You can stand by your kid’s side in a lot of ways that don’t involve referring to rape as “action” or going out of your way to deny that pulling an unconscious woman’s legs apart and shoving your fingers in to bruise and tear her vagina is in any way “violent”.
He didn’t have to minimize the victim’s trauma to stand up for his kid.
It’s not rich and influential people thinking they are above consequences!
It’s rich and influential people demonstratingly being clearly above consequences, that’s the problem!
That was awesome! Thanks for bringing that to our attention!
Well, OK. But here:
“Although we will always love and stand with him, his mother and I, and everyone who knows Brock, are horrified by the things he has done. From the bottom of our hearts, we join Brock in offering to the victim an apology that we know barely begins to salve the damage done. We have urged Brock to come out of this experience a changed and better man, one who can help ameliorate the scourge of sexual violence in whatever ways he can. He and we will accept the consequences of his actions, whatever they may be. We ask only that you consider his sincere and deep repentance, his openly stated desire to improve, and his long history of responsible behavior, as you consider what those consequences should be.”
Who showed no ability to accept consequences for a heinous action or empathy for the victim, like his son. Which is really the crux of the Pitting.
Yes, that is what good parents do. Defend their children from harm.
But good parents also raise their children to not be callous arseholes, and admonish their children when they do something wrong.
The father’s letter consists mostly of irrelevant anecdotes, praising his son, and downplaying his crime, while not even acknowledging the existence of the victim. The language he uses suggests that the father himself does not even consider that his son is in the wrong. “Just 20 minutes of action. Mistakes were made. Please don’t be so cruel to my poor suffering son. He’s such a great kid.”
The victim’s letter, by contrast, is a heart-wrenching and vivid narration of the details of the crime and the horrible fallout that she has suffered over a year because of this monster.
Son is a piece of shit.
Dad is an horrible person.
Judge is ass.
Defense lawyer is a scumbag.
World is a horrible place.
But the victim, the survivor, is a brave soul. And I have a thankful heart for her bravery. May she have a truly wonderful life surrounded by wonderful people.
Douchedad can stand at his son’s side in hell.
Keep in mind that he was convicted of “attempted rape”, not “rape”. If he admitted “rape” in his statement, might that put him in legal jeopardy?
This seems like a classic case of plea bargaining to me. Aren’t the vast majority of all cases settled on a plea bargain? Not much consolation to the victim, but that’s the system we live in.
Wasn’t a plea. This was after a jury convicted him.
The dad’s letter starts off with “he is truly sorry for what occurred that night and for all the pain and suffering…he has expressed true remorse for his actions on that night.”
This letter was delivered after the guilty verdict, so consequences were unavoidable. The purpose was to ask for leniency in his sentencing. And it apparently worked.
The judge is no less a rapist that the kid. He is someone a person can turn to, to get justice; the remedy of last resort when a person’s been wronged. And he’s taken that responsibility and used it to torture the victim beyond the initial rape . . . and this time she didn’t have the “blessing” of being unconscious.
It should not have.
That is on the judge.
As for the dad, I don’t think he truly acknowledges his son’s crime.
“He is truly sorry for what occurred”?
How about “He is truly sorry for what he did”?
How about “He is truly sorry for what he did to that woman”?
*That *would be a start.
The two felonies that had the word “rape” in the title were dropped, but the three felonies of which Turner was convicted are entirely unambiguous. Wapo cite
Brock Turner was convicted of:
assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman
sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object
sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.
I think they dropped the other charges because there was no semen - probably because he was interrupted, of course. The victim was found with dirt and pine needles in her vagina.
Here’s the victim’s statement in full - it’s well worth a read.
Please. Convicted rapist.
I’d say once you force your victim to relive her rape over the course of an entire year because you think the fact that she has memory loss means you could get away with it, then lose the court case anyways, you lose the right to a plea bargain. And the right to be able to eat solid food again.
It’s also a damn dirty lie. Brock at no point addressed this remorse to the one person he should have addressed it to - the victim. He never gave any indication that he was sorry for what he did, or that he accepted responsibility.
This judge should be fucking disbarred. This is a travesty.
Oh yeah, on a side note: a friend of mine on facebook responded to this with, “If there actually was a rape culture, he wouldn’t have seen jail time”. Or should I say former friend, because I am just absolutely sick of that sniveling bullshit. You want rape culture? Here’s your fucking rape culture. A culture wherein the true victim is the rapist, except they aren’t really a rapist, because they’re such a nice guy and they were all drunk, and the real villain here is political correctness.
#1, #2, and #3 - sure.
But the system doesn’t work without defense attorneys, and even pieces of shit deserve good ones (which is an indictment of the public defender process in most areas - even the good ones are buried under overwork).
Ddamn; that lady can write.
I said his methods were contemptible. But I don’t blame a parent for saying contemptible things in defense of their child. I’m not a parent but if I was I’d be willing to slander, defame, and lie about somebody if it kept my kid out of prison.
I expect a normal parent to place their love for their child above their interest in objective justice. I expect a parent to be biased towards their child.
Dan Turner wants to save his son from prison. And I’m sure Emily Doe’s father wants to beat Brock Turner to death with a baseball bat. That’s why our legal system keeps family members out of the loop. A parent’s bias in favor of their child shouldn’t be a factor in our legal system. The legal system is supposed to be impartial.
There is an effort started to recall the judge.
Maybe one reason for the judge’s attitude was this:
From here.
So, former Stanford athlete feels pity for current Stanford athlete.
And here, from the father’s letter, we find that boohoo, the little kid has lost his appetite.
Very moving.
Consumed with worry, fear, anxiety, and depression. But not with guilt, responsibility, or remorse. No talk of empathy.
If you did that, I’d call you a piece of shit, too. You’re saying that if you knew your child had murdered someone, you’d do whatever it took to try and keep your kid out of prison, EVEN THO YOU KNOW HE DID IT??? What the fuck kind of psychopath would do that? Oh right, people like Dan Turner.
You would actively try and aid your child in avoiding responsibility and consequences for their actions, even when their actions irreparably harm another?
That’s completely psycho in my opinion.
I would expect a parent to want to see their child suffer as little as possible, but when a person has done wrong, I prefer for people to admit it and accept the consequences, no matter the relation. Yes, I have faced this kind of situation and in every case I have not defended the piece of shit (I usually cut them out of my life), so yes, I’m talking from personal experience.
I don’t.
I do too, but I don’t expect them to ignore facts and try and cause more pain and suffering for the innocent person that their precious child has already harmed. How far would you, Little Nemo, really be willing to go? Would you hide the body? Would you fabricate an alibi? From your post, it certainly seems that you would do anything to save your child, no matter his crime and frankly, that’s an indefensible position to take, IMO.
But the parent’s bias DID have a place in this case, and it resulted in what many (hopefully it’s actually “most”) people consider a travesty.
Since you have said you would do the same things Dan Turner did, and more, to defend your child, I’m curious to know: do you think this was justice served or a travesty?