Posted on 06/07/2016 6:19:22 AM PDT by Java4Jay
I read it earlier. I do agree that there may be some agenda by news organizations covering the story from a certain slant. However, I too, had an abusive father, and it was mild in comparison to some others’ abusive situations, as you’ve said about yours. With that being said, I side with this young lady in that people drink all the time, and don’t go raping others. I think this young man felt entitled, and he learned it from his dad if no where else. I think the hook up culture that they’ve been teaching in HS and college was dangerous, and this is one of those fallouts from it. The bottom line for me though, is that this was still rape rape, as Whoopi is quoted to have said. Because of that, I think if the minimum sentence is 1 year to a maximum of 15 years, the judge should have given him at least the minimum. Why didn’t he do that?
And does your son never lie, Brock’s dad?
Your post has little, if anything, to do with this case of Brock raping a woman who was unconscious.
Here’s the reality ... Brock ran away from the folks who came upon him raping the girl behind the dumpster. He knew he was doing evil. He was desperate to avoid being found out.
All your political formulations and gnashing your teeth over a damn movie is meaningless to the reality of this case.
Or maybe he was telling the truth. It is a fact that the two left the party together on their feet. Drunk, but on their feet.
I agree. A movie is one thing, but a real life rape is apples to the movie’s oranges. There is no connection. Your post about the movie has nothing to do w/ the Stanford case.
You also will lose people with excessively long posts with multiple links.
; )
“The bottom line for me though, is that this was still rape rape.”
I do believe that’s most likely the case, as I said. I’m just trying to determine what the facts are, and I believe it’s necessary to question just about everything these days. I’ve seriously come to doubt both the media and our justice system.
The media seems to lie with impunity every day, while the justice system seems increasingly vulnerable to politics, and there doesn’t seem to be anything stopping things from getting worse.
Now on the specifics of the case, I will just say that while I do believe that a jury looked at the situation and likely got its decision right, consider this - what is being taken as consciousness of guilt is that Turner ran and was caught by the two graduate students. That sounds almost like someone who just preyed on a stranger on the street and then tried to flee when someone else approached.
Yet another possibility that has to be considered, though - however unpopular - is that he became aware that he was guilty of something, at least in part, by the reactions of the students, who reportedly said something like, “What the f are you doing? She’s passed out.” In that case, he might not have realized that he was doing something *really* wrong until the students drove that home to him, and at that he tried to flee.
Now hold that thought for a second. You wrote:
“Because of that, I think if the minimum sentence is 1 year to a maximum of 15 years, the judge should have given him at least the minimum. Why didn’t he do that?”
What I’ve read in quite a few news reports is that the probation officer involved recommended six months.
So consider all the reasons why he might have been given the six months:
— No prior criminal record.
— An otherwise good record as a student, athlete and citizen.
— His age (and what goes along with that are all the morally confusing messages sent to young people today, including that pornography is beneficial, that colleges have “sex worker shows,” that secular humanists recommend being “sex positive,” and having “friends with benefits” and “f buddies,” and that “Fifty Shades of Grey” is acceptable in the mainstream.)
— That he comes from a law-respecting community background - that is, he isn’t hanging around people who are encouraging him to live a life of violent crime.
— That the incident happened at a party in which it is probable he was looking for casual sex, not to rape someone.
— That he’s suffering punishment in many other ways - by the loss of his education, his athletic career, and his loss of reputation.
— He’ll have to register as a sex offender for life.
— That he was impaired by alcohol at the time, and that so was she (the judge reportedly mentioned at least her intoxication as a factor in his decision).
— And finally, we don’t know much about Turner’s background and his childhood. We don’t know what ideas and perhaps actions he was subjected to - there might have been warped ones directed at him.
While it is most likely true that he had some significant awareness of what he was doing, I’m not sure if it was really proven that he is a sexual predator.
I’m not going to consider here Christian beliefs on what a “good person” is, and the evil of man, but as a Christian I do know that we are all evil, and that we all have to be on guard against the evil in us, but sometimes no matter how long we’ve been a Christian, it gets the better of us to some extent.
I would say all this means there is a predator in each of us, too, in some way. Think of how truly cruel children can be to each other, and how selfish we naturally are. As we grow up the world expects that we are to master the worst of ourselves - what would rightfully put us in prison. In life we are to learn how to recognize it and get the better of it, but it is possible, especially in one’s younger years, to make a major moral mistake (which someone still needs to be appropriately held accountable for, of course).
So then, is Turner a “predator,” like someone who went out looking for a woman and attacked one he saw on the street, for instance? That is predator behavior at any age, as it is so unmistakeably conscious to the person doing such a thing, and that person is also highly likely to reoffend if given the chance. If Turner is a predator, then part of his “hunting ground” was parties. He would approximately be the person who would give someone a date-rape drug.
Or did Turner at the time not think what he was doing was rape, and didn’t plan to do something like that? Instead he planned to have consensual, but likely even though she was intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness.
