So, case dismissed on account of ‘outer-course’ not being a - for fuck’s sake- real thing then?
Should be pretty straight forward, yeah?
As awful as it would be for her. Showing up to any legal proceeding where Turner is trying to ‘reduce’ his crime ought to keep him from making progress.
True; the victim shouldn’t have to go through that again.
*sighs
2 Likes
Maybe we can go with the Ramsay Bolton school of justice just this once…
3 Likes
He raped her… by accident?
Is this his actual argument?
4 Likes
This is because the California penal code defines rape as requiring “sexual intercourse” but it never defines what sexual intercourse is (and it could be argued that penetration isn’t necessary so be considered intercourse). Seems like a pretty weak sauce defense to me, but INAL.
2 Likes
Small point, but shouldn’t it be “convicted gentleman rapist Brock Turner”?
1 Like
“So you see, Your Honour, I never meant to actually penetrate her!”
“Mm, mm, I see, yes, very good. Indeed. I can see a gross injustice was perpetrated here.”
“You mean you’ll reduce my-”
“Bailiff, take the defendant out behind the courthouse and shoot him in the head.”
1 Like
For those interested in the exact arguments being raised, the folks at KQED News are apparently the only ones prepared to let us take a look at the filing for ourselves rather than just regurgitating snippets of it for us, so hit them up:
Third link in the article.
I’d link directly to it but they deserve some hits for taking advantage of the ability to link people to documents instead of desperately trying to cling to every last page view. 
“They might never come back!!!”
Mind you, that’s probably assuming more interest in 172 pages of legal argument than actually exists…
1 Like
Convict Brock Turner the Stanford rapist, attorney Eric Multhaup’s client only wanted “outercourse”, sexual contact while fully clothed, he explained, not intercourse’.
The dirty girl Emily Doe already had dirt and pine needles up her vagina.
Right, Eric Mullhaup, that is what you’re saying?
Vile piece of shit!
1 Like
Apparently, California law says that in order to commit “assault with intent to rape” (one of the charges he was convicted of), you have to wave your willy about.
If you don’t get your tackle out, it can’t be intent to rape according to his legal team.
In this case, appellant had ample opportunity to “exhibit his private
parts,” but he did not. That undisputed fact by itself constitutes a virtually
insuperable evidentiary barrier to a finding of intent to rape beyond a
reasonable doubt. The evidence may well show a sexual intent of some type,
but the weight of the evidence militates against an inference that the intent was
to have sexual intercourse. Rather, the evidence establishes that at most
appellant intended to have sexual contact while “fully clothed,” 5 RT 157,
patently insufficient to prove intent to have sexual intercourse beyond a
reasonable doubt.
[…]
The primary indicator that appellant did not intend to have
intercourse is that he made a decision to remove Ms. Doe’s underwear but not
his own, and not to otherwise expose his penis.
Reminds me of:
Jesus. What an utter piece of ‘desperately trying to salvage his reputation and downplay his crime’ shit. Motherfucker.
4 Likes
Out of the house of frottage.
“I absolutely don’t understand what you are talking about" … Justice Franklin D. Elia said.
This guy for Supreme Court of US.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
