Tag: Brock Turner

Rape-excusing judges in history…

In 1911 California voters passed a measure allowing the recall of judges and added an amendment to the state Constitution giving women the right to vote.

Two years later, newly enfranchised women in San Francisco flexed their political muscles by petitioning for the recall of a police court justice, Charles Weller.

Like his colleagues, Judge Weller heard sexual assault cases and typically set bail at under $500, low enough so that several defendants chose to flee rather than stand trial. Judge Weller sometimes dismissed rape charges on technical grounds — as when a 15-year-old, impregnated by the accused, missed court because she was giving birth.

Why that lazy slut.

No one complained until a year after women gained the vote, when Judge Weller reduced the $3,000 bail set for one Albert Hendricks, witnessed trying to assault two 17-year-olds, to $1,000; a former police commissioner had testified that Hendricks, as a substantial businessman, was unlikely to jump bail.

When Hendricks skipped town, women’s clubs in San Francisco took action. They had been instrumental in a recent campaign to expand statutory rape protection to girls under 18. A Women’s Political League gathered enough signatures to force a recall election. The group accused Judge Weller of abusing judicial power “by extending undue and unreasonable leniency to persons charged with the commission of heinous and vicious offenses.”

Voters agreed, and Weller was out.

But the recall did not make California courts more vigilant about sexual assault, and nationally, judges remained sympathetic to white defendants like Hendricks, while African-American men continued to be disproportionately prosecuted, convicted and executed for rape.

Of course. White men are just misunderstood, or a little impetuous, or temporarily and accidentally drunk. Non-white men on the other hand…

In the 60s Judge Archie Simonson in Madison, Wisconsin was recalled.

He had sentenced a 15-year-old to one year of home supervision after he pleaded no contest in the gang rape of a girl in their high school stairwell. More than the sentence, it was the comments made by Judge Simonson that led to the recall. He claimed that the boys had behaved “normally” in reaction to the revealing clothing worn by girls. When challenged by a female prosecutor who said she found his remark “sexist,” Judge Simonson replied: “You bet it is. I can’t go around walking exposing my genitals like they can the mammary glands.”

There was outrage. NOW got involved. Malvina Reynolds did a song about him.

Leaders of the recall focused on the judge’s remarks, and their effort succeeded. The one woman running to replace Judge Simonson was elected.

These judges gave the impression that they sympathized more with the accused or the convicted assailant than with the female victims. In Judge Persky’s case, considering alcohol consumption a mitigating factor imputed responsibility to the victim, while his desire to protect the assailant from prison invited comparisons to the routine sentencing of nonwhites for rape.

Progress is slow, isn’t it. So very slow.

Amy Goodman talked to Michele Dauber on Democracy Now yesterday.

MICHELE LANDIS DAUBER: So, we are a group of Democratic and progressive women here in Silicon Valley who have come together to put together an actual recall campaign. So there are a number of Change.org petitions online, but those are not the official California recall effort. To participate in that, viewers and listeners should go to RecallAaronPersky.com, where they can sign up for information updates or donate to the effort. And we will be collecting signatures, getting this on the ballot and working to replace him with someone who understands violence against women.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about Judge Persky’s handling of the case? Explain what happened in the trial.

MICHELE LANDIS DAUBER: Well, Turner was found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury for three felony sex crimes—two counts of sexual penetration of an intoxicated or incapacitated person, and one count of assault with intent to commit rape. And that’s a very serious charge that has a minimum, as you said, two-year sentence, and is presumptively not eligible for probation or a jail, you know, stay less than that two years; however, the judge really bent over backwards in order to give this defendant a very light sentence.

AMY GOODMAN: In his sentencing, Judge Persky seemed to sympathize with Turner’s assertion the encounter was consensual. He said, quote, “I take him at his word that subjectively that’s his version of his events. … I’m not convinced that his lack of complete acquiescence to the verdict should count against him.” Judge Persky also said, quote, “A trial is a search for the truth. It’s an imperfect process.” He said his sentencing decision took into consideration the defendant had no significant prior offenses, he’d been affected by the intense media coverage, and, quote, “There is less moral culpability attached to the defendant who is … intoxicated.” Judge Persky also said, “A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him. … I think he will not be a danger to others.” Your response, Professor Dauber?

