Post: #176

Interesting thread, and some great posts here for which I thank the posters.

The take home for me is how badly distorted the media has been in the white man hate reporting of this.

The airplay and propaganda milage over a few fingers going into a drunk consenting girls vagina isn't this newsworthy of fit for saturation media coverage. Yeah I accept the dude was out of line.

A few years ago in Australia a woman stabbed to death 8 children. It was reported for 24 hours and then disappeared off the media circuit, almost blacked out.

Imagine a medic/social network campaign by men, demonising women, mothers and painting them all as murderers and mentally ill etc.

Woman murders 8 kids

Why does the world hate white men so much?

Post: #177

(06-08-2016 11:12 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 08:37 PM)Polo Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 07:58 PM)FebGun Wrote:  ^^^
She was BS-ing you. I had passed out on alcohol a few times and I remember every second right before the moment; and 1-2 minutes after regaining consciousness I was back on my feet. Usually people passing out very close to the last drink, not an hour after. "I remember nothing" is an excuse.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. I actually had a parenthetical mentioning that possibility but took it out for clarity. Another girl pulled that move on me once and copped to it the next day.

In this case, my impression at the time was that the passing out was legit, but who knows.

I've been pretty drunk many times, and I also have never experienced a prolonged "black out" period. Fuzzy memory, sure, but never just a long blank. I hear lots of people (mostly girls) talking about how they "blacked out" and always wonder whether they are exaggerating about it.

I felt the need to comment on this. I've blacked out several times...being fine one moment and then waking up the next moment not knowing what happened (and every time a LOT of things happened).

This is something that took me a long time to understand, but different people react DIFFERENTLY to alcohol. It annoyed the fuck out of me when my best friend would keep telling me to learn to control my alcohol. Took me a long time to understand he just interacts differently with alcohol and has an easier time staying calm while drunk.

People come in different shapes and sizes. There's an enormous amount of diversity in terms of brain wiring, I'd be cautious to project my own experiences with alcohol onto other peoples. Some of us are wired for social interactions (extroverts). Some of us can pick up calculus easily. Some of us are very creative. And some of us really do black out.

Point taken. I'm glad someone finally disabused me of my doubt on that. What you say is very true. A little bit of blank slate thinking was creeping into my head on that one I guess.

Post: #178

(06-09-2016 01:40 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Why does the world hate white men so much?

You are missing the point if this is your takeaway from this imbroglio.

People want to feel powerful, that their tirelessly tweeting, incessant facebooking and the like is making a difference in the world. Their real lives are boring, predictable and full of the ordinary unhappiness that characterizes adult life. Instead of coping with this in more healthy, productive ways, they turn to the internet -- riding each wave of outrage -- for a break from this dull monotony. They want to feel that their internet presence matters, that they are finally part of something that is going to make the world a more equal place for them] all.

Here, we have the average privileged white male. This is exactly the sort of person that they believe has been given too much, has hurt the world so much that these sorts of men deserve to be brought to heel before the facebooking masses. Since they can't actually topple the men (or women) they feel deserve to be exposed in their real lives, they get this thirst quenched online with stories like this one. They honestly think that they are making the world a better place for everybody with these sorts of narratives.

It is a mistake to simply assume that since a story involves men that it is purely about relations between men and women. The same people that have taken like a duck to water with this mainstream narrative are the same people that burn with rage for the 1% -- rich, powerful people who don't deserve what they have been given. This demographic is almost always stereotyped as white and male, but that is a dated notion.

And Hillary just "clinched" the nomination. Sexual assault is going to be a big issue this next election cycle. Think of this as the Sandra Fluke warm-up for the big game. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Post: #179

The more I learn about this, the more it stinks. Great points have already been made so I'll just add this on the "running away" part.

Look at this article:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/07/two-hero-s...w-5930172/

Here's how the article describes the intervention of the Swedes:

Quote:After violating the woman with his fingers and a foreign object, Brock Turner tried to flee the scene when two Stanford graduates interrupted his vile attack.

But then in the same article look at what they quote one of the Swedes as saying:

Quote:‘We saw that she was not moving, while he was moving a lot. So we stopped and thought, “This is very strange”. When he got up we saw that she still wasn’t moving at all, so we walked up and asked something like, “What are you doing?”

"When he got up we saw that she still wasn’t moving at all, so we walked up"

Am I understanding this correctly? He got up BEFORE the Swedes intervened - which is in line with his testimony. And then they yelled at him, and he got spooked and ran.

That is a completely different situation from "he was on top of her until they intervened, at which point he ran away."

The media truly cannot be trusted anymore.

