning, and that therefore you have to guard against false accusations.

Do juries get it wrong on rape? Yes. Did they do so in this case? If you go only on the statistical occurrence of false rape accusations, ranging from the FBI's bullshit numbers to more objective surveys, there is a 50-90% chance that they did not get it wrong in this case. The same process that produced a knockout result against Gawker for Hulk Hogan -- trial by jury -- is the same process that produced a conviction on all counts against this kid for the charges as alleged.

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to push for rape victims to report to the police and present their accusations before a jury, you have to accept the idea that generally courts know what they're doing. And you have to accept the risk of a wrongful conviction and hope that the appeal process or subsequent investigation eventually vindicates those wrongly accused. Until the Illuminati produce mind-reading gear and universal CCTV surveillance everywhere, that position is not going to change.

(2) The media hysteria over this is in part manufactured, but I think the real target is the justice system itself. The du jour change.org petition isn't calling for the state to appeal the sentence, it's calling for the judge who sentenced the guy to 6 months to be sacked.

This is the aspect of the case you should all be fucking trembling in your boots over.

You should be hoping to high heaven some government official has sufficient guts to hold his ground and respect the independence of the judiciary, because it's the one real bulwark against the rule of the mob that you have in Western civilisation. A government that folds to this campaign and dismisses a sitting judge because he didn't make a decision that the mob liked is a government that will just as happily dismiss a sitting judge who applies the law against the government simply because it's the law.

(3) Six months is a short sentence for rape, but again, you have to have faith in the judge as well. He explicitly took into account the guy's prior good record and that the media attention on this case is going to be a significant punishment in and of itself. Sentences are open to appeal by the prosecution.

(4) It's armchair quarterbacking, but this guy had a retarded attorney, or an attorney who didn't have any experience handling sexual assault defence in the glare of publicity. For a start, the attorney was male. Bad idea. Jian Ghomeshi's smartest move was to hire a woman to defend him on these cases. Second, if the attorney made the sort of stupid remark that "he got an erection because it was cold" (and I accept that's coming from the 'victim', not the trial transcript) then it belies the sort of attorney who doesn't ask how a jury is going to perceive the allegation made.

(5) More generally, I always roll my eyes on the idea of "victim impact statements". They've only become popular in courtrooms in the past fifteen years or so, and they are slaps in the face of every judge who's required to hear them. Their very existence is stating to the judge "You are an ivory tower intellectual and not a human being, you can't appreciate the effect this event had on me, me, me, and I'm going to harangue you with how this event affected me, me, me because I am an infant who can't accept the idea of the rule of law and that a judge generally isn't put in that position for his fucking charm." More practically, you can't cross-examine on their content, so -- as with this case -- it's open to the victim to crap on with any amount of unverified or questionable assertions in the hope of influencing the judge into a harder sentence.

(6) It would not surprise me if that victim impact statement was not the woman's own work. 7,200 words, and from beginning to end the same tone, flow, and rhythm to it of an xojane article -- that is, written by an English graduate. Compare that with the father's victim impact statement which is about 300 words or so and has nothing near the same level of professionalism to it.

[birthday cat]

Neo - I agree with some of the things you say about the "manosphere kook aid" and I've got a history on this forum of pointing things like that out but you are making statements that aren't consistent with what is being reported. He didn't have sex with her. It was digital penetration. He was convicted of sexual assault, not rape, even though the media spins things into him being convicted of rape.

I don't think the sentence isn't light. He has to register as a sex offender which lasts for his entire life. He was very remorseful and said things such as "I can never forgive myself" although the media tries to spin that also. He has no prior convictions or problems in his past that suggest this night was anything more than a young kid who was so wasted that he couldn't think.

The media tries to make it look like he only got six months in jail for rape. The truth is that he got six months in jail and a lifetime of being a registered sex offender for sexual assault. There is a difference.

Also, the girl and her letter are disgusting. Perhaps the judge was smart enough to take the girl's character into consideration. I know a lot of people won't get this but that letter says a lot about the girl's attitude and the judge may have more of an understanding of this attitude since he witnessed the trial. People need to cut this kid some slack for being young, foolish and wasted drunk or they need to talk about what a drunken cheating skank the girl is. The double standard of expecting him to behave as if he was sober but treating the girl as if she did nothing wrong because she was drunk is bullshit.

