The Fucking Stanford Rapist Is Trying To Get A Fucking RETRIAL To Overturn His Fucking Conviction!

no title

What in the actual fuck?

In case you forgot the name Brock Turner, he is going to make sure you never will again. The former Stanford swim team member was found by two witnesses assaulting a woman who had passed out, leading to his arrest on rape charges.

He was eventually convicted of three felonies: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, penetration of an intoxicated person, and penetration of an unconscious person — yet was appallingly only sentenced to six months.

Related: Stanford Rape Survivor Talks Shocking Sentence As She’s Named Glamour‘s Woman Of The Year!

The sentence was so light, the judge was even investigated over it! Even worse, Turner only served three months!

Well, apparently getting a slap on the wrist was too much for lil Brock, because he’s now looking to get a retrial to overturn his convictions!

In a galling move, Turner’s lawyers are arguing the trial was “fundamentally unfair” to him. Wait until you hear why…

First, he was not allowed to call extra character witnesses to describe his academic and athletic record.

Um, maybe because being a good student and swimmer have no relevance to whether you committed sexual assault??

But the key argument in the brief, according to CNN, is an issue with the prosecution’s use of the phrase “behind the dumpster” when describing the location of the alleged rape. Seriously.

Related: Netflix Exec Says They ‘Don’t Believe’ Danny Masterson Rape Accusers

Turner’s lawyers argue the use of the word dumpster “implied moral depravity, callousness and culpability on the appellant’s part because of the inherent connotations of filth, garbage, detritus and criminal activity frequently associated with dumpsters.”

How does he feel about the term “dumpster rapist”? Twitter added a lot more characters since Turner’s last trial, and #BrockTurnerDumpsterRapist has a nice ring to it.

But it was not just the term “dumpster” but also “behind” which they argue “implied an intent on the appellant’s part to shield and sequester his activities.”

Turner’s legal adviser, John Tompkins, explained the defense’s new argument is that Turner wasn’t trying to hide because he didn’t do anything wrong:

“What we are saying is that what happened is not a crime. It happened, but it was not anywhere close to a crime.”

We need a shower just reading this.

[Image via ABC News.]

Dec 4, 2017 8:16pm PDT

Share This

Related Posts

More Like This