Note to Donald J. Trump: Stop playing the victim

Posted on October 20, 2016October 20, 2016 by alexb2448

This vintage typwriter is our featured image.

Sexual violence: term used to describe “a specific constellation of crimes including sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape.” — National Institute of Justice

It is something countless Americans endure each year.

I say “countless Americans” because the experience is not unique to women. Men are targeted, too.

Founder/owner of In Brief Legal Writing Services, Alexandra Bogdanovic. Photo by N. Bogdanovic

In a recent media fact sheet, the National Sexual Violence Resource Center cited a survey in which nearly half the number of women who self-identified as lesbians and half the number of women who self-identified as heterosexual “reported sexual violence other than rape during their lifetimes.” Nearly 75 percent of women who self-identified as bisexual reported the same.

In the same survey, roughly 40 percent of men who self-identified as gay, nearly 50 percent who self-identified as bisexual and approximately 20 percent of those who self-identified as heterosexual said they too experienced sexual violence other than rape.

Another report cited in the same fact sheet indicates that “one in five women and one in 71 men will be raped at some point in their lives.”

And then there are the most heartbreaking statistics of all — those pertaining to the American children preyed upon by sexual predators each year. According to one estimate, one in four girls and one in every six boys will be “sexually abused before they turn 18 years old.”

These are the victims.

U.S. presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, who was caught on tape bragging about and making light of behavior that can definitely be characterized as sexual violence, is decidedly not a victim of anything.

Oh, he says he is. After the 2005 tape in which he bragged about and made light of behavior that could definitely be characterized as sexual violence became public, several women accused him of sexual assault. And he’s been whining and crying about it for days. To hear him tell it, he’s a victim of a media conspiracy, a victim of character assassination, a victim of a slur campaign… and on, and on, and on.

Perhaps his accusers are lying. Or exaggerating. Or perhaps not. Perhaps it is a political ploy dreamed up by the Clinton camp and the mainstream media. Or perhaps not. That all remains to be seen.

Hey Donald, There Is No Excuse

What is indisputable is that Donald J. Trump’s “locker room talk” (his words, not mine) was disgusting, reprehensible, vile, inexcusable and indefensible.

In fairness, the Clintons’ conduct (actual and alleged) is also vile, inexcusable and indefensible. But that’s another subject for another blog. For now I’m sticking to the topic at hand.

That Melania Trump said her husband was “egged on” would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic. To hear Donald J. Trump tell it, he’s a big, tough businessman who doesn’t take c–p from anyone. He does what he wants, when he wants. No one can intimidate him, and so on and so forth…

But we’re supposed to believe that he only engaged in this “locker room talk” because someone (presumably Billy Bush) pressured him into it? Or because he wanted to be accepted? Or because he wanted to be one of the guys? Come, come now. What a load of garbage. It’s the kind of lame, pitiful, excuse you’d expect from a teenager. As far as I know, Mr. Trump was an adult back in 2005.

Today he is an adult who wants to become president. So my question is this: Should someone who could be so easily influenced and use such poor judgment become the leader of the free world?

Donald J. Trump had an opportunity to exercise true leadership and strength of character 11 years ago. Instead of going along with the “boy talk,” as Melania Trump claims, he had the chance to say, “Hey, man. You know what — that really isn’t cool. Women should be treated with respect. You wouldn’t want someone talking about your mom or sister, or daughter or girlfriend that way. Knock it off…”

But he didn’t.

Don’t you dare feel sorry for Brock Turner

Posted on June 10, 2016June 12, 2016 by alexb2448

To hear his daddy tell it, Brock Turner — the convicted sex offender and former Stanford University student — is actually a golden boy who doesn’t deserve much more than a slap on the wrist for the crime he committed.

Apparently the judge agrees with him.

In March, Brock Turner was convicted of three felony charges: assault with intent to rape an intoxicated/unconscious person; penetration of an intoxicated person; and penetration of an unconscious person. The charges stemmed from a January 2015 incident in which Brock Turner, 20, took advantage of a helpless young woman on campus.

The California Penal Code is very specific about the punishment upon conviction for these crimes.

First there’s Section 289 subdivision (d) which states: “Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.”

Under the law, a victim who is “unconscious of the nature of the act” is one who can’t fight back because he or she was “unconscious or asleep” or because he or she is not “aware, knowing, perceiving or cognizant that the act occurred.”

Then there’s Section 220. subdivision (a) (1), which states: “Except as provided in subdivision (b), any person who assaults another with intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or any violation of Section 264.1, 288, or 289 shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.”

At any rate, you can do the math. And then ask yourself why Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky couldn’t seem to do the same. Or why he didn’t want to.

Last week he sentenced the former Stanford University swimmer to just six months incarceration and three years probation.

Boo Hoo

Even so, Brock Turner appears to be feeling pretty sorry for himself, according to a recent article in The New York Times that included a copy of his letter to Perksy and a link to his father’s controversial statement.

“The night of January 17th changed my life and the lives of everyone involved forever,” Brock Turner says in his statement. “I can never go back to being the person I was before that day. I am no longer a swimmer, a student, a resident of California, or the product of the work that I put in to accomplish the goals that I set out in the first nineteen years of my life.”

Although he acknowledges and says he regrets that he also caused the victim “emotional and physical stress that is completely unwarranted and unfair,” most of the emphasis in Brock Turner’s statement is on himself and how he has been affected.

“I’ve lost two jobs solely based on the reporting of my case,” he says. “I wish I never was good at swimming or had the opportunity to attend Stanford, so maybe the newspapers would want to write stories about me.”

He goes on to beg the judge to give him only probation, saying that wants to be a positive influence on young people and that he’s already paid a steep price for his actions.

