Stanford student gets six months for rape

[s_stabeler]

Yes and no. The second amendment- and open carry laws- would protect you from firearms charges for carrying your guns to a "protest" like this, but they offer no such protection against the firearms being carried openly being used as evidence of harassment. Basically, if you had a group of people waving placards calling for you to be castrated, and you knew they were armed, logic dictates that you would be scared for your, life- after all, for all you know, the people with guns might start with death threats next- which, since it should be fairly obvious to the "protestors" means it can be inferred the effect is deliberate. Deliberately making someone fear for their life is sufficiently serious that I'm 99% sure a court would rule it strips First Amendment protection for the incident.

[Kheldarson]

Yes and no. The second amendment- and open carry laws- would protect you from firearms charges for carrying your guns to a "protest" like this, but they offer no such protection against the firearms being carried openly being used as evidence of harassment. Basically, if you had a group of people waving placards calling for you to be castrated, and you knew they were armed, logic dictates that you would be scared for your, life- after all, for all you know, the people with guns might start with death threats next- which, since it should be fairly obvious to the "protestors" means it can be inferred the effect is deliberate. Deliberately making someone fear for their life is sufficiently serious that I'm 99% sure a court would rule it strips First Amendment protection for the incident.

If he can get the arrested for harassment in the first place, he can make that argument in court. But I doubt you're going to find a precinct anywhere that'll arrest protesters for harassment on grounds of carrying a gun. They'll have to do something else on top of carrying a gun.

Like I said, I completely disagree with them having the guns at the protest (personally, I hate open carry too, but that's beside the point) and agree that he could see the combo as harassment. But simple fact is that the combo isn't legally seen as harassment (another example here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...houston-naacp/) so right now they're in their legal right to protest (which I do support).

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Hey all. Sorry to throw out the vigilante tangent and then bail. Busy week. I wanted to address this by Gravekeeper.

Protesting is not vigilantism unless you define protesting as a form of law enforcement ( it's not ) Also, yes, you can justify a protest against an individual. Individuals are protested all the time.

Law enforcement and punishment are (in essence) tortorious or even criminal actions sanctioned by the state for the purpose of some sort societally agreed punishment. If the government takes your money, its a fine. If I do it, its stealing. If the government murders you, that is capital punishment. If I do it, that's a crime. Criminal justice is the buy in that the government (working as a proxy for justice more impartial than the parties directly involved) can and does dispense punishments that cause injury.

Where I think you're wrong Gravekeeper is this - I think the true point of protest is in the expression of emotion from the less powerful towards the more powerful. There's no world in which an individual has more power than protestors unless they are a proxy for a government, the head of a major company, or in some way actually wield some form of significant power. So you can protest the judge to the point that he loses the election because he's a public figure. But if what you're doing skates on intimidation or starts causing personal non-job related injury? There is a line there and it's not actually that hard to find. Brock Turner has 0 power. None. Protesting him specifically serves no purpose other than injury.

So when you say "law enforcement", I would say if said protest is designed to cause financial, social, or emotional injury than yes, that is a protestor is really treading on vigilantism and the fact no one got punched in the face doesn't change that. Only the government has any agreed upon right to inflict injury, and even then only under specific parameters (a judge or jury ruling/time of war/peace officers under specific scenarios/etc.). If the definition of vigilante is " a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily", no protestor can really claim any injuries they inflict are anything but that. No court or collective body has empowered the protestor to injure another person. They are doing it for their own reasons. If I organized the "Debbie is a horrible human being" protest with me and 30 other people and we picketed outside Debbie's house for 30 days because she's just rather shabby towards other people, ultimately there isn't a jury in the world that isn't going to come after me. The public wouldn't feel I have sufficient cause. However, give the public a situation like this where punishment has been given (they just didn't like the amount) and all bets are off.

