~ archived since 2018 ~

Finally Brock's truth is coming out

istira_balegina

December 3, 2017

7 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Finally Brock's truth is coming out
Author	istira_balegina
Upvotes	7
Comments	34
Date	December 3, 2017 5:29 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7haxf4/finally_brocks_truth_is_coming_out/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/finally-brocks-truth-is-coming-out.909998 https://theredarchive.com/post/909998

Comments

[+]MagicTampon1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

A lot of inconsequential stuff and not much useful information that I can find there.

The only thing it brings up, is the scrutiny of the testimony of the Swedish witness.

If that is all that Turner is bringing up on appeal, U doubt it is going to change anything.

We'll see.

[–]Arby01 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

It would change to the prosecution having to prove that Brock was aware that she was that drunk and that he intended to take advantage of that condition. Both of those have to be proven for a guilty verdict. Unconscious is a story that makes both of those items easily believed. Drunk to the point of no memory does not.

Blackout(memory) vs unconscious - I find a lot of people think these are equivalent, from first hand experience I can tell you they are not.

I suffered from blackouts when overdrinking when I was young. You would have known I was drunk (If you were sober, if your judgement was impaired you might not have realized it at all), you would not have realized that I was blacked out - I could (and did) continue in that state for hours (like 5-6+, occasionally, if I had stopped drinking (ie. the bar closed and we didn't have more), with memory returning while I was still active, almost like waking up in the middle of doing something.) with no knowledge the next day of what happened the night before. I danced, flirted, got in fights, apparently ran around a park with friends, slept on a bus stop bench, played air guitar in front of a crowd, - certainly I was drunk, but I have no memory of these things. (Actually, I have a couple of flashes of the park thing). To expect someone to be able to tell when I was too drunk to remember is unreasonable.

This 'doe' according to the site, also knew that she lost memory but not function when overdrinking. How was Brock supposed to know she was incapacitated? Unconscious, you have a strong argument, although, he was also drunk but you can argue that his choice to impair himself doesn't protect him from making criminal choices. Conscious but no memory, that's a much different argument. Now it's only Brock's story, it's not even 'he said, she said'.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]MagicTampon1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

It would change to the prosecution having to prove that Brock was aware that she was that drunk and that he intended to take advantage of that condition.

Is that true in California?

In most states, it would be a "reasonable person standard." If a "reasonable person" (e.g. a sober person) would have been aware that she was incapacitated, then he is guilty of assault.

In most states, self-intoxication is infrequently, if ever, accepted as a mitigating factor in evaluating the conduct of the accused. It does happen, but it's rare.

[–]Arby01 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]MagicTampon1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

It would change to the prosecution having to prove that Brock was aware that she was that drunk and that he intended to take advantage of that condition.

Sure, I'm just pointing out that this statement you made is not true.

All they have to prove, is that a reasonable (sober) person would have realized that she was incapacitated.

If she functions without memory, the fact that she has no memory doesn't mean that a reasonable person would have understood that she was incapacitated. A reasonable person could have believed that she was functional.

I'm not saying anything about her memory. Reminder: she was lying out on the dirt after having drank herself into oblivion. Not sure on witness accounts as to her state of consciousness when Turner was floundering about on her, but once police arrived, she was snoring.

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Sure, I'm just pointing out that this statement you made is not true.

Let me rewrite - It would change to the prosecution having to prove that a reasonable person would be aware she was incapacitated.

EDIT: The distinction is that if someone is unconscious, this is a slam dunk. If someone is just drunk, that's not so easy to establish. Now, the intent thing - that was somewhere else on that website - which claims to be written by two lawyers that were involved somehow. I am not a legal expert and I don't have the inclination to go back over that site looking for the specific pieces. There were pieces that made the claim that if Brock had a reasonable belief that doe was capable of consent, even if he was wrong, that was not criminal.

Reminder: she was lying out on the dirt after having drank herself into oblivion. Not sure on witness accounts as to her state of consciousness when Turner was floundering about with her, but once police arrived, she was snoring.

Yeah, but that's pretty meaningless. When you are that drunk you can go from seeming completely functional to dead asleep and hard to wake up in the blink of an eye - as you mentioned, it's the witness accounts as to her state of consciousness that is relevant.

[+]MagicTampon1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

here is another thread here now from someone defending Turner in the following way, according to Turner's own testimony:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7hf9ex/brock_turner_after_reading_the_court_documents_i/

[Turner] claims he got consent and was too drunk to notice that she stopped responding.