Post: #180

Some "witches" have apparently tried to place a curse on the guy:

Daily Mail Wrote:Thousands of witches angered by the lenient sentence given to Stanford rapist Brock Turner have performed a mass hexing after organizing online.

Led by Melanie Elizabeth Hexen*, from Iowa, the witches performed their hexing ceremony at 10pm Central Time yesterday, asking for Turner to be made impotent and suffer continuous pain.

Dozens of the group even posted pictures of the pagan shrines used in their rituals online, including ceremonial daggers, statuettes and even a candle 'dipped in menstrual blood'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...l#comments

*That's either a screenname or she is crazy enough to change her surname to Hexen (the German word for witches).

Post: #181

I really hope that Stephan Molyneux does a "Truth About" video on this case. I'm sure that some of his guys read this forum, and I'm sure that Lizard of Oz wouldn't mind if they plagarised his arguments.

Post: #182

I'm not arguing for the guy's guilt. I'm arguing that, from the portion of the facts at trial reported by the media, the unanimous verdicts of 12 jurors appear to be reasonable. The jury was four women and eight men, by the way.

(06-08-2016 08:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  The best way to think about a case like this is from the point of view of a potential juror. Ask yourself: what would you have done if you had been on that jury and had had all the evidence and testimony presented to you? How would you have adjudicated it?

I'll speak for myself. If I had been on that jury, there would have been no conviction, even if I had to remain in the jury room and argue for the rest of my life.

So you haven't had all the evidence and testimony presented to you, but you've reached a verdict anyways? Okay.

The trial lasted about two weeks. There were several witnesses, forensic reports, photographs, DNA, conflicting expert testimony and cross-examination. A lot more than has been covered in 500 word news reports.

I don't know how I would have found if I were on the jury. Maybe I would have found him guilty of some counts, maybe all. Maybe I would have done a Twelve Angry Men and convinced them to find him not guilty. Maybe I would have been a holdout, caused a mistrial. I don't know, and in this case, anyone who didn't sit in that courtroom for the duration of the trial who says otherwise is not reasoning correctly. For example, did you know that the paramedic who responded to the scene found her still lying in a state of unconsciousness, and performed tests on the "Glasgow Coma Scale"?

(06-08-2016 08:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that high standard was not even remotely approached. The prosecution bears the burden of proof, not the defense. There are many reasons to doubt, indeed to entirely discount, the idea that Turner "intended" to sexually assault the victim, and many reasons to suggest that his account was truthful, thus negating the other charges. I will review the case and my reasoning as if I were a juror, and these will be my final remarks on this case.

The charges proffered in the case are that Turner sexually assaulted the alleged "victim" ("Emily Doe") while she was unconscious. Specifically, the sexual assault allegedly involved digital penetration (putting his fingers in her vagina without her consent).

What is the evidence that this actually happened: that Turner committed such an act while Emily Doe was unconscious and clearly unable to consent?

The review of the case shows that there is no such evidence that meets the reasonable doubt threshold. There is no direct evidence at all, and the circumstantial evidence is weak and inconclusive, at best.

First, Emily Doe herself was drunk enough to be blacked out and could not testify about what happened, so there is no relevant testimony from her. Note that being drunk enough to be blacked out does not mean she was unable to give consent. I've been blacked out drunk quite a few times in my life (though not within the last decade) but the idea that I was unable to consent in that state is ludicrous both in common sense and legal terms.

Second, there is no direct witness testimony that shows Turner committing sexual assault on Doe while she was unconscious. The testimony of the two Swedes, at best, places him "on top" of her when they entered the scene. He was not penetrating her or having intercourse with her at that moment. Even the idea that he was "on top" of her was something introduced in testimony during the trial, but was not what the witnesses told the investigative officer. I consider their testimony during the trial to be, at the very least, compromised for this reason. The supposed exclamation made by Jonsson -- "what the fuck are you doing, she's unconscious" -- never appeared in the record before actual trial testimony. In any case, there is no direct witness testimony of this alleged sexual assault.

You're making a defense closing argument without having the facts on your side, just raving about reasonable doubt. Defense lawyer knows when you're flailing.
Part of the instruction on reasonable doubt says "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not guilt beyond all possible doubt." I used to hate it when a certain judge would practically whisper the rest of the instruction then slowly thunder that part out. But it's the law. "Abiding conviction to a moral certainty" is one description. The defense lawyer pointed out all of that and more to the jury in closing arguments, they still convicted him.