Quote:

He said "we" started "dry humping" -- rubbing against each other with their clothes on -- but said he then felt sick from the seven beers and two sips of whiskey he'd drunk. He said he stumbled away thinking he would vomit when he noticed another man near him asking what he was doing.

I'm still undecided on what I think happened because there are conflicting stories. Does anyone know if the bicyclists testified in the trial? Turner running away from them means a lot less if he did this after stumbling away from the girl and after the guys confronted him. The other stories I've read make it seem like those guys saw him and he jumped up off the girl and started running.

[The Lizard of Oz]

He ran away because he was drunk and scared. Read the testimony I posted above.

This has no bearing on guilt or innocence. It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt -- beyond a reasonable doubt.

The idea that a reasonable doubt standard was met in this case is self-evidently ludicrous. And that's why it was prosecuted as a show trial.

Again, this is from the prosecutor's statement:

Quote:

The prosecutor implored jurors to disregard that Turner comes from a "good family,'' attended a "good school'' and was a star swimmer. The assault was a crime of opportunity that takes place often on colleges, she said.

"He may not look like a rapist, but he is the ... face of campus sexual assault," Kianerci said.

What more is there to say?

[birthday cat]

Can we make one thing crystal fucking clear in this thread since guys want to jump in with their opinions even though they haven't read a damn thing about this case other than headlines?

There was a not a rape. He was not charged with rape. He was not convicted of rape. He fingered the girl and was convicted of sexual assault.

[Andreas]

So what can this guy do to turn around his life?

Can he renounce his citizenship and move to another country at least and make a fresh start there

[Samseau]

Agreed with LOZ. This case smells like bullshit.

I'm wondering how the jury decision went down.

He was convicted of "sexual assault."

How is sexual assault defined? Sexual advances without consent. Feminists argue since she was drunk, she therefore couldn't consent. That's all they convicted this young man for. The jury had to agree, however, that drunk women cannot give consent.

Knowing California, the jury was stacked with low-T betas and brainwashed feminist women. Must have been a nightmare for his defense team. The defense had to go in fighting against the dogma of drunk women being unable to give consent.

The idea that a drunk women cannot be responsible for her actions is beyond absurd. Coddling women from their retardation means sending innocent young men to prison? Broken.

[Horus]

Wow. It seems that Lizard of Oz is highly triggered by this and he's going in for the kill! Sometimes we need someone like him to fully analyze cases like this where things seem fishy, but it's not immediately obvious what is wrong.

I can think of a direct example in my own life where I was the victim in the same way that this girl was a victim. About 10 years ago, I went home with a slut while extremely drunk. By her own admission, she was only moderately drunk. I have absolutely no recollection of the sexual encounter. While I was fucking her in my state of blackout drunkenness she stuck her finger up my arse. How do I know this? She complained the next day that she got some shit on her finger. I didn't ask her to finger my arsehole, and I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have enjoyed it. Yet I was able to play it off as collateral damage of getting that shitfaced drunk.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(06-06-2016 09:45 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Do juries get it wrong on rape? Yes. Did they do so in this case? If you go only on the statistical occurrence of false rape accusations, ranging from the FBI's bullshit numbers to more objective surveys, there is a 50-90% chance that they did not get it wrong in this case. The same process that produced a knockout result against Gawker for Hulk Hogan -- trial by jury -- is the same process that produced a conviction on all counts against this kid for the charges as alleged.

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to push for rape victims to report to the police and present their accusations before a jury, you have to accept the idea that generally courts know what they're doing. And you have to accept the risk of a wrongful conviction and hope that the appeal process or subsequent investigation eventually vindicates those wrongly accused. Until the Illuminati produce mind-reading gear and universal CCTV surveillance everywhere, that position is not going to change.

First, no "rape" occurred here, he was convicted of three counts of "sexual assault." Next, there are no "statistics" and no need for "statistics" when one has access to the crucial testimony. And it is publicly available. The girl is an obvious and histrionic liar. And I don't "push" for anything. "Rape" victims are few and far between, and real rapes, violent drag into the bushes rapes, are vanishingly rare on college campuses, and not committed by young white male college students. The whole campus rape lie is as manufactured as the lunatic McMartin "pedophile" witch-hunt that destroyed so many lives, and is no less outrageous.

[Paracelsus]

(06-06-2016 09:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Agreed with LOZ. This case smells like bullshit.

