Stanford student gets six months for rape

[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.

[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).

[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]

Bolded part not relevant to the issue. You can use open carry to protect yourself. You cant use it to intimidate someone.

Sorry, I mostly read on my phone and Forum Runner so I'm not entirely sure where you've bolded.

But I can take a decent guess, so if my answer is unclear, please understand and help me to clarify it.

Yes, you can't use it to intimidate someone. However, just carrying a gun while protesting, particularly in an open carry state, is not legally construed as intimidation as long as you're just carrying them. Personally I disagree with them carrying guns in this protest. However, I can't deny their legal right to.

[Greenday]

No, the argument boils down to their right to protest. I agree they shouldn't have guns, but Ohio is an open carry state, so they're also in their right there. As long as they're not physically approaching him or disrupting his actual day to day activities (which they're not), then they're within their rights.

We may disagree on whether or not it's good or effective, but they're not vigilantes, they're not doing anything illegal, and this is a way of protesting the system. By gathering at the nearest symbol of the broken system.

Bolded part not relevant to the issue. You can use open carry to protect yourself. You cant use it to intimidate someone.

[jackfaire]

If the point of the protests is to punish the rapist- that is, he has to deal with people waving placards outside his home for however long they care to because he raped somebody- rather than get him to do something, it is harassment, not protesting.

I have to agree with this his getting off so easily is a systemic problem. We may just have to take sentencing on this out of the judges hand. I am not sure but aren't there minimum sentencing laws where the judge isn't allowed to go below the minimum for the crime if I am understanding that correctly then we need to get a stricter minimum sentencing time much longer than a slap on the wrist like six months.

The problem with focusing on the perpetrator is that everyone will harass him until they get bored and then forget all about Cecil the lio...I mean the Stanford rapist. We need to work on long term systemic change not focus on being mad at one guy who per the current laws served his time. If we want rapists to serve more it's the law that needs protesting not the man.

[s_stabeler]

to weigh in on the point about the protests being legitimate: I'm not sure they are. The problem is, there comes a point when a protest becomes harassment, and I actually think these protests cross it. why? because, ultimately, what makes a protest a protest is that the intention of the protests is for something to happen- that is, if the target of the protest finds them intolerable, they can end the protest by giving the protesters what they demand. In this case, the rapist can't do that, because there isn't actually anything he can do to satisfy the protesters other than either castrating himself or killing himself. Yes, the protesters are unhappy that the rapist got 6 months in jail. But, to be blunt, what can- now- the rapist do about it?

If the point of the protests is to punish the rapist- that is, he has to deal with people waving placards outside his home for however long they care to because he raped somebody- rather than get him to do something, it is harassment, not protesting.

[Kheldarson]

What about Pepe Le Pew? All of his cartoons have him (conveniently) oblivious to the cat NOT being interested in him.

I'd just note that Pepe does not star in his own bit past the 60s. So, contextually, the joke wasn't harassment but instead on the fact that he's a skunk and horrible at picking up girls (somewhat anti-French).

One of those we recognize now what makes it awful but need to understand its time period items.

[jackfaire]

Not necessarily. I came home from a long day at work, and found my wife draped over the couch in lingere asking me to come over. I'd say it was a surprise, but definitely not rape. That's what surprise sex means to me.

That's fair but, and yes I have been moving slowly away from some of my friendships because yikes, for most of my married friends surprise sex is a rape joke that's just waiting for them eagerly to tell it.

They get racist while playing too so yeah I have been re-evaluating some friendships. IF there is a way other people interpret that's awesome and I am glad I was just only having what I had experienced to go off of.

And Wolfie you're right that's a problem too. That one just doesn't pop up as often as I haven't seen Looney Tunes in a really long time.

[wolfie]

There is an ongoing plot over a few episodes where Drew adds a picture of a caterpillar mistakes a french fry for another caterpillar and tries to mate with it.

What about Pepe Le Pew? All of his cartoons have him (conveniently) oblivious to the cat NOT being interested in him.

[TheHuckster]

At no point through out any of the episodes is it ever acknowledged that the joke is a rape joke

I remember at least parts of that whole thing. If I recall correctly, it was argued that the caterpillar was "forcing himself onto her" which I'd say is another way of putting it as a rape joke.

In the game cards against Humanity there is no card that just says "Rape" but there is a card that says "Surprise Sex" Uhm isn't that Rape?