The Swedes gave direct evidence. You don't know what direct evidence is - they observed Brock on top of her, and her in an unconscious state, an unconscious state which lasted until she was in the hospital hours later. The paramedic gave direct evidence of her state when he arrived.

In addition, they got her DNA off of his fingers, plus he foolishly admitted penetrating her. What more do you want?

(06-08-2016 08:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Given this, we have to rely on circumstantial evidence to determine Emily Doe's likely degree of incapacitation and consequent inability to consent. Here is what we know:

First, contrary to what some have written, we do not know Doe's blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time of the events. All we have are "extrapolated" BAC levels from measurements taken 6 hours later:

Quote:Doe's BAC came in at 0.127 or 0.129 around 7 a.m. that morning but was "back extrapolated" by a prosecution's witness to be at 0.241 or 0.249 at the time of the alleged sexual assault, around 1 a.m. Turner's registered at 0.13, around 3:15 a.m. and was estimated to be 0.171 around 1 a.m.

Such extrapolations are highly uncertain and dependent on many factors. There is no doubt that the prosecution witness was motivated to shade the estimate towards the higher end of the spectrum. All we can conclude is that Doe was very drunk -- shitfaced would be a good word; but we cannot conclude that this extrapolated BAC shows her to have been unconscious and unable to consent.

Both the prosecution and the defense presented expert testimony on this subject. Within variations, the science is well-established; most of us have seen the BAC graphs and tables scaled by body weight, number of drinks, and time. The defense was able to make the arguments you are making. Unfortunately, most of us have gotten very drunk, and know that effects will vary and decrease over time.

If you look up differences of the effect of alcohol on males and females, you will find there are studies which indicate the effect of alcohol can be more severe on women. Something to do with less free water in women's bodies. I don't even know if that was an issue.

Plus, to answer weambulance's point: it was not just her BAC. It was her BAC + testimony about what (vodka) and how much she drank + observations of the Swedes, the paramedic, the doctors and nurses at the hospital + the photographs of her lacerations indicating she had been stumbling drunk in the minutes before being behind the dumpster. At least. Plus the jury applying its own experience and common sense to the issue.

The legal standard of sufficient intoxication to prevent consent is not utter unconsciousness. Stumbling, slurring, staggering, sleepy drunk could be within it. Jury applied the facts in evidence to the law as instructed by the judge.

(06-08-2016 08:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Further, we know for a fact that Doe was, in fact, not only conscious but ambulatory mere minutes before the events took place -- minutes, not hours. She and Turner left the party and walked towards the "dumpster" -- she walked, she was not carried there on the wings of angels or demons. The witnesses came upon Turner and Doe only MINUTES -- perhaps some 20 minutes at most -- after they left the party. So we have her very much conscious and walking some minutes before these events.

In addition, it is known that she left a message or messages on her boyfriend's phone just before leaving. So we also know she was conscious enough to make a phone call.

Finally, it should be noted that no one at the party took any particular exception to Turner and Doe leaving. There is a good chance this would not have been the case if Doe had been very nearly unconscious, rather than merely drunk and shitfaced like everyone else there (including Turner).

Now let's use some common sense. Why did Doe leave the party to walk with Turner towards the dumpster? It was likely not to discuss ancient Japanese poetry. There is a very good reason to believe she wanted to mess around with him, maybe fuck him, maybe make out, who knows. I can't prove this, of course, but guess what -- I don't need to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt. The jury is entitled to draw common sense conclusions that enter into consideration of whether guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another defense closing argument, without all the facts at trial. Other people at the party were drunk, did not notice her leaving, did not have full judgment? She could have walked with Turner's support, stumbled, staggered. Made a slurring drunken phone call. Did she know where she was going? Did she expect what might have been a very quick steering by Turner to a location behind a dumpster?

Yes, the jury was able to draw common sense conclusions.

(06-08-2016 08:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  What I know for sure is that women go to parties and get drunk because they want to fuck; and women, especially when they are drunk and horny, LOVE the idea and the excitement of having sex in public locations to an extent that most prudish men and white-knights can never understand.

You know "for sure" that women go to parties and get drunk only because they want to fuck? It would be exciting for any woman to have sex behind a dumpster? This is the kind of thing which, if I were a feminist trying to prove the existance of a "rape culture," I would pull-quote.

Imagine your sister/daughter/mother is at a birthday/bachelorette/hen/graduation/college party, gets drunk, on her way to the taxi stand or subway gets grabbed and pulled behind a dumpster and raped. The defendant claims she consented. You have a guy who "know[s] for sure is that women go to parties and get drunk because they want to fuck" seated on the jury. WTF?