I'm wondering how the jury decision went down.

He was convicted of "sexual assault."

How is sexual assault defined? Sexual advances without consent. Feminists argue since she was drunk, she therefore couldn't consent. That's all they convicted this young man for. The jury had to agree, however, that drunk women cannot give consent.

In many jurisdictions, "sexual penetration without consent" is charged rather than rape. Putting your fingers or your dick inside a person in these circumstances would fit that particular charge.

[Scoundrel]

Quote:

The woman did not wake for at least three hours and had a blood-alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. Turner acknowledged Wednesday that she was "very drunk" but testified she was "no more drunk than anybody else" at the party.

She was drunk. He was drunk. Everyone at the party was drunk.

Drunkedy drunk-drunk. Welcome to Drunko World, where nothing makes sense, and everyone is mentally retarded.

How can you decide a case like this? From his statements and hers, I call it a wash. They're all morons.

Stay away from booze & drugs, kids. The shit just isn't good for you. And keep a very far distance from girls who like to get loaded. They're really not good for you.

[GlobalMan]

(06-06-2016 09:44 PM)HonantheBarbarian Wrote:  

Alright, after reading the opposite views, I hear you guys.

But one thing I dont get is why he ran away?

As he said in his own words, the men started to put him in a headlock and try to restrain him.

Imagine of you're rolling around on the ground fingering a girl who's loving it and the next thing you know two guys are choking you and restraining you.

The kid was screaming "help", the only thing he knew was that two random guys were attacking him, it's perfectly reasonable that he'd try to get away.

[kbell]

Woah this is an actual case?! The writing seems rather good for a the supposed victim, I wonder if its really her, and some random writer with a thing for rape fiction.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(06-06-2016 09:55 PM)Horus Wrote:  

Wow. It seems that Lizard of Oz is highly triggered by this and he's going in for the kill!

Yes. I hate evil and especially hate it when evil lies are spread in a hysterical frenzy, which is what is happening with this case right now.

By the way, they initially charged this kid with two rape charges and those charges were immediately dropped. The case was that bad.

https://swimswam.com/brock-turner-hearin...s-dropped/

There is one small good thing. He pleaded not guilty to every charge and never took any plea bargains. This allows him to appeal the convictions, which he is doing now. Although he probably doesn't have a great shot at a reversal, the case is so rotten that it's not impossible.

[GlobalMan]

(06-06-2016 09:45 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

You can't have it both ways. If you're going to push for rape victims to report to the police and present their accusations before a jury, you have to accept the idea that generally courts know what they're doing.

I don't think insisting "rape" victims go the police to pursue justice and being dissatisfied at the (very poor) outcome of a trial is trying to "have it both ways". They are not contradictory.

Going to the police is the right thing to do and is a minimum requirement if a "victim" is to be taken seriously at all. No more, no less.

Doing so, however, and achieving a conviction of the male does not mean that the story she told and the slant given to it is any more credible necessarily.

Nor does it mean that there can be no complaints about the outcome simply because she went through the legal process and not just trial by twitter post.

Injustice is injustice no matter through which process it was achieved.

[birthday cat]

(06-06-2016 09:58 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  

Quote:

The woman did not wake for at least three hours and had a blood-alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. Turner acknowledged Wednesday that she was "very drunk" but testified she was "no more drunk than anybody else" at the party.

She was drunk. He was drunk. Everyone at the party was drunk.

Drunkedy drunk-drunk. Weclome to Drunko World, where nothing makes sense, and everyone is mentally retarded.

How can you decide a case like this? From his statements and hers, I call it a wash. They're all morons.

Stay away from booze & drugs, kids. The shit just isn't good for you. And keep a very far distance from girls who like to get loaded. They're really not good for you.

I partied a lot in college also. You young guys have to be careful. Everybody gets drunk as hell and if there is ever a problem everyone will assume it is the guy's fault.

Women have a powerful need for attention and many of them have an unhealthy obsession with being a victim and the attention that comes with it. Being a rape victim is holy grail of attention for some of these girls.

I saw a lot of this play out, ironically, when girls would get wasted in college. It's something I realized a long time ago before I learned a lot about human behavior and long before I found the manosphere. I realized it was going on but I couldn't quite connect all the dots until a few years ago.