“I’ve been shattered by the party culture and risk taking behavior that I briefly experienced in my four months at school. I’ve lost my chance to swim in the Olympics. I’ve lost my ability to obtain a Stanford degree. I’ve lost employment opportunities, my reputation and most of all, my life,” he says.

The Apple Hasn’t Fallen Far…

That Brock Turner is so selfish, self-absorbed and self-centered can be partially attributed to youth and immaturity. That he seems completely incapable of taking responsibility for his actions is also easily explained — especially when viewed in context of his own father’s statement.

In the written request that his son be placed on probation Dan Turner also indicates that his son has already paid — and will continue to pay dearly — for what he did. Specifically, he bemoans the fact that Brock Turner would have to register as a sex offender and says incarceration would be too a harsh penalty for something that took place in a relatively short period of time when viewed in the context of his entire life.

Well with all due respect, Mr. Turner, the length of time it took your son to assault that young lady has nothing to do with the punishment he deserves. It takes someone a split second to decide to drive after they’ve had too much to drink. And guess what? If they hit and kill or maim someone, they are punished accordingly — even if it’s their first offense and they’ve never been in trouble. It can take years to plan and carry out a homicide. And guess what? If you’re caught and convicted, you’re punished accordingly — even if it’s your first offense and you’ve never been in trouble.

It’s the price we pay for living in a society governed by rule of law. There are always consequences for our actions. We all need to be held fully accountable for our choices.

By the way, my mother taught me that when I was little. Too bad you didn’t teach your son the same thing.

Act would allow critters to comfort kids in court

Posted on March 7, 2016February 26, 2016 by alexb2448

If a proposed amendment currently wending its way through Connecticut’s legislative process doesn’t receive sweeping approval, it will simply reinforce what a lot of us already think about most politicians: that they are heartless (expletives deleted) without an ounce of compassion.

The act in question would “allow the use of therapy animals to provide comfort to children who are testifying in a criminal prosecution” of cases in which they have been assaulted, sexually assaulted or abused. As presented it would apply only to children age 12 and younger.

If the change is actually made, “a volunteer team consisting of a therapy animal and a registered handler” as defined by law will be among the select group of people permitted to remain in the room while the child is testifying. The new rule, which would take effect this October, would also allow the therapy animal and handler to sit near the child as long as they didn’t block the view of the defendant or judge.

To me this is a “no-brainer.” A courtroom can be a big, scary, intimidating place — even for an adult. The possibility of testifying about a traumatic experience can be daunting for adults … just imagine how frightening it is for kids. Honestly. How would you feel if you were just a little kid who had been raped or molested or beaten and then you had to face that person in court?

Now think about how you’d feel if you were a little kid in that situation and you had a therapy animal (most likely a dog) that you really liked and felt safe with close by.

It’s a proven fact that interacting with animals helps people relax. It’s also a proven fact that therapy animals can help children cope with and overcome tremendous obstacles.

I should know. It’s something I’ve witnessed personally while volunteering at therapeutic horseback riding programs in Connecticut and Virginia. Kids who were grumpy when they arrived were happier by the time they left. Kids who had a hard time expressing themselves at home or in school mastered the verbal signals needed to control their ponies.

Of course that’s not to say that therapy horses belong in Connecticut courtrooms. But there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever why dogs and other small therapy animals shouldn’t be allowed to do what they are so adept at — providing love and reassurance when it’s needed most.

The Peyton Manning case: Will another idol fall?

Posted on February 24, 2016February 17, 2016 by alexb2448

Peyton Manning sure has been getting a lot of “exposure” lately.

First, allegations surfaced about some HGH being sent to his wife back in 2011. Then Manning defied the odds and led the Denver Broncos to the Super Bowl title. Now some disturbing information about an incident that occurred when he was a student-athlete at the University of Tennessee has come to light — again.

By now I’m sure you’ve heard all the sordid details, so I’ll keep this brief. According to numerous media reports, Manning’s name came up in a recent lawsuit filed against the university claiming that it mishandled sexual assault complaints involving student-athletes. Although the suit brought by five women pertains mainly to incidents that occurred between 2013 and 2015, it also alludes to prior episodes, presumably to show a pattern of behavior or conduct.

As a student athlete at the university in the late 1990s, Manning reportedly exposed his backside to a female trainer who was treating him at the time. That resulted in the trainer filing a sexual assault complaint against him.

The matter was settled fairly quickly — but the trainer sued the quarterback after information about the event appeared in a book called Manning. That suit was also settled.

Now renewed publicity brings new questions. There has been much talk about if or how this will affect Manning’s legacy. Will one of the NFL’s superstars — who also happens to be a stellar salesman, weather the storm? Will he retain his credibility? Or will another idol fall?

To me there is a far more important question. Why do we put these athletes on pedestals in the first place? Think about it. From the second a little boy or girl shows that they may be athletically gifted, their parents, teachers, coaches, and peers treat them differently. The older they get, the more special attention they receive. Why? What is it about someone who can throw a football, kick a soccer ball, hit a baseball, shoot a basketball or a hockey puck that makes them so special? Why do we care?

And why are we so surprised when they act out? Or when they think they deserve special treatment? Or when they develop entitlement issues? Or when they think they can get away with anything? Or when they do get away with so much reprehensible behavior on and off the field? Or when they refuse to be held accountable for their actions?

Sure the athletes who reach the top of their respective games put in a tremendous amount of hard work and sacrifice a lot to get there. Sure they put themselves at risk in order to entertain the masses. Sure they provide a welcome distraction from the daily grind. And for all of that, they should be admired — but not idolized.

As Charles Barkley once said, “I am not a role model.”

Neither is Peyton Manning.