Outrage in Stanford Rape Case Over Light Sentence for Attacker and Stmt by His Father

[Viper1j]

So let me get this straight, because there are men getting raped in prison that excuses this POS raping an unconscious girl behind a dumpster?

Why the fuck would I care about your heritage incel boy, your a rapist apologist and that is ALL you are.

Also, why don't YOU ask your "uncle" about it? In reality rape is fairly rare since there are so many willing to give it up for free that it's not worth risking confrontation or punishment. Is your "uncle" someone you saw in a movie?

I'm apologizing for no one,. I'm also not going to accuse a bank robber of kidnapping just because a child was with his mother when the robbery went down.

Rape is rape. It is not murder. It is not armed robbery. Fingering is not rape. Words mean things. Twist it to fit your alternative facts, any way you choose. The law is quite clear.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=261.&lawCode=PEN

Penal Code - PEN
PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680]
( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 9. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS [261 - 368.5]
( Heading of Title 9 amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1111, Sec. 2. )

CHAPTER 1. Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse of Children, and Seduction [261 - 269]
( Chapter 1 enacted 1872. )

261.
(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving consent.

(2) Where it is accomplished against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3) Where a person 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.

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets any one of the following conditions:

(A) Was unconscious or asleep.

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

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

(D) 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.

(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the accused, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.

(6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, “threatening to retaliate” means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.

(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, “public official” means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.

(b) As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.

(c) As used in this section, “menace” means any threat, declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.

(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 259, Sec. 1. (AB 65) Effective September 9, 2013.)

 

[mikeymikec]

WOMEN don't want to be equal..
That's just a simple societal fact. Not an opinion.

Need examples? Look at the way that the men that jumped in the lifeboats when the Japanese ferry overturned in 2014 were ostracized because females drowned. Equality means that whole "women and children first", goes right out the window.

Look at the way women think their vagina gives them some divine right to punch, kick, bite, and generally just beat the shit out of men, but God forbid the man backhands her in defense because that's an automatic "Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not collect $200."

You really think females want to lose that kind of power?
I don't think so.

I love what you call facts. You cited one example that speaks more about societal norms which are heavily based on tradition than it does about what women want, and then some weird baseless assertion that even if you found 100,000 cases of, there are ~4 billion women on the planet that you're disparaging with your still-baseless assertions.

Even weirder that you decided to go for the domestic abuse route, as if that wasn't a position firmly entrenched by male perpetrators. Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Statistics

Women are more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner. Of those killed by an intimate partner, about three quarters are female and about a quarter are male. In 1999 in the United States, 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate partner,[55] and 1,181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners in 2005.[56][57] In 2007, 2,340 deaths were caused by intimate partner violence—making up 14% of all homicides. 70% of these deaths were females and 30% were males.[58]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-61

I think you ought to have a word with your family about your misogyny, it's clear you have issues and should seek help.

There's nothing to discuss here since you have done your utmost to divert from the points that I raised with you.

 

[Viper1j]

I love what you call facts. You cited one example that speaks more about societal norms which are heavily based on tradition than it does about what women want, and then some weird baseless assertion that even if you found 100,000 cases of, there are ~4 billion women on the planet that you're disparaging with your still-baseless assertions.

Even weirder that you decided to go for the domestic abuse route, as if that wasn't a position firmly entrenched by male perpetrators. Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Statistics


I think you ought to have a word with your family about your misogyny, it's clear you have issues and should seek help.

There's nothing to discuss here since you have done your utmost to divert from the points that I raised with you.

I also think water is wet.

That makes me a wettist.

 

[glenn1]

I'm apologizing for no one,. I'm also not going to accuse a bank robber of kidnapping just because a child was with his mother when the robbery went down.