Women drink for all kinds of reasons, most of them the same as men. Alcohol is an effective anti-anxiety drug. Maybe she just had a stressful exam. Maybe she's an alcoholic looking for free drinks. Maybe she had problems with the boyfriend. Maybe she just liked talking to her sister and friends and kept boozing too long.

Free legal advice to any man entering a party: do not "know for sure" or assume that every drunk girl wants to fuck behind a dumpster.

(06-08-2016 08:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Putting all these things together, what we have is Doe, drunk but fully conscious -- as evidenced by her ability to walk and to make phone calls, and by the general attitude of the other revelers -- leaving the party with Turner with the very likely intent of engaging in some sort of outdoors sexual activity with him. We know that at some point soon, that's exactly what they did -- according to Turner, with Doe's full consent.

There is absolutely no way that this evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt -- and in my opinion, even to any likelihood -- that Turner stuck his finger in Doe's vagina when she was already unconscious and unable to consent. Even if you don't think it's likely -- and I do, based on Turner's testimony and its plausibility -- it is certainly possible that things happened just as he said and that he only did these acts with Doe's full consent and that she passed out at some point later. There is NO evidence that can prove otherwise that comes close to approaching, let alone exceeding, the reasonable doubt standard.

Lastly, I want to address Turner's behavior. The fact that he attempted to run away from the two grad students who came on the scene is supposed to be damning to him. It is not. First, this of course has no direct bearing whatsoever on guilt or innocence, trying to run is not in itself a crime. Further, it's also not an indirect indication of anything. You have to remember that Turner himself was quite drunk -- not as shitfaced as Doe but solidly drunk; that one of the two Swedes attempted to put him into a headlock; that messing with a girl in public is in itself something that guys can be scared to do; and that there was a general atmosphere of fear and hysteria about "sexual assault" on US college campuses, and Stanford in particular. Turner was a scared drunk young kid, and it's entirely understandable he lost his head and tried to run away. This has no bearing whatsoever, direct or even circumstantial, on his guilt or innocence.

That's really all that needs to be considered. Based on this review of the evidence, there is only one verdict that could be responsibly returned, and that is "not guilty".

Obviously a jury of 8 men and 4 women disagreed after hearing all of the evidence.
Certainly there was no evidence she was "fully conscious," unless "blotto" is "fully conscious."

There is a California jury instruction on flight as consciousness of guilt, here it is:

Quote:372. Defendant's Flight
If the defendant fled [or tried to flee] (immediately after the crime was committed/ [or] after (he/she) was accused of committing the crime), that conduct may show that (he/she) was aware of (his/her) guilt. If you conclude that the defendant fled [or tried to flee], it is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of that conduct. However, evidence that the defendant fled [or tried to flee] cannot prove guilt by itself.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/cal...0/372.html

(06-08-2016 08:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  **************

A few additional remarks and then I'll have nothing further to say about this case:

-- Why did the jury decide as it did? It is very difficult for juries to adjudicate sex crime cases objectively. Men, in particular, have intensely protective instincts towards women; they always tend to think of a woman as a victim and prey, and of another man as a predator. They are white-knights with no understanding of female sexuality and promiscuity. Before feminism became widespread, women often made better jurors in sex crime cases than men did, because they had a more skeptical view of fellow women and a more realistic appraisal of their sexual behavior. Feminism changed the equation for women because some of them will now act ideologically; but men remain the white-knights and sexual naifs they always were.

In addition, this trial was prosecuted tendentiously as part of the "rape culture" hysteria. The prosecutor pointed to Turner and instructed the jury to view him as the "face of sexual assault on campus". She explicitly wanted to make an example of him. This was improper and tendentious rhetoric that no doubt further swayed the jury. It adds to the many grounds for appeal in this case.

-- The much acclaimed "victim statement" in this case is a uniquely disgusting, malicious, and histrionic document. I did not believe when I saw it, and I believe less now, that it was written in full by "Emily Doe". It bears all the marks of a far more experienced, ideological, and nastier hand.

I cannot prove, but strongly suspect, that this document was written in part or in full by Michele Dauber, the Stanford Law professor who has been primarily responsible for coordinating the propaganda campaign in this case. As another poster astutely noted, Dauber's fingerprints are absolutely everywhere you look; it was she who has made all quoted statements to the press, it was she who released the letter written by Turner's father -- and others -- to the media, it is she who is leading the movement to recall judge Persky. In addition, Dauber has long been the leading voice in Stanford in favor of much harsher and more draconian "sex assault" laws and prosecutions; in other words, she had been the principal leader of the witch hunt there. And she is a friend of Doe's family. Put all this together and I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Dauber is primarily responsible for composing that disgusting letter. That Doe acquiesced and participated in this process shows a great deal about her own character. But she is not the author, in my opinion.

