[ovloV]

(06-06-2016 05:30 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  

I don't know the particulars of the case, so I can't comment on whether or not the sentence is just. But let's assume that every word in her statement is true. To me, the overwhelming takeaway is the sheer insanity of a young woman getting so blasted drunk out of her mind at a party that she becomes unconscious.

This is an exceedingly dangerous situation for anyone, male or female. One can die of alcohol poisoning. One can vomit and choke. What if there was a fire in the house and your unconscious body was left inside? You expose yourself to countless accidents, to say nothing of malicious others who wish to do you harm.

There are legitimately Bad People in the world. People who will steal your jewelry or wallet, and people who will assault you physically.

If it was you or me, there might have been a gay dude — or dudes — at the party who decided to have a little fun with the dumbass who drank too much. It's just too risky a proposition to be knocked-out in public like that.

"Teach men not to rape." OK, fine. Let's do that. And while that class is in session, let's be sure we're educating our daughters about the dangers of drinking or drugging yourself into oblivion.

Also important to note that if someone on this forum got too drunk (which has probably happened to most people here at least once in their life, or will) and got raped up the but by a predatory homo, I doubt they would get up, walk it off and say "that's what I get for drinking too much!"

She made a mistake and drank too much, that doesn't mean some guy and pump and dump her unconscious body (that just sounds fucking weird to even type).

[The Lizard of Oz]

(06-06-2016 10:38 PM)ovloV Wrote:  

Also important to note that if someone on this forum got too drunk (which has probably happened to most people here at least once in their life, or will) and got raped up the but by a predatory homo, I doubt they would get up, walk it off and say "that's what I get for drinking too much!"

She made a mistake and drank too much, that doesn't mean some guy and pump and dump her unconscious body (that just sounds fucking weird to even type).

[HornyRamone]

Delete

[HonantheBarbarian]

Im still trying to make sense of the two possible SJWs that intervened.

I think hearing their statements would bring some light to this incident. LOZ is definitely bringing some perspective. Her statement absolutely didnt make it clear that she only got fingered. It read like there was a rape. She was cheating on her bf, history of being a cumdumpster, usually only really slutty chicks leave their little sisters' side during a house party. So yeah, I definitely take back what I said earlier about him seeming guilty, but at that junctuture we only had the girls' side of the story.

[Bacchus]

Rape culture:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36458027

Quote:

A court in the Indian capital, Delhi, has found five men guilty for the 2014 gang rape of a Danish woman.

The 51-year-old tourist was robbed and raped at knife point on 14 January. Nine people, including three minors, were arrested for the crime.

One of the accused died in February. The minors are being tried in a separate court for juveniles.

Scrutiny of sexual violence in India has grown since the 2012 gang rape and murder of a student on a Delhi bus.

"All accused are held guilty for all offences," The Times of India quoted Additional Sessions Judge Ramesh Kumar as saying on Monday.

The sentencing is due on Thursday. The victim was not present in the court on Monday.

The tourist had lost her way to her hotel in Delhi's Paharganj area when she approached the men to ask for directions.

She gave a detailed statement in the presence of the Danish ambassador before leaving the country soon after the assault.

The 2012 gang rape led to protests and new anti-rape laws in India.

However, brutal sexual attacks against women and children continue to be reported across the country.

Big difference from campus hook-ups.

[GlobalMan]

That friend of his who wrote the letter, Leslie, sounds extremely level headed, intelligent and reasonable. A fine young woman. Girls like that are adept at smelling the bullshit of your average modern day cunt. I've known a few like her.

It was not your typical character witness statement, simply stating "he's a good guy" or similar. She went as far as pointing out the gross mischaracterizations we see in society today regarding "rape" and wrote an intelligent indictment.

I get the impression from her that she would be the first to spot any poor qualities in the young man should he have any, and would be the first to disassociate with him if that were the case. The fact that she was willing and compelled to speak for him in such a way, knowing how the hyenas might react, should tell you a lot about the boys character.

[birthday cat]

(06-06-2016 10:38 PM)ovloV Wrote:  

Also important to note that if someone on this forum got too drunk (which has probably happened to most people here at least once in their life, or will) and got raped up the but by a predatory homo, I doubt they would get up, walk it off and say "that's what I get for drinking too much!"

She made a mistake and drank too much, that doesn't mean some guy and pump and dump her unconscious body (that just sounds fucking weird to even type).

Hey newb, how about you read a full article about this case or read the thread before making comments.

