Dad defends son(convicted rapist); "it was only 20 minutes of action"

[naruball]

Wyrdness said:

naruball said:

Not comparable, I'm afraid.

Brock Turner pleaded not guilty, i.e. claimed that he never raped her. The father couldn't call it as something regrettable as that would destroy his son's chance at winning the case. He referred to it with the vaguest words he thought he could use, i.e. 20 minutes of action. For all we know, he believed his son's words, that she gave concent several times and thus was not a rape. Being so biased, he probably saw his son as incapable of doing of what he was being accused, hence his choice of words. At least that's my interpretation of what he said. For all I know he could be the devil. Since I don't know, I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

That makes little sense tbh as the most common reaction seen from defensive parents is vehement denials that their kid has commited a wrongful act if they truly believe them, the way this statement is worded comes across as if he is trying to downplay the crime in the event his son is found guilty. Even for a person with bias his statement comes across as callous to the whole situation and it's nature and can in fact hurt his son's defence even more, 20 minutes is also a long time to be subject to any wrongful act.

That's not even an argument. Just because it's the most common reaction, it doesn't mean it's the only possible reaction.

It may not have been 20 minutes. He was clearly contrasting 20 minutes of something that could ruin his son's life (if perceived by jurors as rape) to his son's age, i.e. 20 years. Also, the way he phrased it works in his son's favour. In all those 20 minutes he dry humped her and inserted his fingers in her, but didn't penetrate her with his penis. He wasn't a sober rapist who took her behind the dumpsters and had sex with her.

Again, not defending the rapist. There were signs of struggle (like bruises) that clearly show there wasn't consent as he claimed.