-- Is the sentence "light"? Because of the deranged US sex offender registration laws, almost any sex crime sentence amounts, in fact, to a LIFE SENTENCE: sex offender registration is forever and it essentially bars the offender from ever leading a normal life. It is a stain on a man's reputation and livelihood that can never be removed.

Sex offender registration laws were motivated by the need to protect communities against violent repeat offenders; in reality, they amount to life sentences to often harmless men convicted of minor crimes -- very often crimes that did not involve violence at all, or of a nature where the offender clearly poses no danger to anyone (as is the case with Turner even if he was guilty). This is an evil and inhuman system, and as long as it remains in place, NO punishment for sex crimes in the US is ever "lenient", and more often than not it is a cruel and excessive lifelong punishment far harsher than any mere jail sentence.

-- The hysteria in the media regarding this case, and the blood lust against poor wide-eyed fearful Turner, the white dude who is now "the face of sexual assault" and who deserves eternal damnation -- as well as the hysterics of solemnity surrounding the disgusting "victim statement" -- are unlike anything I've ever seen, and give this case a specially chilling and sinister undertone. Like I said before, it is the Year Zero payback for the loss they took on lyin' Jackie Coakley; and they intend to pay back with interest. It is impossible to contradict this savage consensus in public, and I don't particularly advise anyone to try. You can see from an earlier post in the thread what kind of persecution has been directed against the brave and forthright Leslie Rasmussen who dared to write a sensible and human letter in defense of her good high school friend Brock.

-- Speaking for myself. As I hope you can see from this post, I follow the truth wherever it takes me. I do not see the world through a "red pill" lens, or that of any other color; I don't care if I'm in the majority, minority or anything in between. No lawyer, pundit, or expert of any other kind possesses an authority that exceeds the weight of evidence and common sense, as they can be evaluated by a man who is patient, open-minded, curious, and willing to avail himself of the facts. I can be persuaded by arguments from others just as I hope to persuade others, but the evidence and the facts about the world as I know it take absolute precedence over everything else. I've laid them out as I see them. I have nothing further to say about this matter, although I hope one day to be able to update this thread with good news from a decision of an appellate court. Until then, I wish Dennis Riordan and his team good luck in their work on Turner's behalf; they'll need it.

I've already said the prosecutor's argument that Turner "was the face of sexual assault on campus" appears to be improper prosecutorial argument and may be grounds for a new trial. Of course, given that he only got six months, would he want a new trial? If he was convicted a second time, he might get the five years in San Quentin that the townie would have got. That's just a fact, I'm not justifying it. Of course judges read the newspapers, you gotta deal with that.

Sure, there is hysteria about the "campus rape epidemic." It is a true witch-hunt, except the witches are doing the hunting.

But the facts of this individual case are what they are. This guy was a fool. You don't have to be evil incarnate to be convicted, only have poor judgment and push something just a bit too far. Welcome to the criminal justice system. Guys are in prison for manslaugher for 20 years because they punched someone who fell the wrong way.

It does not make any difference to the facts of the case what this Michele Dauber says now, or anyone else. The trial ended months ago.

Of course it's a political cause celebre, way the world works. Taking a knee-jerk reaction to this case and being "sure" Turner is innocent is no different than "believing" Jackie, or Mattress Girl in the face of all the evidence.

Rigidly ideological viewpoints end up being mirror images of nonsense.

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/740612553198456832


[attachment=31969]

Post: #183

Honestly the real issue now is the politicization of the case, not the actual innocence or guilt of the accused. Just think for a minute how insane it is now that every bitch on facebook is passing around "inspirational" clickbait articles on this case, as if this is the only time in human history a woman has been assaulted. These same imbeciles couldn't give two shits about the thousands of women in the middle east and africa that suffer far worse indignities than one drunken party skank at Stanford. The fact that the prole masses are so easily worked into an apoplectic rage by the simplest manipulation by the media is damning evidence that the real rape victim here is rationality.

Post: #184

+13

Post: #185

As someone who used to practice law including as a criminal defence lawyer, I second everything SP5 has written about this case.

Looking objectively at the facts - multiple third party witnesses to the state of the victim and the behaviour of the accused,forensic evidence suggesting that the victim was unable to consent, further forensic evidence pointing to sexual activity between the accused and the victim, the admission of said sexual activity by the accused - it's clear that the prosecutor had a pretty strong case to work with. The jury's verdict was reasonable given the evidence that was presented at trial.

