My guess is that many readers would read the latter and think, “Who’s Brock Turner?” They may remember a rape case involving a Stanford swimmer but not the guy’s name.
I think that’s a valid point. How about “convicted rapist and former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner”? I realize space is at a premium in newspaper stories, but that isn’t hat much more.
Here is the first sentence of the LA Times story dated July 24, “A lawyer for former Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner argued Tuesday that his client’s attempted rape conviction should be overturned. Turner never intended to rape an unconscious woman, he said.” It’s not like they buried the rape conviction late in the story.
This. We’ve about had it with “celebrities”, rich boys, etc being able to skate because they “suffer” from affluenza - while other people get shot or locked up over petty bullshit.
No, but Brock Turner is not famous because he used to swim for Stanford. He’s famous because he’s a rapist.
As I said.
Good.
Aye.
For my part, I have to keep being reminded that this creep was a swimmer at Stanford U. Because apparently that’s important information?
What I *do *remember is that he’s a rapist.
If space is at a premium, they could just go with “Convicted Stanford rapist Brock Turner” and I’m sure anyone who’s ever heard anything about this story would know who they’re talking about.
The whole “swimmer” thing is just weird at this point.
Six months? Kid should have had a better lawyer, or a “more understanding” judge. WTF?
Sorry, but last time I checked, the victim has not showed signs of taking some kind of responsibility for what happened, besides thinking her alcohol tolerance was still college-level :rolleyes:
Three months in jail is all the satisfaction she aught to get.
Well, aren’t you special.
Let me clue you in to something, because you apparently overlooked it even as you said it. She’s the victim. *He *is the rapist. This is all on him.
His choice.
His responsibility.
His action.
He deserved and should have gotten a far, far longer sentence than he did. That he didn’t, that his father doesn’t seem to think he deserved even that much, that *you *seem to think he didn’t deserve more, is a big, fat flashing neon sign saying that victim blaming, victim shaming, and misogyny is alive and well in our culture and has sunk deep into your fetid little personality.
Sorry again, but your elements of causality are so one-sided.
Yeah, I know! It’s almost like when someone rapes someone else while they’re unconscious, there’s one responsible party!
“Ought”. Ought to get.
If you’re going to be a tedious fucking troll, at least get basic grammar right.
You mean spelling.
No, I meant grammar. In particular, the grammatical error of wrong word usage. Do you know aught at all of English? You really ought to acquaint yourself with the basics.
And while we’re into grammar, what are “the basics”? Do you by chance mean “basic rules of English grammar”?
Being new to this forum, I must say it’s hardly different from my other groups on the matter crimes against the “weaker” sex. Blaming a victim for the crime being committed: YES if it can be proven she was partly at fault. More so if it weakens the case against the rapist, as it did in the Brock case. Getting drunk in a frat house party, with your younger sister in tow, remaining conscious enough to step outside with a male stranger but far too drunk to keep him from groping and raping you. Yes, I know. Staying sober in a house with a bunch of fun-loving frat boys is such a hard thing to do. Who’s to fault you for getting too drunk, right?
Cheers everyone!
Ew. Gross. Fuck off, you shit-eating troglodyte. Go back to 4chan.