There was no rape, no evidence of rape, no rape charge in the trial, no conviction of rape.

This is what annoys me to no end about you red pill guys who found Return Of Kings like 15 minutes ago and want to come here to demonstrate all your red pill wisdom. You couldn't think critically to save your life. You have to actually read about what happened and find the facts...not just regurgitate some shit that you heard someone else say.

[kaotic]

I'm glad guys here are calling things out and calling others out, this is some solid and LOGICAL rebuttals of this girls testimony.

Some gold is being dropped in here about womans logic, year zero, and the MSM.

Like has been mentioned stay the fuck away from wasted girls, I know this'll be a bit hard if you're wasted also.

[Fortis]

NO one teaches guys to rape, but society actively encourages chicks to get blacked out at parties..........

I don't personally know a single dude who has raped a chick. But they want us to learn how to not rape? How about chicks learn that drinking around strange dudes is a bad idea?

Victim blaming is exactly what needs to start happening.

[ovloV]

(06-06-2016 10:57 PM)birthday cat Wrote:  

(06-06-2016 10:38 PM)ovloV Wrote:  

Also important to note that if someone on this forum got too drunk (which has probably happened to most people here at least once in their life, or will) and got raped up the but by a predatory homo, I doubt they would get up, walk it off and say "that's what I get for drinking too much!"

She made a mistake and drank too much, that doesn't mean some guy and pump and dump her unconscious body (that just sounds fucking weird to even type).

Hey newb, how about you read a full article about this case or read the thread before making comments.

There was no rape, no evidence of rape, no rape charge in the trial, no conviction of rape.

This is what annoys me to no end about you red pill guys who found Return Of Kings like 15 minutes ago and want to come here to demonstrate all your red pill wisdom. You couldn't think critically to save your life. You have to actually read about what happened and find the facts...not just regurgitate some shit that you heard someone else say.

You can nitpick if it was "rape" or technically "sexual assault" all you want. That doesn't really matter to me because California law treats all sexual penetration as the same regardless of what was used.

But if you look at CA Penal Code 289 D subsection d) He should get three years for sexual penetration on someone who was unconscious or unable to give consent.

So yeah, according to the books (which may or may not be fair), he got off really light. You can't give people lesser sentences because they go to Stanford. If you think 3 years is too much for the crime, that's a differnt issue.

[birthday cat]

I can't be bothered with refuting everything in your misinformed straw man argument but I will say that it is not nitpicking to recognize the difference between raping an unconscious women and fingering a women who may or may not have been conscious. Remember that the alleged victim's sister left her shortly before this incident occurred because the sister didn't think the alleged victim was very drunk - suggesting reasonable doubt regarding the drunk 19 year old Turner's ability to recognize if the alleged victim was almost unconscious or unconscious. Wait... you can't remember that because you haven't read anything and don't know any of the facts in this case.

[Captainstabbin]

Two people kissing, two people leaving a bar together, two people agreeing to sexual activity, both are drunk - only the guy is charged with a crime.

All she has to do to maintain her reputation and be treated as an innocent princess is destroy a man's life - and she does it without a second thought. Wretched and evil.

[ovloV]

(06-07-2016 12:00 AM)birthday cat Wrote:  

I can't be bothered with refuting everything in your misinformed straw man argument but I will say that it is not nitpicking to recognize the difference between raping an unconscious women and fingering a women who may or may not have been conscious. Remember that the alleged victim's sister left her shortly before this incident occurred because the sister didn't think the alleged victim was very drunk - suggesting reasonable doubt that the drunk 19 year old kid could recognize that she was almost unconscious or unconscious. Wait... you can't remember that because you haven't read anything and don't know any of the facts in this case.

There's no strawman, it's the law, as it is written, right here http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/p...t-289.html

(d) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.  As used in this subdivision, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:

(1) Was unconscious or asleep.

(2) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.

(3) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact.

(4) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.

(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

And then a bit further down:
(1) “Sexual penetration” is the act of causing the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of any person or causing another person to so penetrate the defendant's or another person's genital or anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any unknown object. - See more at:

You stick a finger in a drunk girl, three years. That's the law. It may or may not be fair, it HAS to be applied fairly. You can't give Stanford students light sentences because they go to Stanford. Either you change the law or you give him more time.

[Captainstabbin]

(06-07-2016 12:21 AM)ovloV Wrote:  

(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

She wasn't unconscious at the time of the fingering, she gave consent. She was blacked out later when they were dry humping (no penetration).