Those of you claiming that she got drunk because she wanted to fuck/she consented and then passed out/he wasn't guilty are armchair quarterbacking and imagining facts to fit your preferred outcome. You didn't hear or see the evidence as presented to the court. You weren't there for the cross-examination of the witnesses. You weren't able to look the various witnesses in the eyes and get a "read" on their honesty or lack thereof.

If you all want to be pissed off, be pissed off at the way that this case has been blown out of all proportion by the SJW crowd. Be pissed off at the abuse the Judge in the case has received from the bloodthirsty mob for the sin of handing down a sentence that he thought was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. Be pissed off with the hysteria that has been whipped up by the press. Be pissed off with your friends on Facebook who keep posting drivel about how evil Brock Turner is and how he should be thrown into a pit with a gorilla and shot by a sniper.

Don't be pissed off by a jury of twelve men and women who sat through the trial, carefully weighed the evidence and pronounced Brock Turner guilty. You weren't there and you're making yourselves look like a bunch of know-nothing blowhards by telling them they were wrong.

Post: #186

I expected nothing less from Sp5. Strong response. I'd say, stronger than the previous post by TLOZ. I did also take issue with his conclusion that she was 'fully conscious'. Let’s not conflate ‘not conscious enough’/‘not fully conscious’ with ‘unconscious’. Doe's reported heavy slurring phone call was an important detail. And Doe’s saying ‘maybe my eyes were still fluttering’ is not her admitting she was fully conscious at the time.

TLOZ has a mastery of pathos rhetoric, a fluid, electrifying literary style that can make his argument appear stronger than it actually is. It’s a virtue, but it is also something we need to be alert of. I for one have let it sway me more than it should. It’s important that we don’t. Sp5’s prose may not have as much flair, but his no-nonsense tightly reasoned, balanced style is a virtue.

In TLOZ’s defense he did not conclude that Turner was innocent. He’s arguing the jury did not pass the reasonable doubt threshold.

But let’s apply the beyond reasonable doubt standard to ourselves.

It’s not beyond reasonable doubt that the jury founded their conclusion on ground beyond reasonable doubt.

It’s not beyond reasonable doubt that Emily Doe went to party merely to kill boredom and get some buzz.

It’s not beyond reasonable doubt that Emily Doe was nearly unable to walk but walked on Turner's support; that she was not having enough presence of mind to give valid consent - even if she was not fully or nearly unconscious; that Turner realized this but still took the action he did; and that the jury have solid evidence of it which we do not know.

It’s not beyond reasonable doubt that Mike Cernovich, an experienced California lawyer and hoax-buster, did not make a bad misjudgment.

Like Sp5 said, we don’t have all the evidence presented to us, so we can’t conclude the verdict was unfair.

Maybe TLOZ has a point about women generally going to party to fuck. But it’s not something we can know for sure and at any rate there are plenty of exceptions.

Human being are biased creatures. In countering an ideology we may easily fall into an opposite ideology. It’s a natural human tendency. Let’s not be too harsh on our brothers for that.

There can be non-ideological bias. TLOZ is someone whom I take be pretty non-ideological. But is knowing for sure “women go to parties and get drunk because they want to fuck” an ideological bias or a non-ideological one? I don’t know for sure. TLOZ does have a strong conviction that women are slutty by nature, that rape accusations of white men on campus and party are generally false, and he also have a strong concern for the well-being of men. That may get in the way of objective judgment.

One point I can vouch for TLOZ is that he’s no herd animal and he really doesn’t care about being in the majority or not. He was against the popular forum opinion that Cruz cheated on his wife with multiple women and Trump has the presidency in the bag. He thinks for himself and he’s usually on point.

A couple of points TLOZ made that I find strong and agreed with: Dauber is primarily responsible for the viral letter and what she accomplished with it is by no mean negligible - it's more than the truth of this case; the prosecutor was pushing an agenda by trying to make Turner the face of campus sexual assault; sex offender registration laws are problematic (But even then, I'm not sure how to make it better).



Withholding conclusion is a rational thing to do. And it's precisely what I have been doing, regarding Turner’s guilt. But we can’t withhold conclusion everywhere and every time. We have to take a stance somewhere. I think everyone can agree that the politicization of the case and the media frenzy have been shameless and vicious. Let’s focus on that.

p/s: TLOZ bro, we’d still love you if you retract your statement about not responding further. Debate can be constructive. If you’ve time and interest, of course.

Post: #187

Quote:Make sure you disclose it first or you're looking at a few years in prison in most states.

