Victim no more! Chanel Miller goes public on Brock Turner!

Yeah, apparently English is not your strong suit. If you condone something, you're defending its acceptance, which is what an apologist does. "Condonist" isn't even a word.
You've never played with parlance? What a silly fucking hill to stand on. Second, an apologist defends an unsavory position. One who condones (there, is that better for you?) accepts a argued morally-wrong position.

Next, who the hell is going to rob someone who already lives a shit part of a town? The people who are likely to be robbed are the rich or the middle class folks who happens to accidentally stumble upon said shit part of town due to their ignorance or lack of sound judgment. If it's the latter, then the victim deserves a bit of criticism for it.

This is the constant misfire from your position. You are not aware of the decisions made to put them into the position, yet you are ready to cast blame on them for an action occurring to them. It's an astounding turn from reason. If I am to end up in a part of town, say, due to my ignorance of an area and the following of a faulty or misguided navigation system.... I am not THEN at fault for being robbed in the neighborhood I find myself in. Even more important, the type of the part of town, which i find myself in at any given moment, does not then somehow allow for me to be a victim of the circumstance.

Annnnnnnyway. Gotta literally go teach English now. We're on auxiliary verbs. Sorry I didn't hold up to the standard on this subforum of the MMA forum. Good luck at being miffed by victims taking back their lives.
 
Based on my memory of the story, multiple people felt a crime was occurring behind the trash can in the alley and rushed in to stop him. He then ran from the scene. He was then found guilty in the court of law. The reason this was a big story wasn’t about was it rape or not, it was about the lenient sentence and the narrative of a judge who basically made it a point to prove white affluent privilege exists by saying he took brock’s Bright future into account when determining his sentence which was almost unanimously deemed light. I have a hard time labeling this a drunken makeout session when multiple people feel the need to stop it and one party goes running for the hills and the other party lays there unconscious

In years past, I might have taken your word for it. But we’re living in an era where people lie and embellish stories to create narratives. This is what happened with Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and countless other stories in recent years. Typically, this situation comes up where the alleged criminal is White, and the alleged victim belongs to some socially privileged group (e.g., blacks, Muslims, women, etc.). Lately, the trend with “#metoo” politics is to believe all women, and ignore all protests of innocence. I’m not okay with that. What I’ve learned is that sometimes the alleged “victim” is a complete piece of shit, while the “bad guy” is sometimes a victim of overzealous bitch-made losers.

Like I said above, I’m not too familiar with this case. My knowledge of it is pretty much based on the representations in this thread, and a few short news segments. So this is your chance to persuade a skeptical person.

From what you described (“multiple people felt a crime was occurring”), it’s unclear what actually transpired. If it’s true that BT “ran” from these “multiple people,” I’d be curious to know how they were treating him. After all, if they were violently white knighting and ganging up on BT, running away seems like a normal act of self-preservation

Whether they were in an alley is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether it was consensual. He says it was and witnesses described her hanging off of him at various points throughout the night. Does that mean she consented to sex? Not necessarily. But the fact that she was drunk doesn’t negate consent either.

At the end of the day, the jury disbelieved his story and accepted the prosecution’s argument. So regardless of whether he’s telling the truth, he got convicted. However, it wasn’t an especially compelling case for guilt IMO. Based off what’s been said ITT, I wouldn’t have convicted him (I could change my mind if I learn of more compelling facts). So a short sentence seems perfectly fine to me.

As for the “privilege” angle, miss me with it. This guy wouldn’t have even been charged if he were black or Latino, much less convicted. And BT’s bio does at first glance show he was an otherwise productive citizen. The judge did the right thing in giving him a lighter sentence. The voters who recalled the judge will have to deal with the repercussions of their actions—judges in that district will make decisions based on political winds now. And to those who applaud this, I say careful what you wish for.
 
Look this up

After time goes by a lot of victims feel better/empowered when they go public and tell their tale. Theres a lot of trauma and a lot of shame. Its a coping mechanism . Its a way of taking it back im not some jane doe I have a name and this is what was done to me. If it was about fame she woulda talked about it then its about moving on i suspect.


