The Stanford swimmer, the rape, and the letter the victim read in court

[Double Down]

Have to say, "he no longer enjoys a ribeye" is a rape defense I didn't see coming.

 

[Riptide]

Have to say, "he no longer enjoys a ribeye" is a rape defense I didn't see coming.

Sounds like Dad has **** Whitman on retainer.

 

[Vombatus]

I am still pondering this story. Thanks for pointing it out, DD.

Alma has an interesting take on it.

For me, I am reexamining the way I post on various sites. I don't feel like joking around and some of my usual antics.

 

[poindexter]

I don't know how to embed tweets, but the lb poly football player who was falsely convicted of rape a decade ago said that nobody thought about the impact the sentence it would have on him at 16, and he was innocent.

 

[Alma]

The father's letter is poorly worded -- 20 minutes of action is not likely meant as a sexual connotation, but as "20 minutes of an act" - but I understand the gist of what he meant.

Again, I'm not sure what we want from the defendant, his lawyers and his parents. They're not puppets. They aren't 0bligated to a Twitter narrative.

It's been a long week on this topic, with Baylor and Mississippi State and now this. It's so complex.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I am assuming that was a letter to the judge prior to sentencing -- a dad asking for leniency. Although, I am suspicious, because it isn't sourced and doesn't actually say who it was to or why; it leaves you to figure it out from the context. But if that was the purpose and the letter is legit, agree. The parents don't owe anything to an internet narrative. It was a dad trying to get leniency for his son.

That said, it still demonstrated a tin ear, and a family trying to minimize the act he was found guilty of. Reading it, I would have guessed that with many other judges (if not most), that letter would have offended (and had the opposite of the intended effect), exactly the way most of us are reading it and are offended. Assuming that the dad ran that letter through their lawyers first (assuming it is real), the only way I can imagine they wouldn't have changed the wording is that they already knew the judge in the bag already on a light sentence.

 

[Double Down]

The father's letter is poorly worded -- 20 minutes of action is not likely meant as a sexual connotation, but as "20 minutes of an act" - but I understand the gist of what he meant.

Again, I'm not sure what we want from the defendant, his lawyers and his parents. They're not puppets. They aren't 0bligated to a Twitter narrative.

It's been a long week on this topic, with Baylor and Mississippi State and now this. It's so complex.

I think almost any parent would plead for their son's welfare, regardless of wrongs he is guilty of. The father is not a professional writer, and the victim's statement proves she very well could be someday, and so when you contrast them, it's rather embarrassing for the dad. I'm sure "My son cannot eat, cannot enjoy a good steak" is a genuine emotion the dad is having, trying to verbalize his grief and heartache, but it's also embarrassing (though at the same time, I understand it) that he cannot wrap his brain around the victim's heartache, and how she'll carry something much much worse for the rest of her life. You're right that Twitter outrage makes people feel temporarily better, and the judge here sat through the trial and considered the evidence and the complexities, while none of us did. Most of us saw the initial news, then thought little of what happened until we read the victim's letter. I think we both know the victim wasn't writing entirely to Brock, she was speaking to the unfairness of an entire culture. And I'm glad that she did. I really do think this letter is something that every college freshman ought to read, male and female. It might give some of them pause; it might make for better decisions. I think about this **** a lot, frankly, as the father of two young girls. There is a vicious backlash against the suggestion that we should tell girls they need to keep themselves safe, don't put themselves in dangerous situations, because it places the onus on them, not the ****ing rapists. And that's legitimate! But it's an academic argument and not one that lives in the real world. We can demand better of men, and we can also understand a cultural change like that does not happen overnight, and want girls to do everything they can to avoid terrible people without shaming them or making them feel like it's their fault if something bad happens to them. If my daughters got blackout drunk and got raped, I would never think of blaming them. On the front end, I want to tell them when they get to high school and college: Please drink responsibly and avoid situations where horrible people will prey on you, or where another drunk person (who might not be awful, just drunk) might act in a way that you do not want. It's annoying to me every time I see that suggestion shouted down, see an army of Twitter outrage directed at the person voicing it, being slammed as "part of the problem." I wish we could live in a world where everyone could make mistakes with alcohol and be young and irresponsible and get home safe. That is not the world we live in. I chose to live in the real world.