MICHELE LANDIS DAUBER: Yeah, this is the kind of talk that really has outraged the community, I mean, really, across the world, but here in Silicon Valley, in particular. Under the law, the judge had to make a finding in order to grant probation. The state Legislature requires that the judge make a finding that this is a, quote, “unusual” case and that the interests of justice require him to grant probation. And to do that, he found that because he was previously a very successful young man and a good swimmer, you know, with all of these accomplishments as an athlete, and that he was intoxicated, that that would be—make it unusual. And the problem with that is that that basically describes every sexual assault at Stanford.

As has pretty much jumped out at us. Yes, he was drunk, he’s a jock, he said she’d consented, he would dislike state prison – what is unusual about any of that?? The judge might as well have said well clearly this guy is an entitled asshole therefore let’s give him a medal and let him go.

Goodman asked how Stanford had dealt with the whole thing. MLD replied:

And I think it’s important for viewers to understand that Stanford has a long history, really, of not treating these offenses particularly aggressively. For example, up until at least last year, Stanford had only ever expelled one student in the whole history of the university for sexual assault. And they have not, say, for example, as Harvard President Drew Faust has, taken on the fraternity culture of sort of toxic masculinity and the sexual assault that comes along with that, you know, sort of more directly. Harvard has taken some very strong measures against fraternities. And Stanford has—our provost, John Etchemendy, has really not stood up to the fraternities. And I think that, you know, in some ways, you can see that this is the kind of situation that you can end up with when you have a culture of elite, male, athletic privilege.

Which describes the national culture to a great extent. The national culture makes a big deal of male athletics, including violent ones like football, and it grovels to elite males who have privilege. The US is a big frat house in many ways.

Then Goodman reads more of the victim’s statement, and MLD says she found it hard to maintain her composure while Goodman read it.

It’s incredibly powerful. And it really has, I think, caused a lot of women who have been sexually assaulted, or other individuals who someone close to them has been sexually assaulted, to really understand the pain. But I really want your viewers to understand that she—although this has really inspired so many people, she didn’t write it for that purpose. She wrote it for the purpose of persuading the judge, Judge Aaron Persky. And unfortunately, unlike, you know, the millions of people who have been moved around the world, Judge Persky apparently was not moved by this, but was instead persuaded that he needed to have a lot of sympathy and solicitude for Brock Turner.

Which is astounding to me. Just simply astounding.

The judge who had so much sympathy for Brock Turner is facing a recall campaign.

The light sentencing, along with comments from Turner’s father, who said his son is paying a “steep price” for “20 minutes of action”, have sparked global consternation.

In a brief phone interview with the Guardian on Monday, the victim, whose emotional testimony has since gone viral, said the positive responses to her statement have been moving. “I’m worried that my heart is going to grow too big for my chest,” she said. “I’ve just been overwhelmed and speechless.”

The Guardian can also reveal that the judge who gave the former Stanford athlete the light sentence will now face a recall campaign led by a law professor at the elite university who argues the jurist took extraordinary measures to allow the student to avoid prison.

That is, by Michele Dauber, whose tweets I shared this morning.

Further scrutiny on the judge’s remarks at sentencing appear to suggest he concluded the defendant had “less moral culpability” because he was drunk, and that a light sentence would be an “antidote” to the anxiety he had suffered from intense media attention on the case.

Michele Landis Dauber, a Stanford law professor who has been outspoken about sexual assault policies on campus, said she is launching the recall campaign against Aaron Persky, Santa Clara County superior court judge.

Persky, a Stanford alumnus, was captain of the lacrosse team when he was an undergraduate.

Ah. Was he. So it’s bros sticking up for bros because hey, skill at sports is that important. Sport builds character – the kind of character that prevents athletes from ever bullying or harming other  people oh wait.

“He has made women at Stanford and across California less safe,” said Dauber, who attended the sentencing hearing and is also a family friend of the 23-year-old victim. “The judge bent over backwards in order to make an exception … and the message to women and students is ‘you’re on your own,’ and the message to potential perpetrators is, ‘I’ve got your back.’”

The message to women is “you don’t count, only men count, and athletic white men count triple. Slut.”

Turner could have faced a maximum of 14 years in state prison, and in order to allow the defendant to avoid prison time altogether, the judge had to determine that this was an “unusual case where the interests of justice would best be served” by a lenient sentence.