In addition, while I can understand people being uneasy about the victims (survivors) speaking up - it's just not a very nice topic - are they really essentially saying people who get raped should just behave, know their role, shut their mouth?
 
This is the constant misfire from your position. You are not aware of the decisions made to put them into the position, yet you are ready to cast blame on them for an action occurring to them. It's an astounding turn from reason. If I am to end up in a part of town, say, due to my ignorance of an area and the following of a faulty or misguided navigation system.... I am not THEN at fault for being robbed in the neighborhood I find myself in. Even more important, the type of the part of town, which i find myself in at any given moment, does not then somehow allow for me to be a victim of the circumstance.

If you happened to stumble upon said area due to your ignorance, of course it wouldn't be your fault. But let's say that you did know that the area was dangerous, and you had the opportunity to avoid it in the first place but you didn't due to your lack of sound judgment. Then what happens?

So let's take this analogy and apply it to my original contention: this 22 year female university student made the conscious decision to drink herself stupidly to a point where her BAC level was estimated to be at 0.22%,[46][47] or 0.242-0.249%.[39]. Was it her ignorance that led her to get blackout drunk or was it her stupidity and lack of good judgment? I'm going with the latter, and if you combine that with the fact that it occurred in an environment where sexual assaults are common, that makes it even much stupider.

Good luck at being miffed by victims taking back their lives.

Lol, I don't give a shit about this particular lady. There are plenty of other victims with more fascinating stories that interest me instead of some dumb chick who happened to blackout at a frat party and get tangled with some douche with a drug problem and privileged status. Anne Frank quickly comes to mind.
 
If you happened to stumble upon said area due to your ignorance, of course it wouldn't be your fault. But let's say that you did know that the area was dangerous, and you had the opportunity to avoid it in the first place but you didn't due to your lack of sound judgment. Then what happens?

So let's take this analogy and apply it to my original contention: this 22 year female university student made the conscious decision to drink herself stupidly to a point where her BAC level was estimated to be at 0.22%,[46][47] or 0.242-0.249%.[39]. Was it her ignorance that led her to get blackout drunk or was it her stupidity and lack of good judgment? I'm going with the latter, and if you combine that with the fact that it occurred in an environment where sexual assaults are common, that makes it even much stupider.



Lol, I don't give a shit about this particular lady. There are plenty of other victims with more fascinating stories that interest me instead of some dumb chick who happened to blackout at a frat party and get tangled with some douche with a drug problem and privileged status. Anne Frank quickly comes to mind.

You sure do give alot of a shit about making excuses for this rapist though.
 
You sure do give alot of a shit about making excuses for this rapist though.

You must be a fucking retard if you keep thinking that I'm defending this rapist. He can go to hell for all I care.
 
You must be a fucking retard if you keep thinking that I'm defending this rapist. He can go to hell for all I care.

Right..... you just keep putting the blame on everyone other than the rapist. Not a defense though. Totally.
 
Jesus, even Turner's defense wasnt this stupid.


What state?

California.

Cause that sure as hell isnt the law where Brock Turner was raping women.

Yes, that is the law here. Here’s the jury instruction for rape of an intoxicated woman. Like rape via force/fear/threats, it requires penetration with a penis.

Since you’re avoiding my question, I’m going to assume the answer is no, he did not penetrate her with his penis.

And that's not the law anywhere I know of.

That’s not surprising, based on your knowledge of California law.

I think I see the game you’re playing here though. You call all sex crimes “rape.” In reality, rape is one way of committing sexual assault. There’s also digital penetration, penetration with a foreign object, oral copulation, etc. Rape has a specific meaning, which only applies to non-consensual sexual intercourse. Instead of improperly calling people “rapists,” just call them “sexual predators” instead.
 
Right..... you just keep putting the blame on everyone other than the rapist. Not a defense though. Totally.

So you've been inferring that I'm on the rapist's side the whole time. You must be barking up the wrong tree or must have mistaken me for someone else. I find his actions to be despicable as well.
 
California.



Yes, that is the law here. Here’s the jury instruction for rape of an intoxicated woman. Like rape via force/fear/threats, it requires penetration with a penis.