Please be careful. I'm not nearly as negative about women as some guys in the manosphere but I promise you that the underlying psychology of people usually isn't a pretty thing and women absolutely do have a need for an attention and a fixation on victim-hood.

Don't get wasted. It's much easier to stay out of trouble and much easier to game girls because you can actually use your brain.

[CleanSlate]

There is even a case? Only in SJW strongholds especially university campuses can a pair of drunken stragglers turn into a rape case surrounded by a media circus.

Only there was no rape! No sex. No penis in vagina penetration. No semen. No rape kit. No evidence.

I used to think that women were ignorant of the effect of FRAs on men, but now I am convinced that women, egged on by the media and white knights, know full well that the false rape accusation is a nuclear weapon they can use against men. And for what? 15 minutes of fame?

Fuck that shit.

I am being extremely nice and generous when I say this, but I feel that false rape accusations should have an automatic 20 year prison sentence with no parole and no bail. Do the full 20 years. That ought to give a false rape accuser a taste of her own medicine. But remember, I am being NICE when I say that. I actually wish for FAR harsher penalties than 20 year jail sentences for FRAs... but I won't explicate it here. Use your imagination.

As for the male victims of FRAs, there has to be some way to help them. Witness relocation program? Identity change and move to another country with a ready made citizenship? There's got to be something.

These SJWs can ingest cat piss while they go fuck themselves.

[weambulance]

I don't get the circumstances surrounding the chick's statement.

Was this something that was read aloud in court? Did she read it aloud in court? Is it just a letter that nobody read aloud, and if so, why did she "speak" to the judge like that? If it was read aloud, when was that, relative to the jury deliberations?

[Captainstabbin]

The chick said yes to finger banging, then was still conscious enough to dry hump him. When was the "unconscious rape"?

She had a boyfriend...she had a boyfriend! The people who found her brought her to the hospital, they got her to do a rape kit and report the incident. Then she was stuck, if she didn't go with the rape narrative, she'd lose her boyfriend and her family would shame her. This wasn't rape, this was a girl trying to salvage her reputation by playing a victim and ruining a life.

A. HIV test? Come on, from kissing and finger banging?

B. What's with the pine needles? She left a trail and "small pile" in several rooms and it took 3 people to comb all of them out of her hair? That sounds like she's trying to convince me how bad things were, rather than convey facts.

C. It doesn't take a few hours to complete the head-to-toe portion of the rape exam. There's no way she stood there naked for "a few hours" while they collected samples. The full exam might take a few hours, but that includes treating injuries, getting a medical and sexual history and examining hair and clothing - none of that requires a girl to be nude.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(06-06-2016 10:22 PM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

There is even a case? Only in SJW strongholds especially university campuses can a pair of drunken stragglers turn into a rape case surrounded by a media circus.

Only there was no rape! No sex. No penis in vagina penetration. No semen. No rape kit. No evidence.

Exactly. But poster after poster in the beginning of the thread was saying how the guy clearly "raped" her, was guilty as hell, nothing to see here, stop drinking the 'sphere kool aid.

That's how easy it is for guys who read this forum regularly to buy into this kind of full court press media propaganda. There's barely any resistance.

Think about what that means for people who are not regularly imbibing the 'sphere kool-aid, for better or worse. How completely they accept these lies.

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

Great post, CleanSlate. You're right, in a just world the punishment for these accusations would be very severe.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Here is a statement from a genuinely nice girl -- a friend of Brock's who testified on his behalf. Of course she is getting crucified on social media

[Paracelsus]

(06-06-2016 10:26 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

I don't get the circumstances surrounding the chick's statement.

Was this something that was read aloud in court? Did she read it aloud in court? Is it just a letter that nobody read aloud, and if so, why did she "speak" to the judge like that? If it was read aloud, when was that, relative to the jury deliberations?

It's a "Victim Impact Statement". Also read: "long whinge to the judge from the victim about why you should punish this criminal more severely than anyone else who's ever come before you convicted of the same crime."

If the practice here was as I've seen it in other jurisdictions, the document is given to the judge as an unofficial part of the sentencing process. It only becomes part of the case after the jury has delivered its verdict, when the judge is deciding what sentence should be passed for the crime. That seems to be what happened here since she refers to the guilty verdict in the statement. 7,200 words, all produced after the verdict had come in but before he was sentenced.

Sometimes these statements are read to the court, though that's usually time-wasting theatrics and judges simply accept the written version.