Which is weird, because what’s unusual about it in a way that makes it a good idea to give him a lenient sentence? Is there some stipulation in the law that if the victim drank too much before the rape then it becomes only sort of kind of rape, friendly rape, nice rape, humanistic rape?

After the victim delivered a detailed account about how the assault and ensuing trial traumatized her and her family, the judge issued the light county jail punishment and justified making an exception with a speech that onlookers said was unusually sympathetic to the defendant.

“Obviously, the prison sentence would have a severe impact on him,” Persky said in court. “The defendant is youthful and has no significant record of prior criminal offenses.”

That was his response to her statement. It’s mind-blowing.

Persky also noted that news coverage of the case had significantly impacted Turner, saying: “The media attention that has been given to this case has in a way sort of poisoned the lives of the people that have been affected. … The question I’ve asked myself is … ‘Is state prison for this defendant an antidote to that poison?’”

What about her? What about her? What about her?

The judge seemed to show some sympathy to Turner’s perspective. “I take him at his word that subjectively that’s his version of his events. … I’m not convinced that his lack of complete acquiescence to the verdict should count against him,” he said.

Dauber said she was further shocked to see Persky minimize the significance of the guilty verdicts, which came from a jury of eight men and four women. The judge said at sentencing: “A trial is a search for the truth. It’s an imperfect process.”

Persky also appeared to rely heavily on letters that Turner’s friends and family sent and read an excerpt from a former classmate who told the judge she couldn’t believe the assault allegations.

“To me that just rings true,” the judge said. “It sort of corroborates the evidence of his character up until the night of this incident, which has been positive.”

The letter in question, however, includes a lengthy rant that places blame on the woman for being attacked: “I’m sure she and Brock had been flirting at this party and decided to leave together … I don’t think it’s fair to base the fate of the next ten + years of his life on the decision of a girl who doesn’t remember anything but the amount she drank. … Where do we draw the line and stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.”

Persky repeatedly emphasized the effect the case has had on Turner, at one point saying: “The character letters that have been submitted do show a huge collateral consequence for Mr Turner.”

You’d think it was vandalism or a parking violation or returning a library book late. The guy grabbed a human being who was unconscious and raped her – where is the judge’s sympathy for the huge NOT SO collateral consequence for her? What about her??

In her letter to the judge, Dauber wrote that Stanford’s surveys have found that 43% of female undergraduates have experienced sexual assault or misconduct, and that more than two-thirds of them said perpetrators took advantage of intoxicated victims. But only 2.7% of students who experienced assault or nonconsensual sexual contact reported it to the university.

Turner’s sentencing only does further damage, Dauber added, noting that she has observed nonviolent drug offenders receive much harsher treatment by judges.

“Aaron Persky is telling these women don’t bother calling police. Even if you get through a trial and even if you manage to get a conviction, I will not impose a serious sanction,” Dauber said.

Because you’re just a woman. Women don’t matter.

Clementine Ford has some thoughts on Brock Turner.

Turner did not present to the world as the archetypal monster dwelling in shadowed alleyways. He was attending Stanford on a sports scholarship as an accomplished swimmer with aspirations to one day compete at the Olympics. He is from a privileged white background, with enough family money and support to hire the kind of expensive lawyers who usually appear on behalf of the of well taken care of privileged white sons defending themselves against rape charges. It has been suspiciously difficult to track down the police mugshot taken after his arrest; instead, media reports throughout the trial have been littered with smiling photographs of what is no doubt an attempt to portray a ‘promising young athlete in happier times’.

These tactics are employed deliberately. Not, as you might think, in an attempt to humanise a rapist – but to massage that niggling impulse to associate rape with certain traits. A promising young athlete with friends, teammates and well-to-do parents can’t possibly be a rapist! There must be some other explanation – alcohol consumption, perhaps, and poor reasoning skills. Misread signals. A life-altering mistake.

…

Being a promising young athlete does not provide a protective charm against criminal activity, but this is the message that has been all too often sent by judges, lawyers and community members intent on protecting young men from the consequences of their violence and entitlement.

Indeed. But I would go beyond “being an athlete isn’t a defense” and “being an athlete doesn’t magically rule out being a rapist” to make it an affirmative thing – being a promising young athlete may well encourage rapey ideation. Why wouldn’t it? At least, why wouldn’t it in cultures that overvalue male athletes and undervalue women?