I believe what his intentions were is a very important question to answer, and it needs to be considered very carefully. I’m not saying he isn’t a predator. It’s entirely possible. On the other hand, he could be someone guilty of a moral misjudgment. That still might mean he should have been given a longer prison sentence, but it’s important to get at what his intentions were before deciding the question of appropriate punishment.
“Your post has little, if anything, to do with this case of Brock raping a woman who was unconscious.”
I made a mistake in posting, and there isn’t an edit button here, as you know. I’d meant to also include a link to an earlier post of mine in this thread, which discussed the case more directly.
And the movie does matter (it will certainly influence people, especially young people with more education), as does the politics involved in it. For one thing, it strengthens the feminists who want women believed at all costs, including the suspension of a suspect’s usual rights:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3438215/posts
A movie matters. A movie reflects the beliefs of the people who created it, and it will influence others. In the case of this movie, many of those influenced will be more educated young people. And it emboldens people as well. Liberal reviewers across the country felt comfortable publicly accepting statutory rape as something that wasn’t harmless, and likely even beneficial.
And the movie does have quite a lot to do with this case. As I wrote to you, I put some thoughts on the case itself in another post. But beyond that, the left wants to use this case to change things and acquire power, and the means is the “outrage” over the sentence given Turner. That is how the film relates to the case.
Well, given what has recently come out, that he lied through his teeth in his statement, being quite familiar with pot, lsd and booze as a high schooler, I will leave it to you to try to defend his intentions.
He’s a lying rapist.
You want to try to come up with scenarios that reduce his culpability, fine. All of your words fail in light of the realities of this case.
I’d suggest finding a more sympathetic subject for your efforts. This is, for you, an epic fail.
You should have ended right where you started, with the words “I made a mistake in posting”, as your attempt at deflecting Brock’s guilt into the entertainment and political worlds is wasted effort.
Brock is a lying rapist.
Choose better folks to defend. This is a loser case for you.
It was a fringe movie, nothing more. It was made by a film maker, not a politician. It has less than zero (a great movie by the way.) to do w/ the Turner rape, NOTHING.
You’re creating straw men. As I wrote and you apparently read, I believe he most likely did sexually assault her, and I believe he might be a predator.
The outrage now is over the sentence he was given, and the many of those outraged already wanted to see legal limits on due process in rape cases (something already happening on college campuses).
Since it is public opinion driving possible changes to our legal system that would diminish the right to due process, then looking into the case, specifically to see how justified or unjustified the sentence was, is certainly in order. And I will certainly also say that I trust neither the media or the justice system these days, since I’ve found it necessary again and again to examine controversial cases for myself.
Many people may not like that someone accused gets to present a defense, and that the accused’s defense has to be heard and taken seriously, but that is the legal system we officially have, and it is the proper one. Yet that defense might not just be arguments, but it may actually be the truth, or closer to the truth, then the prosecutor’s version of events. The questions I’m asking aren’t about protecting or defending anyone, or casting doubt on someone’s story in order to protect someone else and subvert justice (even as the defendant’s lawyer, I think Hillary Clinton likely followed ambition to defend as ruthlessly as she did someone she knew to be guilty of raping a child), they are about getting to the truth of what actually happened.
“College sex crime ‘courts’ dismiss due process”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/14/fnc-report-college-sex-crime-courts-dismiss-due-process/
“Joe Biden pens open letter to Stanford rape victim”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3438584/posts
Your statements aren’t true.
Any movie that liberal newspaper reviewers have to cover up and make excuses for, because it promotes statutory rape, isn’t a great movie. It’s just glitzying up the rape of children. What do you call a 40 year-old having sex with a 15 year-old?
And the fact that many more people might have seen it if it was a more traditionally-marketed movie doesn’t mean that millions of people didn’t, or won’t see it in the future.
And I never claimed something ridiculous like a direct connection between the film and the case, like Turner was inspired by the movie.
No, this case has plenty to do with politics. And so does that movie. It’s ridiculous to claim that movies and politics don’t influence each other.
Most likely, it seems, is that the larger battles which this case is a part of aren’t a concern to you.
What do you call a 40 year-old having sex with a 15 year-old?
Teacher?
Or maybe you can’t deal w/ the fact that other FReepers have a different opinion than you. Deal with it & stop with the uber longgggggggg posts.
6 months in the county jail and a lifetime sentence to be known as a sexual offender. hmmmm. how many months in the county jail is hillary going to serve for a lifetime of crime, treason, and murder? none? yep. that’s right. none. how many months will slick willie serve for his lifetime career of forcible rape and molestation? none? thats right. its not what you do that counts. its who you are. Let’s not forget a convicted sexual predator is about to reenter the WH with Imelda Marcos.
So you’re not going to answer on what sex between a 40 year-old and a 15 year-old is, I see.
Or do you mean that is “a matter of opinion”? That’s quite the secular humanist/liberal view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.