Rape is rape. It is not murder. It is not armed robbery. Fingering is not rape. Words mean things. Twist it to fit your alternative facts, any way you choose. The law is quite clear.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=261.&lawCode=PEN

Penal Code - PEN
PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680]
( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 9. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS [261 - 368.5]
( Heading of Title 9 amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1111, Sec. 2. )

CHAPTER 1. Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse of Children, and Seduction [261 - 269]
( Chapter 1 enacted 1872. )

261.
(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving consent.

(2) Where it is accomplished against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3) Where a person 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.

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets any one of the following conditions:

(A) Was unconscious or asleep.

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

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

(D) 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.

(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the accused, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.

(6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, “threatening to retaliate” means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.

(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, “public official” means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.

(b) As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.

(c) As used in this section, “menace” means any threat, declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.

(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 259, Sec. 1. (AB 65) Effective September 9, 2013.)

[shrug] The laws vary significantly by state and the terminology isn't consistent. I will agree there has been some amount of conflation of acts which would have previously been out of scope of "rape" being included in a more colloquial definition. Or the even more ambiguous term "sexual assault" being used which can cover almost the entire spectrum of sexual violence (and can be used to include non-violent but unwanted sexual conduct including speech). That doesn't change that Turner engaged in an unlawful act. In an older age with more precise language what he did would have probably been described as sexual molestation instead of rape but that term is also highly ambiguous. The actual charge he was convicted of was "felony sexual assault" which I understand is inclusive of rape in California so the term used doesn't really matter in the end.

 

[Viper1j]

I disagree, albeit with some qualifications. Language is supposed to be precise, especially where human lives are concerned, as they are in both the law and medicine.

Would you feel the same way undergoing heart surgery if the surgeon asked for clamps, and was instead given a sponge?

Would you feel the same way, if your child shoplifted a one dollar candy bar, and was instead charged with armed robbery?

Words mean things.

 

[glenn1]

I disagree, albeit with some qualifications. Language is supposed to be precise, especially where human lives are concerned, as they are in both the law and medicine.

Would you feel the same way undergoing heart surgery if the surgeon asked for clamps, and was instead given a sponge?

Would you feel the same way, if your child shoplifted a one dollar candy bar, and was instead charged with armed robbery?

Words mean things.

Which is why we have a legal system that uses its own precise language, and colloquial language which might use other or less precise language. To an extent while I see and understand the lack of precision you're citing I don't see where it necessarily matters in this particular case. Being pedantic that "but he used his fingers not his penis" isn't making Turner look that much better and if he wants to sue the dictionary for libel saying "I was convicted of felony sexual assault and not technically rape" then he can have at it.

 

[jackstar7]

I disagree, albeit with some qualifications. Language is supposed to be precise, especially where human lives are concerned, as they are in both the law and medicine.

Would you feel the same way undergoing heart surgery if the surgeon asked for clamps, and was instead given a sponge?

Would you feel the same way, if your child shoplifted a one dollar candy bar, and was instead charged with armed robbery?

Words mean things.

Hi, Pedant.

Words mean lots of things. The world is complex.

You picked the wrong language to learn if you wanted precision, dumbnuts.

 

[Viper1j]

Hi, Pedant.

Words mean lots of things. The world is complex.

You picked the wrong language to learn if you wanted precision, dumbnuts.

And which language would that be? I speak English, French, Spanish, and Mandarin.

So, make your choice.

 

[jackstar7]

And which language would that be? I speak English, French, Spanish, and Mandarin.

So, make your choice.

You'd have better luck with Javascript or Python.

Homonyms and homophones are always going to disrupt your goals.

 

[interchange]

I disagree, albeit with some qualifications. Language is supposed to be precise, especially where human lives are concerned, as they are in both the law and medicine.

Would you feel the same way undergoing heart surgery if the surgeon asked for clamps, and was instead given a sponge?

Would you feel the same way, if your child shoplifted a one dollar candy bar, and was instead charged with armed robbery?

Words mean things.

As a doctor, I can assure you that there is plenty of ambiguity in medical language. The irony of your post is that there are many kinds of surgical clamps.