What’s true about promising young male athletes? That they get masses of social validation, not to say hero worship. That they spend a lot of time with other promising young male athletes, who all get masses of social validation / hero worship. That these tribes of promising young male athletes tend to be very macho, and very contemptuous of all things female. (How do they provoke each other? By saying things like, “You need to take the tampon out of your pussy.”) That all this adds up to a sense of entitlement coupled with contempt for girls and women. You do the math.

More from the Brock Turner file. Via Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, who attended the trial, on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/mldauber/status/739731624447746048

A reference letter to the judge.

I don’t think it’s fair to base the fate of the next 10+ years of his life on the decision of a girl who doesn’t remember anything but the amount she drank to press charges against him. I am not blaming her directly for this, because that isn’t right. But where do we draw the line and stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campus isn’t always because people are rapists?

I know, right? It’s so annoyingly politically correct to think that fucking an unconscious woman behind a dumpster is rape. It’s not rape at all: it’s post-dancing alcohol-lubricated joyous sexy fun times!

The problem is, the letter-writer goes on, universities encourage this party atmosphere and all this drinking. It’s all their fault, not the fault of the innocent boys who drink a lot in this party atmosphere and then totally accidentally rape some bitch behind a dumpster.

This is completely different from a woman getting kidnapped and raped as she is walking to her car in a parking lot. That is a rapist. These are not rapists.

There you have it, wims. Rape is when a stranger jumps out at you and pulls a knife. End of definition. Rape is not when a stranger finds you drunk and pulls you outside and behind a dumpster, at least not when that stranger is a very nice clean-cut white boy on the swim team at Stanford – I mean duh. Who wouldn’t want to have sex with that boy? If some slut drinks so much at a party that that nice clean-cut white boy can pull her outside behind a dumpster, then she deserves whatever he does to her, and he is in no way at fault. She’s a slut and a sloppy drunk and if she presses charges she’s a bitch besides. It’s political correctness run mad to say otherwise.

Oh, this is disgusting. I know, I blog about so many disgusting items, but the moral squalor on display here…

The father of Brock Turner, the convicted Stanford rapist, wrote a letter to the judge about his sentence.

Dan A. Turner, Brock Turner’s dad, wrote a letter to Judge Aaron Persky before his son’s sentencing Thursday. He said that since his son was found guilty of sexual assault, he isn’t eating much and is full of worry and anxiety. It’s “a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life,” he argued.

Well that could explain a lot. If Brock Turner’s father thinks fucking an unconscious woman is “action” then that could be why Brock Turner felt entitled to fuck an unconscious woman.

Turner Senior tells the judge he used to love to get the Brockster a nice manly ribeye steak to grill, but now the puir lad takes no pleasure in his food any more; he eats only to exist.

These verdicts have broken and shattered him and our family in so many ways. His life will never the one that he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve. That’s a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life.

It wasn’t 20 minutes of action, it was 20 minutes of rape. There was another person involved, a human being, with her own life and dreams and work. She’s the one who paid a steep price, and she paid it for going to a party with her sister, and drinking too much too fast, and being female – none of which is criminal or unethical or harmful to other people.

That level of narcissism and entitlement is hard to credit.

Part 2 of reading the victim’s statement:

When I was told to be prepared in case we didn’t win, I said, I can’t prepare for that. He was guilty the minute I woke up. No one can talk me out of the hurt he caused me. Worst of all, I was warned, because he now knows you don’t remember, he is going to get to write the script. He can say whatever he wants and no one can contest it. I had no power, I had no voice, I was defenseless. My memory loss would be used against me. My testimony was weak, was incomplete, and I was made to believe that perhaps, I am not enough to win this. His attorney constantly reminded the jury, the only one we can believe is Brock, because she doesn’t remember. That helplessness was traumatizing.