My opinion is, this generation (often) has conflated coordinated non-physical injury and schadenfreude with protest because they can be superficially similar. But one is a coordinated attempt to inflict tort on a much smaller group (intimidation, job loss, social ostracism) and the other is really a genuine expression of disapproval when the power structure does not allow success through other channels. You don't like something on TV? You protest and boycott because there is not mechanism for redress. You don't like a specific action Rupert Murdoch has taken because it injured you, you sue. There IS a mechanism for that. You'll lose, but the mechanism exists. You don't like the Brock Turner verdict, you protest the judge that assigned the legal mechanism of redress. You protest Brock Turner and cause injury (again, social, financial, or physical) the group which holds disproportionate power over Brock Turner is attempting extralegal punishment. It is committing a tort, granted one that would be really hard for Turner to successfully prosecute which is why people do it.

However, this stuff confuses people because sort of like legislating time-served pedophiles out of any ability to work or live after punishment, people have a tendency to cloak what they wanted to do anyway in something that superficially looks legal as long as its not looked at too closely under academic rigor. Laws against pedophiles are legal. But flat out statistics and outcomes will tell you they are actively violating constitutional rights since there shouldn't be "legal laws" that result in exile and homelessness of people who have already served their sentence.

[Gravekeeper]

Where I think you're wrong Gravekeeper is this - I think the true point of protest is in the expression of emotion from the less powerful towards the more powerful.

That's sort of moot as we're not here to debate what you think the true spirit of protesting is.

Brock Turner has 0 power. None. Protesting him specifically serves no purpose other than injury.

He had the power to not rape a woman. He had the power and privilege of his family to get a cushy sentence from a judge who was an alumni from the same school. He had the power to not make this case totally about how the rape affected *him* instead of his victim. He had the power and money to afford a good legal team.

This entire case is about power and privilege. We're not talking about a case where the attacker was repentant and remorseful then was just surprised to get a pass from a judge. We're talking about a case where the defendant showed no remorse whatsoever, made himself out to be the victim here and basically acted as if he was entitled to get away with raping an unconscious woman. Which he effectively did thanks to a biased judge.

So if a bunch of people want to go out and exercise their right to free speech to tell him that he is a terrible human being ( which he is ) that is completely understandable. Its also not even remotely vigilantism and equating the exercising of free speech as vigilantism is a little worrisome.

Now, if they start crossing the line into harassment or vandalizing his home or something than sure. That's unacceptable. But the act of protesting is not in and of itself somehow wrong because its directed at an individual.

If I organized the "Debbie is a horrible human being" protest with me and 30 other people and we picketed outside Debbie's house for 30 days because she's just rather shabby towards other people, ultimately there isn't a jury in the world that isn't going to come after me.

Sure, because Debbie might have a slander case against you as whether or not she is "shabby towards other people" is a subjective opinion. But what Turner did and said are matters of court record. He *is* a rapist and showed no remorse for it.

[jackfaire]

He had the power to not rape a woman. He had the power and privilege of his family to get a cushy sentence from a judge who was an alumni from the same school. He had the power to not make this case totally about how the rape affected *him* instead of his victim. He had the power and money to afford a good legal team.

But that shouldn't be the point. That's the problem with protesting the individual and not the system. Do you know what the aftermath of Cecil the Lion was? The local government changed a bunch of laws and said "see ya next week" the protesters followed the dentist the local government changed the laws back and no one noticed nor cared.

Sure let's make Brock Turner's life hell. Let's make the next guy who gets too light of a sentence's life hell let's keep doing it because they are going to get too light of a sentence. Or instead we could protest the system and get the system changed and make sure it stays changed and make sure that there isn't a next time.

There are minimum sentencing laws that prevent a judge from being able to grant leniency for personal bias. Sure he can still give someone the minimum but if it's something the citizens can live with something that still punishes the perpetrator. We can even tailor them to the nature of the Rape.

Which we absolutely should do as some rapes are "guy and girl who later get married had sex while she was underage and her parents pressed charges" And I have personally seen it happen so not just being "I heard stories"

But instead what's going to happen is the lawmakers are going to laugh their assess off Brock Turner's going to have hell until we all suddenly forget and move on with our lives. Then the next guy's going to rape a girl get a light sentence and if it doesn't get nearly as much publicity as this one no one will care.