If it came down to a choice of going down for a rape I didn't commit, and going down for illegal video taping, I'd be breaking out those tapes toot sweet.

Post: #188

(06-09-2016 01:06 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The below meme has been making the rounds on Facebook, passed along by the usual white knights and feminists.

I wanted to point out that it's inaccurate and incorrect in saying "Drinking isn't a crime." The inaccuracy comes because the girl in question wasn't just "drinking," she was legally drunk -- her blood alcohol level was way over the legal limit.

Therefore, the meme is incorrect because public drunkenness is, in fact, a crime. The way the left influences public sentiment is by selectively altering the basic information in cases like this.

Also sometimes the victim deserves to be blamed. Do irresponsible shit, bad things happen. Blaming and shaming someone is one of the most useful, low cost, and effective tools society has to discourage antisocial behavior.

Post: #189

(06-09-2016 12:18 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 11:54 PM)mpr Wrote:  As an extra bonus you can set up cameras at your house to prove that it wasn't rape. If you get her to straddle you, or suck your dick for a while you're golden.

Make sure you disclose it first or you're looking at a few years in prison in most states.

I checked with a few lawyers at avvo. Apparently in Florida you can videotape someone unless they have a legal expectation of privacy. A stranger generally doesn't have a legal expectation of privacy anywhere in your house except for bathrooms. This makes sense when you consider how many people have home security systems in their house. If you're unsure about the law in your state go to avvo and ask a lawyer for free.

Post: #190

Something like 37 or 38 states are one party recording.

But in this situation, in a two/all party state, I'd rather be staring down an illegal recording charge (which would likely be dismissed, based on the content/proof of consent) versus the alternative.

Post: #191

(06-09-2016 06:05 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I'm not arguing for the guy's guilt. I'm arguing that, from the portion of the facts at trial reported by the media, the unanimous verdicts of 12 jurors appear to be reasonable. The jury was four women and eight men, by the way.

*snip*

That was supernova. If anyone in RVF is under-repped SP5 is definitely in the top 5 of that short list.



Pass the collection plate, the lawyer is preachin' y'all!

Post: #192

(06-09-2016 06:05 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  In addition, they got her DNA off of his fingers, plus he foolishly admitted penetrating her. What more do you want?

I want to know what evidence makes you believe he is guilty of the 2 other charges.

Sexual penetration of an intoxicated woman - I agree there was proof.

Sexual penetration of an unconscious woman - I don't see evidence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt but I suspect that proof exists. It's a close call and as you said the jury has access to more evidence and there is a difference between proof beyond reasonable doubt and possible doubt.

Assault with intent to commit rape - I don't see much evidence of intent to commit rape. I'm assuming that "rape" in this conviction means penis in vagina since the other two convictions cover fingers in vagina. He never removed his clothes and it seems that he disengaged from the situation before he realized the Swedes were watching him. One of the Swedes said:

Quote:We saw that she was not moving, while he was moving a lot. So we stopped and thought, “This is very strange”. When he got up we saw that she still wasn’t moving at all, so we walked up and asked something like, “What are you doing?”

Also, the general conclusion is that we should trust the jury's verdict because they know more than we do. I agree. However, the county probation department and the judge knows more than the jury does. Why should we give the jury the benefit of the doubt with the verdict but not give the county probation department and the judge the benefit of the doubt in regards to the 6 month sentence in county jail?

You say the jury's verdict must be correct but you also say the judge (with a Stanford law degree, many years of experience, and nothing but praise from all of his colleagues including a recent statement by the same prosecutor's office that fought for a longer sentence) is giving Turner a light sentence but would give a townie 5 years in San Quentin. Why?

Post: #193

(06-09-2016 12:04 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  [quote='Sp5' pid='1320775' dateline='1465470307']
I'm not arguing for the guy's guilt. I'm arguing that, from the portion of the facts at trial reported by the media, the unanimous verdicts of 12 jurors appear to be reasonable. The jury was four women and eight men, by the way.

*snip*

No NO No!

That's the problem right there.

Those eight "men" (if they sexually identify that way) are all named Logan or Seth, work at apple or starbucks and look like this:


That guy is wearing glasses with no lenses for Christ sakes! This is going on in Hillary Clinton country.

Then the other demographics in Santa Clara county, 31% Asian, are Vietnamese from San Jose who just say "he guilty, he go jail." And the 26% Mexicans don't show up for jury duty.

If this happened in Tennessee or even Hawaii this never goes to trial.

Aloha!

Post: #194

I want to know what evidence makes you believe he is guilty of the 2 other charges.

Sexual penetration of an intoxicated woman - I agree there was proof.