Instead of taking time to heal, I was taking time to recall the night in excruciating detail, in order to prepare for the attorney’s questions that would be invasive, aggressive, and designed to steer me off course, to contradict myself, my sister, phrased in ways to manipulate my answers. Instead of his attorney saying, Did you notice any abrasions? He said, You didn’t notice any abrasions, right? This was a game of strategy, as if I could be tricked out of my own worth. The sexual assault had been so clear, but instead, here I was at the trial, answering questions like:

How old are you? How much do you weigh? What did you eat that day? Well what did you have for dinner? Who made dinner? Did you drink with dinner? No, not even water? When did you drink? How much did you drink? What container did you drink out of? Who gave you the drink? How much do you usually drink? Who dropped you off at this party? At what time? But where exactly? What were you wearing? Why were you going to this party? What’ d you do when you got there? Are you sure you did that? But what time did you do that? What does this text mean? Who were you texting? When did you urinate? Where did you urinate? With whom did you urinate outside? Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring. Did you drink in college? You said you were a party animal? How many times did you black out? Did you party at frats? Are you serious with your boyfriend? Are you sexually active with him? When did you start dating? Would you ever cheat? Do you have a history of cheating? What do you mean when you said you wanted to reward him? Do you remember what time you woke up? Were you wearing your cardigan? What color was your cardigan? Do you remember any more from that night? No? Okay, well, we’ll let Brock fill it in.

I was pummeled with narrowed, pointed questions that dissected my personal life, love life, past life, family life, inane questions, accumulating trivial details to try and find an excuse for this guy who had me half naked before even bothering to ask for my name. After a physical assault, I was assaulted with questions designed to attack me, to say see, her facts don’t line up, she’s out of her mind, she’s practically an alcoholic, she probably wanted to hook up, he’s like an athlete right, they were both drunk, whatever, the hospital stuff she remembers is after the fact, why take it into account, Brock has a lot at stake so he’s having a really hard time right now.

People have a right to a defense. Lawyers have a duty to provide the best defense they can. That doesn’t mean, however, that there’s no alternative ethically speaking. People have a right to a defense, but they’re not required to avail themselves of the right. Brock could have said he did it and he’s sorry; instead he chose to damage the woman some more, in fact a lot more.

And then it came time for him to testify and I learned what it meant to be revictimized. I want to remind you, the night after it happened he said he never planned to take me back to his dorm. He said he didn’t know why we were behind a dumpster. He got up to leave because he wasn’t feeling well when he was suddenly chased and attacked. Then he learned I could not remember.

So one year later, as predicted, a new dialogue emerged. Brock had a strange new story, almost sounded like a poorly written young adult novel with kissing and dancing and hand holding and lovingly tumbling onto the ground, and most importantly in this new story, there was suddenly consent. One year after the incident, he remembered, oh yeah, by the way she actually said yes, to everything, so.

He said he had asked if I wanted to dance. Apparently I said yes. He’d asked if I wanted to go to his dorm, I said yes. Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, can I finger you? Usually there’s a natural progression of things, unfolding consensually, not a Q and A. But apparently I granted full permission. He’s in the clear. Even in his story, I only said a total of three words, yes yes yes, before he had me half naked on the ground. Future reference, if you are confused about whether a girl can consent, see if she can speak an entire sentence. You couldn’t even do that. Just one coherent string of words. Where was the confusion? This is common sense, human decency.

According to him, the only reason we were on the ground was because I fell down. Note; if a girl falls down help her get back up. If she is too drunk to even walk and falls down, do not mount her, hump her, take off her underwear, and insert your hand inside her vagina. If a girl falls down help her up.

Let me repeat that for emphasis.

Note; if a girl falls down help her get back up. If she is too drunk to even walk and falls down, do not mount her, hump her, take off her underwear, and insert your hand inside her vagina. If a girl falls down help her up.

A girl who falls down isn’t like a tennis ball you find on an empty beach. She has more feelings than that.

Next in the story, two Swedes on bicycles approached you and you ran. When they tackled you why didn’t say, “Stop! Everything’s okay, go ask her, she’s right over there, she’ll tell you.” I mean you had just asked for my consent, right? I was awake, right? When the policeman arrived and interviewed the evil Swede who tackled you, he was crying so hard he couldn’t speak because of what he’d seen.

Your attorney has repeatedly pointed out, well we don’t know exactly when she became unconscious. And you’re right, maybe I was still fluttering my eyes and wasn’t completely limp yet. That was never the point. I was too drunk to speak English, too drunk to consent way before I was on the ground. I should have never been touched in the first place. Brock stated, “At no time did I see that she was not responding. If at any time I thought she was not responding, I would have stopped immediately.” Here’s the thing; if your plan was to stop only when I became unresponsive, then you still do not understand. You didn’t even stop when I was unconscious anyway! Someone else stopped you. Two guys on bikes noticed I wasn’t moving in the dark and had to tackle you. How did you not notice while on top of me?