[Rusty Shackleford]

You are correct, Jack. Turner's involvement in this is over. He did the time he was told to, let the guy get back to as much of a "normal" life any ex-convict can.

[Gravekeeper]

But that shouldn't be the point. That's the problem with protesting the individual and not the system.

Let me stop you right there. You're presenting this as an either / or when the majority did and are protesting the judge and the system. Some people in front of Brock's house is in no way negating or undermining the main protest against the judge and the system. No one has taking their eyes off the judge in favour of Brock.

Sure let's make Brock Turner's life hell. Let's make the next guy who gets too light of a sentence's life hell let's keep doing it because they are going to get too light of a sentence.

The light sentence is only half the problem. The defendant ( and his family's ) behaviour during the trial and the entire trial in general are the other half. Its not that we saw a trial then got surprised by a light sentence. We saw a trial where the defense shoveled out an appalling load of bullshit, flipped it around so that the rapist was the victim and the judge went along with it.

We're not talking about a case where someone did something horrible, showed remorse, did the time, got out and is being targeted and harassed regardless. We're talking about a case where someone had no remorse, blamed the victim, acted entitled to get away with the crime and then essentially did get away with it. So now he has some angry people outside his house with signs.

Pardon my French but tough shit. Part of being a functional society is having a list of things we all realize are terrible and the faith that when those things happen, justice will be served. When something undermines that faith, especially with a terrible crime like sexual assault, then we have a right to be upset at both the system and the perpetrator.

Yes, the perpetrator should not be physically attacked, harassed or his property vandalized or anything of that nature which also breaks the law. But protesting is not illegal. Its a central feature to free speech and saying when we can and cannot do it is always a worrisome precedent. Especially in a case like this.

If we try to set some sort of threshold for when it is and is not okay to protest an individual you can damn well be sure it will be used not as a shield but as a weapon against free speech.

[jackfaire]

The light sentence is only half the problem. The defendant ( and his family's ) behaviour during the trial and the entire trial in general are the other half. Its not that we saw a trial then got surprised by a light sentence. We saw a trial where the defense shoveled out an appalling load of bullshit, flipped it around so that the rapist was the victim and the judge went along with it.

I apologize everyone has been presenting this including the news media as if the only one being protested is Brock Turner. Your saying something is the first mention I have seen anywhere that people are actually protesting the right people.

As for the "appalling load of bullshit" (in quotes so you know what I am referring to) why is it only now a problem for people? Making the rapist the victim and the rape victim the criminal has been the standard rape defense for decades. Why haven't people protested this before? I bet if you looked there is at least 1 rape case either shortly before or shortly after anywhere in the country where this was the defense and the person got a light sentence.

That's part of what confuses me I guess. I have read many articles where this was reported as an appalling problem but there were never any protests or anything no matter how many editorials pleaded with people to take to the streets. No attempts to change legislature. People were apathetic. And again as I said in the other thread I may be reading the wrong news outlets.

I also don't think every single protester is out for attention but I have to admit that the fact the protest is only about the one time the very same situation that goes on all over the country all of the time makes National news instead of just local news is the time people finally want to say something? It feels like at least some people are just "Look I care man" and not I care.

So I guess my question is should we leave Brock Turner alone and get the news media to turn their focus to attempts at real change (He's the more visible factor in this case most likely why I haven't heard of a lot of actual action)

Or should we start protesting every rapist who got a lighter sentence or no sentence using the "I was the victim" defense?

[Kheldarson]

As for the "appalling load of bullshit" (in quotes so you know what I am referring to) why is it only now a problem for people? Making the rapist the victim and the rape victim the criminal has been the standard rape defense for decades. Why haven't people protested this before? I bet if you looked there is at least 1 rape case either shortly before or shortly after anywhere in the country where this was the defense and the person got a light sentence.

People have. People do. However, until the majority of society supports the idea that it is a problem, protests of that sort get ignored.