The fact that this piece of ****, Brock, ran and had to be tackled by one of the graduate students who caught him suggests he knew exactly what was going on, how wrong his actions were, and how badly he needed to run. I suspect Brock's dad has asked himself, late at night, what he did wrong in raising a son who would do such a thing, before squashing that doubt in a moment of self-preservation.

But you're right, some of this (all of this?) is very complicated. There are hookups in college every day that fall into a gray area between real consent and dangerous intoxication. I think what people want is for the Brock Turners of the world to consider, when sober, the consequences of their choices. I'm trying to raise strong women. As a father, that's all I can do. I pray to God there are fathers out there trying to raise strong, virtuous (but also self-aware) men, ones who recognize how their decisions/actions (and fair or unfair, the onus is usually on them) can live on forever.

 

[Riptide]

If your son thinks screwing an unconscious girl behind a dumpster is sex, you have bigger problems than how this whole darn mess might appear to the neighborhood. Shut up and work through it privately.

 

[bigpern23]

I think almost any parent would plead for their son's welfare, regardless of wrongs he is guilty of. The father is not a professional writer, and the victim's statement proves she very well could be someday, and so when you contrast them, it's rather embarrassing for the dad. I'm sure "My son cannot eat, cannot enjoy a good steak" is a genuine emotion the dad is having, trying to verbalize his grief and heartache, but it's also embarrassing (though at the same time, I understand it) that he cannot wrap his brain around the victim's heartache, and how she'll carry something much much worse for the rest of her life. You're right that Twitter outrage makes people feel temporarily better, and the judge here sat through the trial and considered the evidence and the complexities, while none of us did. Most of us saw the initial news, then thought little of what happened until we read the victim's letter. I think we both know the victim wasn't writing entirely to Brock, she was speaking to the unfairness of an entire culture. And I'm glad that she did. I really do think this letter is something that every college freshman ought to read, male and female. It might give some of them pause; it might make for better decisions. I think about this **** a lot, frankly, as the father of two young girls. There is a vicious backlash against the suggestion that we should tell girls they need to keep themselves safe, don't put themselves in dangerous situations, because it places the onus on them, not the ****ing rapists. And that's legitimate! But it's an academic argument and not one that lives in the real world. We can demand better of men, and we can also understand a cultural change like that does not happen overnight, and want girls to do everything they can to avoid terrible people without shaming them or making them feel like it's their fault if something bad happens to them. If my daughters got blackout drunk and got raped, I would never think of blaming them. On the front end, I want to tell them when they get to high school and college: Please drink responsibly and avoid situations where horrible people will prey on you, or where another drunk person (who might not be awful, just drunk) might act in a way that you do not want. It's annoying to me every time I see that suggestion shouted down, see an army of Twitter outrage directed at the person voicing it, being slammed as "part of the problem." I wish we could live in a world where everyone could make mistakes with alcohol and be young and irresponsible and get some safe. That is not the world we live in. I chose to live in the real world.

The fact that this piece of ****, Brock, ran and had to be tackled by one of the graduate students who caught him suggests he knew exactly what was going on, how wrong his actions were, and how badly he needed to run. I suspect Brock's dad has asked himself, late at night, what he did wrong in raising a son who would do such a thing, before squashing that doubt in a moment of self-preservation.

But you're right, some of this (all of this?) is very complicated. There are hookups in college every day that fall into a gray area between real consent and dangerous intoxication. I think what people want is for the Brock Turners of the world to consider, when sober, the consequences of their choices. I'm trying to raise strong women. As a father, that's all I can do. I pray to God there are fathers out there trying to raise strong, virtuous (but also self-aware) men, ones who recognize how their decisions/actions (and fair or unfair, the onus is usually on them) can live on forever.