The problem with your posting is not about whether the word rape here applies. There are definitions which would exclude this act, and some which would include it -- both colloquial and statutory. The problem is that your quibble about the word is used to support a stance that is completely wrong. Whether or not the word rape applies here, it is unquestionable that his actions were sexual, assaultive, and criminal.

 

[Josephus312]

I'm apologizing for no one,. I'm also not going to accuse a bank robber of kidnapping just because a child was with his mother when the robbery went down.

Rape is rape. It is not murder. It is not armed robbery. Fingering is not rape. Words mean things. Twist it to fit your alternative facts, any way you choose. The law is quite clear.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=261.&lawCode=PEN

Penal Code - PEN
PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680]
( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 9. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS [261 - 368.5]
( Heading of Title 9 amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1111, Sec. 2. )

CHAPTER 1. Rape, Abduction, Carnal Abuse of Children, and Seduction [261 - 269]
( Chapter 1 enacted 1872. )

261.
(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving consent.

(2) Where it is accomplished against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3) Where a person 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.

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets any one of the following conditions:

(A) Was unconscious or asleep.

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

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

(D) 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.

(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the accused, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.

(6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, “threatening to retaliate” means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.

(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, “public official” means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.

(b) As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.

(c) As used in this section, “menace” means any threat, declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.

(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 259, Sec. 1. (AB 65) Effective September 9, 2013.)

"(A) Was unconscious or asleep."

Did you read what you posted?

 

[Ns1]

Fingering is not rape

I'm going to hypothesize that if I start sticking my finger up your ass repeatedly, you may change your mind on this.

Guess what finger I’m choosing.

 

[Josephus312]

As a doctor, I can assure you that there is plenty of ambiguity in medical language. The irony of your post is that there are many kinds of surgical clamps.

The problem with your posting is not about whether the word rape here applies. There are definitions which would exclude this act, and some which would include it -- both colloquial and statutory. The problem is that your quibble about the word is used to support a stance that is completely wrong. Whether or not the word rape applies here, it is unquestionable that his actions were sexual, assaultive, and criminal.

I'm going to hypothesize that if I start sticking my finger up your ass repeatedly, you may change your mind on this.

Guess what finger I’m choosing.

I hate almost everyone, but I like you... And don't stick with one finger fist the fucker to death. It's what Christ would do, literally.

 

[Viper1j]

"(A) Was unconscious or asleep."

Did you read what you posted?

Did you read the very first sentence? I even put it bold just for you.

I hate almost everyone, but I like you... And don't stick with one finger fist the fucker to death. It's what Christ would do, literally.

Wrong again. Christ would have forgiven Brock Turner. He would have looked him right in the eye, and said: "Go, and sin no more"..

Did you get your bible from the first Church Of Satan?

 

[jackstar7]

Did you read the very first sentence? I even put it bold just for you.

Wrong again. Christ would have forgiven Brock Turner. He would have looked him right in the eye, and said: "Go, and sin no more"..

Did you get your bible from the first Church Of Satan?

A) You apparently don't know anything about Satanists.
B) You don't know what sex is.

You besmirch Tom Skerritt by using the name Viper.

 

[Darwin333]

Ok, I read your link.. Can you guess what it said?

"He had taken off my underwear, his fingers had been inside of me. I don’t even know this person. I still don’t know this person. When I read about me like this, I said, this can’t be me."

Like I said.. Fingering some drunk girl..
I'm not saying that what he did was okay. If it had been one of my daughters, I would probably want to beat the screaming eagle shit out of him. But then again, that's what dads do. Perhaps the most ironic part of the entire thing is the fact that, for all the women that preach, and march for equality, so many of them refuse to accept anything resembling personal responsibility. It's like they want to be equal, but not really "equal".

They want to be treated like men with tits, but if they drink too much, then they are supposed to be innocent little waifs that couldn't even tie their own shoes, without a big strong man to watch over them and help them. So many of these entitled princesses need to pick a side, and stick with it.