... but if that's true, Turner basically admitted to fingering her once she had fallen unconscious, which could be appropriately regarded as assault.

And again, the fact that he was self-intoxicated at the time is not likely to be viewed as a mitigating factor. If a sober person would have noticed that she had stopped responding, then that's assault.

I haven't seen anything to indicate to me that the jury made an incorrect decision.

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicTampon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arby011 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But Brock Tuner wasn't laid out unconscious while the woman fondled his dick.

This was the whole point of my discussion though, from the statements on that website, 'doe' wasn't laid out unconscious at the time she was being fondled either. Unconscious is a slam dunk. Blackout drunk is not.

Sure, they should regarded the same.

I mean in a broader sense - she's not responsible for consenting, which it seems likely she did at the time or earlier, whether or not she can remember it - but that's irrelevant because she was 'incapable of consent' because of voluntary intoxication. However, if she had jumped behind the wheel of a car, all of a sudden she is 'capable of decision making' and guilty of a crime. It's very inconsistent. Shouldn't voluntary intoxication past a certain point either be a defense, or not be a defense?

It's certainly possible he was incapacitated at some point, in which case, if she had made out with him or something,

Either one of their BAC's is high enough to be considered incapable of consent, and they were both reported to be making out, so you can pretty much guarantee that your scenario happened.

[–]MagicTampon1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arby011 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]MagicTampon1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

What statement?

Whose statement?

Brock Turner's statement that he asked her for "affirmative consent" before sticking his finger in her?

Not very believable, IMHO.

I don't know what we have to keep talking about this guy here. He's apparently a total idiot. Turns out, the woman is apparently a total idiot also, but, there it is.

[–]Arby01 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MagicTampon2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I read about 60% of it, including almost all of the important parts (e.g. I skipped all the stuff about the media and so forth).

There is a ton of junk there that does not really provide any particularly exonerating information.

If there is anything useful in that web site, it is impossible to filter away from all the mostly irrelevant dreck.

I can't exclude the possibility that there is something buried in that site that might change my opinion, but I just can't find it. But as this is a public-facing web site that appears to attempt to present a more favorable picture of Turner, it's not doing a good job.

I've put far more effort into reading it than 99.99999% of the public would, and I'm still not able to find much that would change a reasonable person's opinion on the case.

If you know who made this web site and you really believe there is something to it, they ought to do a better job.

Or just give up.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I can't see an appeal working.
This smells like the work of Turner's dad. I'd like to think Brock is not such an asshole as to be driving this, regardless of what he did before.

I also read most of the site, not including the trial transcripts. I read all the statements and had read the before.

I didn't see anything from the EMT though. The site claims the EMT saw Doe vomit and clear her own airway. This does not fit with any other evidence about her state. She had been reported unconscious by witnesses at two times over at least the last 5 minutes. The cop who arrived before the EMT and found her in the recovery position could not get any response from her, nor could he over the next 3 hours despite trying every 15 minutes. So I would really like to see that alleged EMT testimony. But if it does show her returning to enough consciousness to spit out her vomit, it does not mean Doe was mistakable for someone capable of consent.

The site claims the person who phoned the police was not questioned, and that they made the call after the Swedes arrived. But the call was made a few minutes minutes earlier, reporting her as alone and unconscious, in need of police help. Not as being simply asleep, which would not be a problem requiring police.

Another witness came along after (or a minute or two before, I forget the details) and found someone (likely Brock, since he sent a photo with a bare breast) taking a photo of her. That witness suggested putting her in recovery position (I think he did) and took her pulse. One does not take the pulse of a person who is just asleep.

The site has a very detailed knowledge, they can't have mistaken the timeline. So I guess they are trying to fudge a case for her not being unconscious for at least about 5 minutes before Brock was apprehended. (The police arrived 4-5 min after the call)

Another discrepancy: Brock's statement was taped at 6:30AM when he was not drunk. The site claimed it was recorded earlier when he was drunk.

Now here's some absolute bullshit: Police recorded number plates in the car park after arriving, but later denied to the defense that they had a record of the numbers. OK, that is curious and worth raising. But here's the good bit: The site says "some say" this might be to cover up conflicting testimony about the exact location of the girls' drop-off by car hours earlier, as if their number plate might have been recorded by the time-travelling cop who would attend hours later. Utter horse shit and they know it.

[–]Arby01 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]GryphonFeathers 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Karissa36 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link