For example, marital rape used to be legal in this country. It wasn't until the 1980's that laws began to be struck down as unconstitutional and it wasn't until 1993 that all 50 states had removed exemptions for marital rape from the law.

Why did it take so long to change? Why did it take so long to change once it started changing?

Because societal pressure wasn't high enough. Politicians don't like rocking the boat because that endangers their election chances. Society has to prove that the majority want the change because most politicians aren't going to react to a few protests.

And media coverage is varied depending on how big the case is and its sensationalism. Why you're still hearing more about Turner and not about Persky is because Turner is big news and recognizable. "Stick it to the crook". But protesting a judge is regular business.

Or should we start protesting every rapist who got a lighter sentence or no sentence using the "I was the victim" defense?

Maybe we should. It would definitely send a message. However, part of the issue with most rape cases is that they're not seen as clear cut as this case was. It should have been an open and shut case. He was caught. There are sober eyewitnesses who can say that the victim was unable to give her consent. There is no question that he committed the assault as he was on top of her when the witnesses caught them.

That's part of why people are pissed. We say that when people get caught doing the crime they should get the punishment they deserve. When there's questions and doubt, we're a bit more lenient on what the punishment should be: obviously we don't want to really punish an innocent person. So to see someone so obviously guilty pretty much walk? When most rape cases get cast as a "he said/she said" with the victim being put on the defensive for not having "enough evidence" or having "maybe given consent but regretting it now"? It's a bit tough to swallow.

[Gravekeeper]

What Kheld said. Its not that this suddenly became a problem everyone cared about just now. It's just this was such an egregious example of every single problem people have complained about with rape cases. It's the benchmark of every single thing wrong with rape cases and the justice system.

[Sarah Valentine]

I don't know how true this is but I saw a thing on Facebook that the shitbag is planning to tour college campuses to talk about how drinking and promiscuity are bad, all I could think is what the fuck makes him think that's even remotely ok?! Either he's that stupid or that much of an asshole.

[mjr]

Saw a story today where a Canadian judge let a guy off completely.

Quoth the article:

Camp, 64, ultimately acquitted the man charged with the crime, and then told him:
"I want you to tell your friends, your male friends, that they have to be far more gentle with women. They have to be far more patient. And they have to be very careful. To protect themselves, they have to be very careful."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/world/...rnd/index.html

[Kheldarson]

Saw a story today where a Canadian judge let a guy off completely.

Quoth the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/world/...rnd/index.html

And the verdict was overturned and the judge is probably going to be booted.

[Gravekeeper]

Saw a story today where a Canadian judge let a guy off completely.

But in this case, the system worked as it was suppose to correct the judge's assholery. Canadian judges aren't elected so the onus doesn't fall on the people to try and boot him.

I don't know how true this is but I saw a thing on Facebook that the shitbag is planning to tour college campuses to talk about how drinking and promiscuity are bad, all I could think is what the fuck makes him think that's even remotely ok?! Either he's that stupid or that much of an asshole.

This is true. He does indeed want to tour and lecture and yes, he is that much of a stupid asshole.

Whether or not any college will actually accept his offer is another thing.

[s_stabeler]

going back to protesting this guy for a minute, the fundamental issue I have with people protesting the rapist- rather than the judge's decision- is that, strictly speaking, the rapist had very little to do with why the protests erupted. Now, before i get accused of being a rape apologist, I am not referring to the rape, but the fact that all he did was make a more-or-less standard claim of mitigating circumstances during the sentencing phase. Yes, it could well have been a load of bullshit. That's not, however, unusual, since his job, remember, is to get the lowest punishment he can. It's up to the judge to cut through the bullshit to figure out a sentence the convict deserves.

That, and my issue is that free speech can't be without any limits at all, for the simple reason that otherwise, quite a few laws become unconstitutional. (if you have unlimited freedom of speech, for example, then harassment becomes impossible.)

In short, you can't dress up vigilante justice harassment as "freedom of speech" by claiming it is a protest. By all means shun the guy, but protesting outside his house calling for him to be castrated? going a bit far.