Either you're equal, and you accept full responsibility for your destiny, or you aren't.

And fingering some spoiled prom queen, in no way should be equated to some creep picking up a six-year-old and doing evil things. No, I don't believe he should have to register for life as a sex offender.

He wasn't fingering a drunk girl, he was fingering a passed out girl. And what isn't she taking responsibility for? Are you really saying that if a woman drinks too much and some asshole fucks her or sexually assaults her while passed out that she, and not the asshole, is responsible? WTF is wrong with you? I bet you got hammered quite a few times in your youth and if you woke up assfucked with HIV you wouldn't think it was your fault for getting drunk, you'd think it was the fault of the asshole rapist. What if she had some medical condition that caused her to pass out, would it still be her responsibility?

And no, we charge people who pick up six year olds and do evil things to them with other, worse, crimes. So equating the two is frankly retarded. Although I am questioning why I am replying to you as you are obviously too far gone to change your mind. I guess you banged a few passed out women in your days and still think it is perfectly OK, note the difference between the words "drunk" and "passed out".

 

[Darwin333]

Regarding your final, MY daughters would never be found drunk and unconscious anywhere. In point of fact my oldest is now 32 years old and a married mother. My munchkin is 29 years old and writes code for Oracle.

To this day, neither one has ever tasted alcohol. That makes it pretty much a slamdunk that neither of them would ever be caught "drunk and unconscious behind a dumpster."

Hope that helps.

I hope your oldest is a stay at home mom and why the fuck isn't your youngest in the kitchen making her man a sammich and bowing to his every beck and command?

 

[Viper1j]

I hope your oldest is a stay at home mom and why the fuck isn't your youngest in the kitchen making her man a sammich and bowing to his every beck and command?

Yeah she is.. My son in law is a US Navy underwater welder, so she's very well taken care of. And my youngest is the one that gets the "sammichs" served to her.

Her fiance~ thinks she walks on water.

 

[Darwin333]

Yeah she is.. My son in law is a US Navy underwater welder, so she's very well taken care of. And my youngest is the one that gets the "sammichs" served to her.

Her fiance~ thinks she walks on water.

Seems kind of backward considering the thinking you have displayed in this thread. I guess just because it is YOUR daughter it makes it ok, the rest of them bitches need to get back in the kitchen, right?

Edit: Hell, doesn't even sound like your daughter is with a "real alpha male" and you are ok with this???

 

[Viper1j]

He wasn't fingering a drunk girl, he was fingering a passed out girl. And what isn't she taking responsibility for? Are you really saying that if a woman drinks too much and some asshole fucks her or sexually assaults her while passed out that she, and not the asshole, is responsible? WTF is wrong with you? I bet you got hammered quite a few times in your youth and if you woke up assfucked with HIV you wouldn't think it was your fault for getting drunk, you'd think it was the fault of the asshole rapist. What if she had some medical condition that caused her to pass out, would it still be her responsibility?

And no, we charge people who pick up six year olds and do evil things to them with other, worse, crimes. So equating the two is frankly retarded. Although I am questioning why I am replying to you as you are obviously too far gone to change your mind. I guess you banged a few passed out women in your days and still think it is perfectly OK, note the difference between the words "drunk" and "passed out".

Sorry to disappoint, but no..

I never "banged anyone that was passed out".

And I've never done enough tequila that some chick gave me HIV..

What I AM saying, is... People that hand out straight razors, while stretching out their necks, forfeit their rights to whine about bleeding. What I'm talking about here is what Republicants used to call "personal responsibility".

I've already conceded that the consensus is, that that particular concept is too complicated and detrimental to lady brains..

No, that doesn't excuse what he did. Okay? He was a bad guy. Okay? He was drunk, she was passed out. They both made mistakes. His life is forever ruined, she gets to be a "victim" and reaps all the benefits of said designation.

He could run into a burning building today, and save five children from a certain death, and it still wouldn't erase that one mistake, on that one drunken night.

There's something wrong with THAT picture.