The father does not view her as a victim at all, which is why he hopes his son can "educate college age students about the dangers of alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity," not the dangers of sexual assault. I mean, my god, this is so far beyond having a tin ear. He completely believes his son was just getting some "action," not raping an unconscious girl.

 

[The Big Ragu]

None of us knows what the dad believes or doesn't believe. He's the kid's dad. That paints everything. He might think his son did something ****ty and totally get it. ... but be in the mode of trying to prevent it from totally destroying his son's future.

 

[DanOregon]

So after the six months in jail - he can no longer go around colleges and talk about this stuff? Or just won't?

 

[bigpern23]

None of us know what the dad believes or doesn't believe. He's the kid's dad. That paints everything. He might think his son did something ****ty, and totally get it. ... but be in the mode of trying to prevent it from totally destroying his son's future.

By suggesting that the victim is promiscuous? If that's what he's doing, he's not much better than his rapist son.

Maybe we don't know what he believes - to the extent that we can never be inside someone else's head - but we know what he says. And what he says is that college kids need to be educated about the dangers of alcohol and sexual promiscuity, and his son is just the man to do it. He was curiously silent about the dangers of sexual assault.

Oh, and BTW, I think we can agree that sexually assaulting an unconscious woman is far worse than doing "something ****ty," right?

 

[dixiehack]

Sounds like Dad has **** Whitman on retainer.

A defense attorney acting poorly =/= all defense attorneys are scum.

 

[Batman]

I don't get this sentence at all.
Rape is notoriously difficult to prosecute in court because it often boils down to he said-she said. Here, though, they caught the guy in the act, with two eyewitnesses, got convictions on three felony charges in a jury trial, it seems like an open and shut case that any first-year prosecutor could get a conviction on, and he only gets six months in county jail!?
How is that even possible? Aren't there sentencing guidelines? Mandatory minimums? Can the prosecution appeal to a higher court for a sentencing review?
Six months. Six ****ing months. Some states give you more than that for shoplifting.

 

[DanOregon]

I was talking to a young female acquaintance yesterday and she made a comment that she was sexually assaulted last year and it's taken her some time to get over it. It really bugged me a) for obvious reasons, I wish I could have gone and kicked the guys ass and b) how much it took away from her life and what she wanted to do. I'm amazed by her strength and really felt gratitude for her sharing it with me.

 

[Double Down]

Six months. Six ****ing months. Some states give you more than that for shoplifting.

Kalief Browder, held at Rikers Island for THREE YEARS without a trail, for allegedly stealing a backpack. At age 16. Eventually killed himself.

Kalief Browder, Held at Rikers Island for 3 Years Without Trial, Commits Suicide

 

[The Big Ragu]

Kalief Browder, held at Rikers Island for THREE YEARS without a trail, for allegedly stealing a backpack. At age 16. Eventually killed himself.

Kalief Browder, Held at Rikers Island for 3 Years Without Trial, Commits Suicide

Emphasis on the allegedly. He spent 3 years locked up, some of it in solitary confinement, for something he never even went to trial for -- and which was eventually dismissed. His crime was insisting that he was innocent and refusing to plea it out. He may or may not have been guilty, but yeah, that is the perfect case to juxtipose to this rape case if you want to demonstrate how ****ed up our criminal justice system is.

 

[Mr. Sunshine]

Case in Va. recently where a guy was arrested for stealing candy, spent six months in the county jail and essentially starved to death while there.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

There's this one story trending on Facebook this week where a guy spent six months in jail before his trial when he supposedly only needed $2 to bail himself out. Supposedly, he didn't know that was his bail.

 

[Riptide]

There's this one story trending on Facebook this week where a guy spent six months in jail before his trial when he supposedly only needed $2 to bail himself out. Supposedly, he didn't know that was his bail.

That was Quant. His parents finally raised the cash.