You said, you would have stopped and gotten help. You say that, but I want you to explain how you would’ve helped me, step by step, walk me through this. I want to know, if those evil Swedes had not found me, how the night would have played out. I am asking you; Would you have pulled my underwear back on over my boots? Untangled the necklace wrapped around my neck? Closed my legs, covered me? Pick the pine needles from my hair? Asked if the abrasions on my neck and bottom hurt? Would you then go find a friend and say, Will you help me get her somewhere warm and soft? I don’t sleep when I think about the way it could have gone if the two guys had never come. What would have happened to me? That’s what you’ll never have a good answer for, that’s what you can’t explain even after a year.

On top of all this, he claimed that I orgasmed after one minute of digital penetration. The nurse said there had been abrasions, lacerations, and dirt in my genitalia. Was that before or after I came?

To sit under oath and inform all of us, that yes I wanted it, yes I permitted it, and that you are the true victim attacked by Swedes for reasons unknown to you is appalling, is demented, is selfish, is damaging. It is enough to be suffering. It is another thing to have someone ruthlessly working to diminish the gravity of validity of this suffering.

Especially when that someone is the one who caused the suffering in the first place.

You are guilty. Twelve jurors convicted you guilty of three felony counts beyond reasonable doubt, that’s twelve votes per count, thirty ­six yeses confirming guilt, that’s one hundred percent, unanimous guilt. And I thought finally it is over, finally he will own up to what he did, truly apologize, we will both move on and get better. ​Then I read your statement.

If you are hoping that one of my organs will implode from anger and I will die, I’m almost there. You are very close. This is not a story of another drunk college hook­up with poor decision making. Assault is not an accident. Somehow, you still don’t get it. Somehow, you still sound confused. I will now read portions of the defendant’s statement and respond to them.

You said, Being drunk I just couldn’t make the best decisions and neither could she.

Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked. Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal. Everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much, or knows someone close to them who has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much. Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault. We were both drunk, the difference is I did not take off your pants and underwear, touch you inappropriately, and run away. That’s the difference.

Notice the difference between “I just couldn’t make the best decisions so I raped someone” and “neither could she so she got raped by me.” He got drunk and did very bad things to a person. She got drunk and did not do bad things to any person. It’s a terribly important difference.

You said, If I wanted to get to know her, I should have asked for her number, rather than asking her to go back to my room.

I’m not mad because you didn’t ask for my number. Even if you did know me, I would not want be in this situation. My own boyfriend knows me, but if he asked to finger me behind a dumpster, I would slap him. No girl wants to be in this situation. Nobody. I don’t care if you know their phone number or not.

You said, I stupidly thought it was okay for me to do what everyone around me was doing, which was drinking. I was wrong.

Again, you were not wrong for drinking. Everyone around you was not sexually assaulting me. You were wrong for doing what nobody else was doing, which was pushing your erect dick in your pants against my naked, defenseless body concealed in a dark area, where partygoers could no longer see or protect me, and my own sister could not find me. Sipping fireball is not your crime. Peeling off and discarding my underwear like a candy wrapper to insert your finger into my body, is where you went wrong. Why am I still explaining this.

She goes on pointing out his moral blindness, then says what he has done to her life, then discusses the sentence and the probation officer’s report. One item in particular caused an uptick in my level of horror:

The Probation Officer has stated that this case, when compared to other crimes of similar nature, may be considered less serious due to the defendant’s level of intoxication.

What?

No it may not. Intoxication is not some covert form of consent. The intoxication of X does not give Y the right to beat or kick or rob or kidnap or murder or rape X.

At the end she thanks people who did not do bad things to her.

Most importantly, thank you to the two men who saved me, who I have yet to meet. I sleep with two bicycles that I drew taped above my bed to remind myself there are heroes in this story. That we are looking out for one another. To have known all of these people, to have felt their protection and love, is something I will never forget.

Don’t be Brock. Don’t ever be Brock in any way – don’t be so busy avoiding accountability for harm you did to someone that you pile up more harm to that very someone. Don’t defend your own precious self by slashing someone else’s precious self into ribbons. Don’t be that guy. Don’t be Brock. Let Brock become a word that means a selfish piece of shit.