He was kissing her and stopped to ask if it was okay to finger her and she said yes. That's not being "prevented from resisting". Since he stopped and asked her if it was okay first, that's actually meeting the high standard of "affirmative consent".

You aren't bothering to read the facts of the case.

[birthday cat]

ovloV - You are talking about punishment and 3 year sentences but that has nothing to do with what I called you out for. I'm not going down the rat hole of continuing to debate you when you aren't countering anything I said.

If you want to research something then find a transcript of the testimony from the bicyclists who confronted Turner. That is what we are missing and I'm assuming that is how the jury determined Turner was guilty because there was no other evidence.

I think there is a good chance that Turner is guilty of sexual assault (not rape) but I'm just not a "guilty until proven innocent" kind of guy, especially when it comes to sexual assault and rape because women have a tendency to make false accusations for these crime.

And even if he is guilty, the girl's letter and the media have distorted this case to the point of ridiculousness. They have made it appear as rape and a rape conviction even though it clearly wasn't rape. There is also the hypocritical notion that we can't hold the girl accountable for her actions because she was drunk but (1) we should hold Turner accountable for his actions even though he was drunk, (2) we should hold Turner accountable for being too drunk to recognize how drunk the girl was, and (3) we should hold Turner accountable for not recognizing how drunk the girl was even though her own sister didn't think she was drunk a short time before the incident happened (possibly as soon as 15 minutes before the incident took place). I don't even know how to describe this... it's more than a double standard... do we call it a triple standard... it's ridiculous.

[iknowexactly]

As a licensed mental health professional, what amazes me is no one seems to have discussed there is an additional mental state apart from conscious and unconscious -- namely alcoholic blackout -- during which she could-- and according to him she DID -- agree she liked the sexual contact.

It's Important that there's a huge difference in the usages of the term "black out" . It can mean unconscious and more or less non-responsive, or the classic case of a drunk person who doesn't remember what they did.

Of course it is absurd to fault a guy who fucks an overtly eager drunk girl simply because she later forgets being eager. The burden (on only men of course) could be taken to an extreme where one would have to have a psychological evaluation done on a potential sex partner before one really "knows" the girl is "consenting. "

She is responsible for her behavior during a memory type blackout where externally she is signaling agreement just like a drunk driver who plows into innocents.

If this is the case, how can he be at fault because she later forgets her consent?!

She made a huge mistake admitting she doesn't remember anything. She apparently has no idea if she consented.

It cannot be a person's responsibility to give everyone they have sex with a blood alcohol test.

Aside from the issue of personal responsibility is the unstated sex-negative presumption that when you have sex with someone you've done something BAD to them. This strange puritanical attitude is what makes many other cultures wonder at why Anericans are obsessed with the sex lives of politicians.

It's possible her incredibly self indulgent and verbose complaints highlight a personality that may be more prone to blackouts.

[ovloV]

(06-07-2016 12:31 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 12:21 AM)ovloV Wrote:  

(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

She wasn't unconscious at the time of the fingering, she gave consent. She was blacked out later when they were dry humping (no penetration).

He was kissing her and stopped to ask if it was okay to finger her and she said yes. That's not being "prevented from resisting". Since he stopped and asked her if it was okay first, that's actually meeting the high standard of "affirmative consent".

You aren't bothering to read the facts of the case.

I have read the facts about the case, he was CONVICTED of assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, sexual penetration of an intoxicated person and sexual penetration of an unconscious person. Whether or not the conviction is fair, what the definition of consent is is when people are drunk, are a separate issue, and it was the basis for his defense. He was still convicted. The problem is that if you, me, or the large majority of this forum gets convicted of the same three felonies, we go to jail for a much longer time. The judge showed leniancy for him because he goes to Stanford and is going places. This is the same kind of shit that lets elitists run the world: the same rules don't apply to them. Unless you fit the same profile as this guy, I have no idea why you think rich elites should get off easier than the rest of us.

Again, the law probably needs to be changed. I think DUI laws are retarded, .08 is a ridiculously low threshold for drunkenness, but if I learned that some rich Harvard shmuck was only fined 100$ and got 10 hours of community service for blowing a .09 when I would get the book thrown at me, I'd be pissed as hell.

[Horus]

Exactly iknowexactly. In the same way that if I drove drunk and hurt someone, I am still responsible even if I don't remember it. Drunkeness doesn't remove intent.