Since you’re avoiding my question, I’m going to assume the answer is no, he did not penetrate her with his penis.



That’s not surprising, based on your knowledge of California law.

I think I see the game you’re playing here though. You call all sex crimes “rape.” In reality, rape is one way of committing sexual assault. There’s also digital penetration, penetration with a foreign object, oral copulation, etc. Rape has a specific meaning, which only applies to non-consensual sexual intercourse. Instead of improperly calling people “rapists,” just call them “sexual predators” instead.

Wrong. Next lie to defend a rapist?

(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.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=289.&lawCode=PEN

Edit: that jury instruction was for ONE SPECIFIC CASE not in general.
 
My dude, you are way into this visualization. So first and foremost, calm it down. Second, his attorneys did a great job at removing the ability for it to legally be called rape. And that's fair. Due process and all that jazz. But she was forcefully penetrated.

I know you like playing attorney after watching CSI episodes, but you can couch that shit here. You're coming off as a gross twerp rather than the big-boi brains you think you are.

Oh clutch your pearls harder, you sissy little troon. It says “penetration... of the vagina or genitalia by the penis” in the jury instruction. Sorry if that’s too graphic for a suburban softy like you. Deal with it.
 
Wrong. Next lie to defend a rapist?

Why is it so hard to admit that you’re wrong? If a penis was not insterted, a rape conviction is averted.


That jury instruction pertains to rape of an intoxicated woman, which is what you’ve alleged of BT.

If you’re going to link code sections, at least link the right one. The applicable code section for rape is PC § 261.
 
Why is it so hard to admit that you’re wrong? If a penis was not insterted, a rape conviction is averted.



That jury instruction pertains to rape of an intoxicated woman, which is what you’ve alleged of BT.

If you’re going to link code sections, at least link the right one. The applicable code section for rape is PC § 261.



Woooo!!!!! Wrong again!!!!!

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.

(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.

It's very clear. Guilty. You may want it to not be rape, but it is.

No matter how much you try to pretend that the penal code says something else, it doesnt.

Brock turner is a Rapist. Nothing will ever change that.
 
Oh clutch your pearls harder, you sissy little troon. It says “penetration... of the vagina or genitalia by the penis” in the jury instruction. Sorry if that’s too graphic for a suburban softy like you. Deal with it.

Aside: I live in a small city in Poland, my dude. Prior to that I lived in North Vegas and worked with at-risk youth. Prior to that I lived in Managua, Nicaragua and worked with impoverished peoples. Prior to that I lived in a ranching town in True NorCal and worked with victims of sexual assault.

Just because you think you're a strongkboi edgelorde doesn't mean you're not also a pos. I've seen pos posters like you for nearly 2 decades. You're not special, you're just sad.
 
Lol @ the edgelords here and one complete tool Mod who’s liking posts to the point his finger should be broken from the amount of work it’s getting liking every edgelord post
 
Correct. I think rapists should be executed.

You are a piece of shit. So is brock Turner. So is brock Turner's father. So is brock turners judge.

So are those other random totally unrelated rapists that you feel justify brock Turner for some reason.

Do you really think all proven rapists should be executed? Would it be OK to ask why you think that way?


Also if a sexually assaulted woman decides to tell her story a few years after the event, well that’s her perogative. Even if she makes out pretty well from this, I am certain if she could have not been violated in the first place she’d choose that. Maybe she feels like she’s claiming some power back by doing this?
 
Do you really think all proven rapists should be executed? Would it be OK to ask why you think that way?


Also if a sexually assaulted woman decides to tell her story a few years after the event, well that’s her perogative. Even if she makes out pretty well from this, I am certain if she could have not been violated in the first place she’d choose that. Maybe she feels like she’s claiming some power back by doing this?

Yes, i think rape should be a capital crime. I dont believe rapists can be rehabilitated, like child molesters. they can never be allowed near other people safely again. Same solution, for the same reason.
 
In addition, while I can understand people being uneasy about the victims (survivors) speaking up - it's just not a very nice topic - are they really essentially saying people who get raped should just behave, know their role, shut their mouth?

No, but there's just something a little unseemly about trying to cash in on your own alleged rape.
 
Back
Top