Sexual penetration of an unconscious woman - I don't see evidence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt but I suspect that proof exists. It's a close call and as you said the jury has access to more evidence and there is a difference between proof beyond reasonable doubt and possible doubt.

Assault with intent to commit rape - I don't see much evidence of intent to commit rape. I'm assuming that "rape" in this conviction means penis in vagina since the other two convictions cover fingers in vagina. He never removed his clothes and it seems that he disengaged from the situation before he realized the Swedes were watching him. One of the Swedes said:

Quote:We saw that she was not moving, while he was moving a lot. So we stopped and thought, “This is very strange”. When he got up we saw that she still wasn’t moving at all, so we walked up and asked something like, “What are you doing?”

Also, the general conclusion is that we should trust the jury's verdict because they know more than we do. I agree. However, the county probation department and the judge knows more than the jury does. Why should we give the jury the benefit of the doubt with the verdict but not give the county probation department and the judge the benefit of the doubt in regards to the 6 month sentence in county jail?

You say the jury's verdict must be correct but you also say the judge (with a Stanford law degree, many years of experience, and nothing but praise from all of his colleagues including a recent statement by the same prosecutor's office that fought for a longer sentence) is giving Turner a light sentence but would give a townie 5 years in San Quentin. Why?
[/quote]

1. I guess the proof of penetration of an unconscious woman was an inference off of her state when the Swedes, then the paramedic, saw her.

This does not make much difference, because the first count is a felony for which he could have got a lot more than six month in county. He was fucked on sex offender registry on the first count.

2. Assault with intent to commit rape: this probably came from the testimony of the Swedes. It's like "assault with intent to kill" - if you see someone choking someone, etc. A jury could infer he wanted to get off.

3. I don't disagree with the sentence. I am in favor on leniency. But not everyone gets leniency. The judge was a Stanford jock, and he and the probation report took account of the opportunities lost by the guy - opportunities which were the result of his position as an elite college athlete and product of a relatively wealthy background. Nobody ever gives a fuck about the casual garage job or McD's part-time position - 5 years San Quentin!

I had a stone-cold psychopath as a client who committed numerous frauds and created a lot of havoc in several people's lives. He was also an Ivy grad student. I was shocked how quickly the prosecution rolled over for an alternative disposition. At the same time, I was seeing poor guys on municipal infractions and selling marijuana getting hammered. Way of the world.

Just my perspective.

Post: #195

Thanks very much Sp5. I know it seems like we are beating a dead horse but this is a great example for all of us, especially the younger guys, to understand what we could be up against if we drink too much or hook up with girls who drink too much.

Also, your thread on FRAs and DV is one of the best on the forum - /thread-29563.html

+1

Post: #196

I was writing a response, but I deleted it in hopes that Sp5 would do so. He delivered.

+1

Post: #197

(06-08-2016 11:09 PM)stugatz Wrote:  Lizard of Oz, posts like yours above are what made me stop lurking and join this forum. Bravo.

Lizard of Oz makes me want to stop posting and go back to lurking.

Post: #198

Looks like he's getting 3 months in prison instead of 6. (I'm assuming early release and good behavior)

Another shit storm is incoming.

I love how these cunts want to scream about an American college girl getting finger blasted, yet there's 19, yes NINETEEN, girls who refused to have sex with American Funded ISIS militants who got BURNED ALIVE.

No fucking news about that.

Fuck off with your fake outrage.

Post: #199

I saw some questions about Alcohol levels and content and I can help answer some of them.

Concentration of alcohol in the blood plasma is hard number, so it's not determined by sex. What is determined by sex is how much water your body contains and how much your body can clear.

Ethanol is a polar molecule and can thus be distributed from the blood to tissues more easily in people who have more water in their bodies; like vs. like.

Since men have less body fat than women, they have more water in their body and thus less alcohol will be in their blood. Bigger people normally have more water in their bodies than smaller people.

Another factor is ADH, which is the enzyme that metabolizes ethanol to inactive forms. Women have less of this then men do. Probably a lot less. I know female alcoholics have almost next to none that drinking for them is like injecting alcohol into their veins (alcoholism decreases this enzymes activity).

So men have to drink more than women to achieve the same BAC.

Also +1 to Sp5 for his explanations.

Post: #200

So I've been trolling the facebook posts that I come across by asking them why they're so worked up about one chick getting fingered when 80% of the women trying to cross the border into the US are getting raped along the way, then implying that they're evil racist Trump supporters who hate Mexican ladies and don't care if they get raped. My goal in life is to get my facebook friend count down to zero.