[Renton1875]

(06-07-2016 01:16 AM)ovloV Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 12:31 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 12:21 AM)ovloV Wrote:  

(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.

She wasn't unconscious at the time of the fingering, she gave consent. She was blacked out later when they were dry humping (no penetration).

He was kissing her and stopped to ask if it was okay to finger her and she said yes. That's not being "prevented from resisting". Since he stopped and asked her if it was okay first, that's actually meeting the high standard of "affirmative consent".

You aren't bothering to read the facts of the case.

I have read the facts about the case, he was CONVICTED of assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, sexual penetration of an intoxicated person and sexual penetration of an unconscious person. Whether or not the conviction is fair, what the definition of consent is is when people are drunk, are a separate issue, and it was the basis for his defense. He was still convicted. The problem is that if you, me, or the large majority of this forum gets convicted of the same three felonies, we go to jail for a much longer time. The judge showed leniancy for him because he goes to Stanford and is going places. This is the same kind of shit that lets elitists run the world: the same rules don't apply to them. Unless you fit the same profile as this guy, I have no idea why you think rich elites should get off easier than the rest of us.

Again, the law probably needs to be changed. I think DUI laws are retarded, .08 is a ridiculously low threshold for drunkenness, but if I learned that some rich Harvard shmuck was only fined 100$ and got 10 hours of community service for blowing a .09 when I would get the book thrown at me, I'd be pissed as hell.

The bolded section is, in it's absurdity, the only criminal act committed in this case.

Should never even have made it to court.



Yeh TLOZ, think you called it.

[_Cicero]

I dunno bros, lots to chew on here. When I read the girl's testimony, the idea that she blacked out right after arriving at a party and didn't remember anything until she was at the hospital was a huge red flag. I've gotten piss drunk numerous times. Never so that i blacked out an entire night. Later she says "he didn't even ask my name until he had me naked..." Totally inconsistent.

On the other hand, it's unlikely he asked if he could finger her. That didn't happen. The two witnesses give the girl's case cred. I can't imagine running away from two Swedish grad students when I'm hooking up with a girl willing to come back to my dorm. Could be that these were two white knights hypersensitized to rape culture, and saw two drunk people going at it and decided to intervene. hard to believe it would have happened if they didn't think the girl was too drunk to consent, or that it didn't look super suspicious. And if she was sober enough and a willing partner, hard to believe she wouldn't have said "it's fine".

I suspect the court more-or-less got this right. The judge would have substantiated this, but also realized there was some doubt given that they were both drunk and both probably invented their own versions of what happened. Not OK to hook up with a too drunk girl though. I can understand those that think 6 months was light though.

[Peregrine]

If he was totally in the right, why does his dad make a statement about a "20 minute mistake"? If he was completely innocent, I'd be flipping unholy shit about a miscarriage of justice.

Hey, maybe he's innocent. But I've known guys who saw nothing wrong with fucking an unconscious chick. I could see it either way. The jury probably got it right.

[eradicator]

the bikers were actual Swedes?

[Oilrig]

It's weird to me that leftist feminists encourage young women to get drunk and have sex with as many guys as possible to explore their bodies and sexualities. Yet, when young women take their advice and bang random strangers they're quick to cry rape and crucify the men as sexual predators. Can't have it both ways.

[Soma]

(06-07-2016 04:39 AM)Oilrig Wrote:  

It's weird to me that leftist feminists encourage young women to get drunk and have sex with as many guys as possible to explore their bodies and sexualities. Yet, when young women take their advice and bang random strangers they're quick to cry rape and crucify the men as sexual predators. Can't have it both ways.

On the contrary, promoting both is a win-win for feminists: destruction of the nuclear family and sending men to jail for normal sexual behavior. They don't actually care about the safety of young (attractive, heterosexual) women.

[Guitarman]

Bearing in mind the trouble that the forum, the Roosh speaking tour and the meet-ups this year had due to the ridiculous "rape advocate" label applied to Roosh after his satirical thought experiment " How To Stop Rape". And the bad publicity and protests that came out of this nonsense.

Is it a good idea that cases like this should even be discussed on the forum?

As for whether it was rape or assault, consensual or not, we will never know. One can speculate all you like but none of this will change the outcome of this or subsequent cases.

Also, was the discussion of rape cases not banned after the meet up trouble? Is that ban still in effect?

To my mind the take home message from this case is don't let yourself get into these situations. Don't bang comatose or near comatose chicks.