Not necessarily. I came home from a long day at work, and found my wife draped over the couch in lingere asking me to come over. I'd say it was a surprise, but definitely not rape. That's what surprise sex means to me. And I'm sure if you asked the average married person or at least someone in a committed long-term relationship, they'd be thinking the same thing.

I mean, don't get me wrong, there are plenty of instances where rape is trivialized as a joke, and it's wrong (not necessarily illegal, depending on where it's said and its context).

[Kheldarson]

*snip*

That made me feel shitty. That's how rape imagery should feel.

*applauds*

[jackfaire]

I wanted to throw in my two sense on how this incident has kind of opened my eyes. I was re-watching season 1 of the Drew Carey show from back in the '90s.

There is an ongoing plot over a few episodes where Drew adds a picture of a caterpillar mistakes a french fry for another caterpillar and tries to mate with it.

Now I can see how this would be funny in the same way my dog humping a stuffed teddy bear is.

But instead of the French Fry being an inanimate object it's anthropomorphic the french fry yells "WAIT I AM A FRENCH FRY" making this not a joke but a rape joke.

Drew spends many episodes defending this joke. When it goes to court the judge agrees it creates a hostile work environment for the employee but that it's "not that bad"

At no point through out any of the episodes is it ever acknowledged that the joke is a rape joke and Drew keeps talking about how it's a first amendment rights issue. Oswald at one point makes another rape joke that again isn't acknowledged as a rape joke.

In the game cards against Humanity there is no card that just says "Rape" but there is a card that says "Surprise Sex" Uhm isn't that Rape?

It hit me that we make rape a joke and something harmless by never calling it rape and shoving it everywhere in our popular culture.

Something that always disturbed me and not just in hindsight was the ending of the movie KIDS. For those who don't know it's this movie that came out in the late 90s about these kids living in New York and being a more realistic portrayal than the Disney Channel/Nickelodeon stuff we get about everyone.

At one point one of the girls is trying to figure out what to do because she found out she has AIDS and the movie for the most part does a really great job of showing her anguish and her trying to figure out how to tell her lover(s) about it.

It's the end of the movie that always bothered me. She goes to her friend's party looking for her boyfriend to tell him what's up and ends up getting drunk and passing out. She later "wakes up" I put it in quotes because she is aware enough to realize what's going on but not to even try to stop it other then offer a mumbled "no" as one of her other "friends" starts raping her.

The movie doesn't seem to say "Hey kids rape is bad" rather the message seems to be "Hey careful who you rape she might have AIDS" Because that's where the movie ends and it feels like the only "punishment" the movie is expecting us to expect for the guy is "Wah wah wah you got AIDS"

It never ever excuses Rape but it feels like people have a responsibility to stop making rape look like sex.

Most of us can recognize the difference between a Boxing match, Fight Club, etc from assault.

Movies make them very stylistically different. TV shows don't make jokes that minimize assault or make assault seem like "He was asking fo' it ovah heah"

Rape is Assault. So why can't we show that? Why can't we make it clear that what's going on is completely and utterly not OKAY!

Before I leave you a final thought. The movie Rules of Attraction based on the Brett Easton Ellis book of the same name has a scene where a girl is so drunk off her ass the she isn't even having sex with the guy she thought she was drunkenly having sex with.

We are in her thoughts and it's very clear she thinks the guy who took her into the bedroom is the one having sex with her. She is narrating how awful this is how she doesn't really want to be here and how it's just a really drunken decision. Then the door opens and it gets worse. She realizes that the guy who brought her into the room the guy that she at least wanted a very little isn't even the guy raping her. No instead that guy is taping as some guy she's never even met is raping her.

And the way it's shot makes it clear she's not enjoying herself, that the guy doesn't care if she does, and that it's a very bad thing and that it's an assault.

That made me feel shitty. That's how rape imagery should feel.

[Kheldarson]

Wouldn't the closest symbol of the broken system be the courthouse? .

How are residents in Ohio, where he lives and is his hometown, supposed to get to a courthouse in California?

[Rusty Shackleford]

We may disagree on whether or not it's good or effective, but they're not vigilantes, they're not doing anything illegal, and this is a way of protesting the system. By gathering at the nearest symbol of the broken system.

Wouldn't the closest symbol of the broken system be the courthouse? The kid did his time, regardless of it being long enough, but the judge was kind of an idiot for only giving him six months (especially for the reason he did). It would seem to be more appropriate to protest the courthouse as that is where the judge is. Hopefully the protesters are staying on the sidewalk and not stepping onto private property, then laws are being broken.