Many years ago, there was this concept known as "paying your debt to society". It usually involves some jail time, and then he got out, and he had a clean slate, and you have an opportunity to do something different, something better, to make a positive impact on those around you.

Sadly, those days are way back in the mist.

Jesus wept.

 

[mikeymikec]

Sorry to disappoint, but no..

I never "banged anyone that was passed out".

And I've never done enough tequila that some chick gave me HIV..

What I AM saying, is... People that hand out straight razors, while stretching out their necks, forfeit their rights to whine about bleeding. What I'm talking about here is what Republicants used to call "personal responsibility".

I've already conceded that the consensus is, that that particular concept is too complicated and detrimental to lady brains..

No, that doesn't excuse what he did. Okay? He was a bad guy. Okay? He was drunk, she was passed out. They both made mistakes. His life is forever ruined, she gets to be a "victim" and reaps all the benefits of said designation.

He could run into a burning building today, and save five children from a certain death, and it still wouldn't erase that one mistake, on that one drunken night.

There's something wrong with THAT picture.

Many years ago, there was this concept known as "paying your debt to society". It usually involves some jail time, and then he got out, and he had a clean slate, and you have an opportunity to do something different, something better, to make a positive impact on those around you.

Sadly, those days are way back in the mist.

Jesus wept.

That's one fucked-up sermon you just gave. Maybe you could take it on the road? There are plenty of gamergaters, meninists, MRAs, sex offenders and incels who'd lap it up.

Most sensible people however don't characterise sexually assaulting people as a "mistake", or sexual assault "victims" who "reap all the benefits of that designation".

Furthermore, the guy pleaded not guilty on all counts, lied his way through the entire proceeding, and got an incredibly lenient sentence for an experience that he would have chalked up as being a positive one if not for the fact that he got caught. It's funny how you don't consider his cry for a whaaambulance at all when casting judgement but you do for a person whose only mistake was that they got drunk, and yet even then you put the word 'victim' in quotes, despite the fact that how she ended up paying for such a mistake was well beyond what millions of people experience every single day when they get drunk.

 

[SMOGZINN]

What I'm talking about here is what Republicants used to call "personal responsibility".

What I find sad is that you don't think that the person that actually broke the law should take some of this "personal
responsibility" Republicans are always going on about. It seems to only be the victims that need to take "personal
responsibility."

Understand, anytime you say that a victim should take "personal responsibility" you ARE saying that the perpetrator should not.
That is how it works. If one person has some responsibility for what happened it removes responsibility from the other.
It also says that the perpetrator had less than full autonomy to decide to do the crime or not. That because she was passed out drunk he had less autonomy to decide not to assault her. Because if he had full autonomy to decide not to assault someone the fact that he had opportunity to do so is not the important factor. We expect people to not commit crimes even when they have opportunity to do so. A law that only prohibits someone from committing crimes that they don't have an opportunity to commit is not useful, is it?

In the end only he can have any real responsibility for what happened because only he decided to commit a crime.

 

[HomerJS]

I much be such a prude. Back in college my roommate and I were at a party. Hot girl next door passed out on the grass. We carried her to her apt. Found keys in her pocket, dumped her on the living room couch and left.

She thanked us next day. End of story.

 

[glenn1]

In the end only he can have any real responsibility for what happened because only he decided to commit a crime.

Contributory negligence on the part of someone who gets passed out drunk. It doesn't excuse his actions in the slightest but we can't ignore complete irresponsibility on the part of victims either.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Contributory negligence on the part of someone who gets passed out drunk. It doesn't excuse his actions in the slightest but we can't ignore complete irresponsibility on the part of victims either.

Either it contributed, in which case it does excuse his actions at least some since contributing to the crime would mean that they participated in it, that is what contribute means, or it didn't in which case we don't have to excuse his actions in the slightest.

It was not a contributing factor, it was a prerequisite factor. It is no surprise that for the crime to be committed there had to be opportunity to commit the crime.