DamianaRaven wrote:I consider myself something of an expert on the subject of deviant sexuality and I find it highly unlikely that someone would agree to such depravity with a complete stranger. Being penetrated by foreign objects on the ground behind a dumpster is in a COMPLETELY different realm than your typical "sure, let's do it in the alley" scenario. The only way I can imagine any woman legitimately agreeing to such a situation is when it's preceded by the words, "that'll be five hundred bucks."
Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
sunglasses wrote:Why would the victim need a lawyer?
It's the prosecutor who would be responsible for pressing charges against the (now convicted) rapists. Like, a lawyer for her should not even be a discussion point. The prosecutor would also be talking to her about what to prepare for on stand. She wouldn't have needed a lawyer present when speaking to police because they never thought she commited a crime, because she was the victim.
A retired federal prosecutor and friend of the Turner family, Margaret M. Quinn, asked the judge to consider the long-term damage inflicted by Turner’s conviction: limited job opportunities and the requirement to register as a sex offender.
“As I know you are aware, the collateral consequences of a conviction are staggering,” Quinn wrote, saying they go beyond his expulsion from Stanford.
She asked the judge to consider allowing Turner to counsel young men and “warning them about the devastating consequences of a single decision.” She suggested Turner could serve as a mentor.
“There is no doubt Brock made a mistake that night – he made a mistake in drinking excessively to the point where he could not fully appreciate that his female acquaintance was so intoxicated,” Quinn wrote. “I know Brock did not go to that party intending to hurt, or entice, or overpower anyone. That is not his nature. It has never been.”
DamianaRaven wrote:I like how she makes a specific point of not blaming the victim directly because (and I quote) "that would be wrong." This woman is nothing but a disgusting monster and I hope she also gets what she deserves.
"The fact that he had good grades or a lot of supportive teachers and coaches, or a lot of athletic accomplishment, and devoted parents and a nice house is not a good reason to treat him less severely than someone who has lacked those advantages," they write.
"In fact, the opposite is true. He should be treated more severely because in spite of having every advantage in life, he committed these horrible crimes against a totally defenseless person."
Absentia wrote:Obviously they have a very biased opinion of the situation and their views are not terribly progressive, but they didn't do anything wrong.
Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests