The Smiley Smile Message Board

www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/rapist-sentenced-to-five-years-in-sex-assault-at-tulsa/article_fb23ce1e-649c-5345-aa43-3266bcdaab25.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/rapist-sentenced-to-five-years-in-sex-assault-at-tulsa/article_fb23ce1e-649c-5345-aa43-3266bcdaab25.html)

Disgusting
https://youtu.be/Ax0C6rlo-54 (https://youtu.be/Ax0C6rlo-54)

wow

Surprised there has not been more of a reaction to this on smiley, negative or positive.

He's marked for life, whether he gets a modified sentence or not.

Much more to the point, and heartbreakingly so, is that his victim is marked for life.

Concurrent sentences----is that some kind of a sick joke?

The Ole' second chance comes into play. Should we be asking ourselves this question?  Time stands still, second chance , is it a win?  The lady doesn't get a second chance.  Guess here lies the problem.

Fourteen months for rape?! That's ridiculous.
I would almost put rape right up there with murder. The rapist is taking away the victim's life, in a sense. I don't care if he always seemed like a "good guy." He did a horrible thing.

This is probably going to stir up some angry posts, but I'll say it anyway. Keep in mind that I haven't seen the security footage. Supposedly Scott was extremely drunk at the time of the rape. Hypothetically, can we forever condemn a man for his actions during what may have been a "blackout drunk"? Something that he would have absolutely no memory of, and something that he wouldn't have done in a million years, had he been "mentally conscious"(hypothetically speaking)? I don't deny that it was rape, and the girl in question is definitely scarred for life. But can we give up on him as a low down, evil rapist and preditor?

100％ Agreed. I think, after he finished the sentence he deserved, he should be forgiven socially. He can't really be blamed for what he's done after that, because that'll make it hard for him to live. That situation would possibly lead him to committing another crime or suicide or something harmful to the society.

I'm a believer of human rights. Thus, I believe that those who once infringed other's human rights should be given rights as equally as those who doesn't commit crime after he's done with punishment. It'd be another story for serial or cruel murderers, though.

Many people get "extremely drunk" yet they've got brains & self-control to not do it. Let's not talk some rubbish & make excuses. It's very easy to analyze this situation like that, sitting in safety in nice chairs. I think you 2 missed what Amy B. said - Scott didn't serve his sentence fully - whish is short anyway - & now he's free after "good behavior" (btw, I gathered the crime law system is much severe in the U.S., didn't know there's such thing as "good behavior" too). That's what she found very unfair. There's some truth to what Watamushi said though, about giving back the rights or they'd do sth. bad again but it doesn't apply to Scott's case (see the Amy bit).

Your line of argument is that this could have happened to anyone... That any man who gets extremely drunk could be excused for committing rape, that any man (or woman) is capable of rape if extremely drunk. Is that really true? I've heard the argument that what alcohol really does is to reveal a person's basest personality. My mother was an alcoholic. When she was drunk, she was verbally abusive to me. She was a different person when sober. Did I think the abuse was the alcohol talking, or her talking? It was her. It was her issues coming out into the forefront. If someone committed murder while drunk, they still committed murder, didn't they?

I do believe in human rights, but what about the victim's right not to be violated? And why is it that armed robbers and drug dealers (and drug users, even) get years in prison, while a rapist can get out after 14 months?

I don't even know what the answer is. And I get that ideally, he needs to be rehabilitated and able to rejoin society. But I know that if Scott were re-hired to Brian's band, I would have a serious problem with it. You can't just do what he did, spend 14 months in prison, and be right back where you were. Maybe he shouldn't go on the road, with all the temptations out there. I just don't know. At the very least, he needs to go to counseling, if he hasn't already. A rapist (even a drunk one) has issues with control, to say the least.

Well said. 

I have to say that it would take a lot for me to defiantly say "I won't pay money to see Artist X because of......" whatever, but if (and I really don't believe it would ever happen), Scott were to be welcomed back into Brian's band, I'd probably not be buying any tickets to further shows. 

Yes, I said basically the same thing, just worded differently but Amy B. added some points.

Yeah, we're all in agreement. 

I don't care how drunk he was.  I've been blackout drunk (although I haven't had a drop of drink now in 3 years ) and have consumed a vast array of chemicals at various times in my life, and NOT ONCE would I have ever done something like this.

That's all I'm going to say.

I'm not saying anything remotely close to any of what you said. The hypothetical question is, can you forever condemn a person for the rest of their life for something that they do in a "blackout"(i.e. in such a condition where they wake up and have no idea what just happened). I don't deny that there was a rape. I just think it's an interesting question. If somebody is in an unconscious state, and may possibly have no control of what they are doing, can we forever think of said person as an evil bastard?

The whole point of being in a blackout is being in such a state that once you wake up, you have no idea what has happened. I think it's hard for somebody to say they would *never* do something in a black out. I'll give you an example. Ozzy Osbourne literally tried to murder his wife in a blackout. He grabbed her by the throat and wouldn't let go. He said woke up in jail. Yet, millions of people love him and almost look at him as a God who invented heavy metal.

Glad to see this. A while back I claimed that mental illness and alcoholism can lead to some fu**ed up sh*t. I said something along the lines of imagining the possibility that brian could even have done something like this and everyone flipped out. This is a better way of wording my point. It's horrible, but don't condemn the person for life.

Just to reiterate: i don't believe he ever had, I just point to him as a person with mental issues who could hypothetically be in a situation like this

I remember that incident well. I understood your point. Hell, Brian tried to give his Damn daughter heroin. It's not quite the same thing, but it's an example of somebody becoming a total polar opposite of themselves when in an altered state.

I believe in rehabilitating prisoners rather than simply punishing them, but this line of reasoning is ridiculous and runs dangerously close to rationalizing/justifying rape. Bennett is not the victim here in any way, shape, or form, and what he did is absolutely disgusting beyond words, no matter how drunk or otherwise intoxicated he was. He is responsible for his actions, yet he’s being let off with a minimal sentence for destroying a young woman’s life.

To bring others like Brian into it and speculate about what they could have done in a similar situation is just insane and disgusting. Sort of like tacitly saying “we could all be rapists if we were high/drunk enough...” What is the point of these statements other than to justify S.B.’s rape of an unconscious woman?

Somehow missed this. Not surprised he's getting released early. Rape is not treated seriously in this country.

This apparently occurred a little over a month ago for anyone curious. Bennett apparently settled the civil lawsuit:

https://patch.com/oklahoma/tulsa/musician-who-raped-woman-tulsa-hotel-hallway-settles-suit

He raped a woman. Throughout history men have raped and abused women with pretty much impunity. It is time that men are educated about our responsibilities. It falls entirely on men to not rape, and not to shift blame on the victim or vague excuses such as "drunk" or "drugged" or "Im a moron and can't help it".

This disgusting piece of sh*t and everyone like him must learn this.

Balls!!! Impunity?  He went to jail.  He's paid his debt.  He's settled with the victim.  "Impunity".  What fucking twaddle!!!  His reputation?  All but shot to smithereens.

Meanwhile walk on El Perfecto.  This kinda shyte could get you positioned to become the next 'Treasonous Trump' Supreme Court 'pick'.

He might have served his legal sentence but his social punishment should be for life, just as he marked his victim for life. He is a rapist and a piece of sh*t. If you disagree with this you have a total lack of empathy for his victim, pal.

B b b b but he is still paying...and will for the rest of his life.  He was blinded by the situation he found himself in.  As was the victim herself.  Sorry "pal" but she bears some responsibility for getting so effin' 'pisssssssssssed' that she relinquished her ability to even begin to fend for herself.  No two ways about it.  He was totally wrong and will have to live with being ostracized for it for the rest of his life.  She, on the other hand, should be forgiven for being so gawd-dammed stupid.  What happened to her?  She'll never be able to recall it..not one iota of it.  So?  She will have learned nothing.  ??? 

My goodness, Lee Marshall.  I agree that it is advisable that we all avoid imbibing excessive amounts of  alcohol and other drugs for our own sakes, as that leaves us less able to protect ourselves. That is a far cry, however, from saying that the victim of a sexual assault  shares responsibility with a rapist for his choice to violate her. This man aggressed on her. If someone forgets to lock their car door does that make a carjacker less culpable?

Agree...her lack of restraint and ability to maintain a level of awareness for her own safety in no way makes Scott less culpable.  At no time did I suggest that he should have received less in terms of his punishment.  She DID NOT 'get what she deserved'.  She was though not able to put up any resistance or a line of defense due to her own stupidity.  I'd bet she no longer gets anywhere near as loaded as she used to.  And if she does?  Well...we may read her name in print yet again.

Sometimes, although not 50/50, people have to share the blame.

Not even 99/1%. This kind of thinking is just what is used by predators to help justify their behavior. "Oooh, she dressed like this or that, is in a vulnerable state, etc., so it's OK to do XYZ!" She was 100% for engaging in risky behavior, that is an issue of self-protection between herself and herself. He is 100% responsible for aggressing on another human being. Huge difference.

Thank you. I do not care how messed up you are there is no excuse. Someone close to me was raped and it took her a long time to move past it. She had been partying pretty hard that night and the guy who did it was her ride home, her so called designated driver.

Neither one of you 'get' what I'm saying.  He was guilty and found so.  With that I agree 100%.  The fact that she was defenseless did not give him license to do what he did.  It was not an invitation.  It was not a reason for him to violate her.  The fact that she was in THAT condition, though, was HER fault.  She left herself totally vulnerable.  For that she HAS to take some responsibility.  There are,after all, consequences for actions...in REAL time.

That's horrible

I got what you said, Add Some. :3d You said the right thing. She shouldn't've got too tipsy if, clearly, she must be aware that when she drinks too much she doesn't think clearly. F.ex. some drink much & still stay with clear thinking. She doesn't. Which means she should've drink little.

Frankly, drinking is evil. Quit drinking, folks. It doesn't bring anything good. As strict teetotaler, I don't see the point in drinking. Even so-called social drinking. Not to mention it's got terrible taste going by the sharp fragrance. Hate it. I don't buy into its effect to lift the mood either. You, drinkers, delusioned by this myth. It, conversely, makes matters worse.

In moderation, and if done responsibly, there's nothing wrong with enjoying a drink or two.   

I disagree. Answer in Movies.

I can't say I agree with this element of your discussion, Lee.

The fact is is that, for some, getting blitzed out beyond self-control is a very pleasurable experience. If someone wants that experience, it shouldn't be considered as a "fault". In a decent society, one should be able to get into those particular states of intoxication without the fear that they are going to possibly going to come under physical attack when they are there. It isn't too far from basic civility to operate under the belief that when one is slightly or even fully incapacitated that we don't abuse them, regardless of whether they made the perfectly reasonable choice to become that intoxicated or whether they didn't.

"Ah, but human nature," one might respond. We can't rely on the decency of humans and therefore other people's lack of a moral compass should therefore restrict our own actions. That is, the people who lack basic decency should get to decide for us how we treat our own bodies. Well, even if you put aside the fact that the very premise is obscene, I would also reply that what we call "human nature" is in reality something that is not set in stone. Human behaviour can change. Therefore, surely, if we are going to push for change, it should not be to talk people out of perfectly normal and reasonable behaviour - that is, going out and getting intoxicated beyond self-control - but instead work to convince more and more people that when people are engaging in that perfectly normal and reasonable behaviour that we don't abuse them.

What? It's perfectly reasonable & normal behavior to get intoxicated? Since when? & I very much disagree when you say that for some, it's pleasurable experience to get intoxicated. It's, once again, illusion. But when they get out of it, it leads to bad things. You can't go against this fact. Then, why should people get pleasurable experience? Is living about pleasures? Since when? Plus, there's many nice safe joys to enjoy instead op being tipsy & such.

Yes.


This has always been the case.


Neither you nor I get to define what is a pleasurable experience for others nor how they choose to live their lives. Just as no one has the right to come along and denigrate or restrict your tea-totaling, no one has the right to denigrate or restrict people who choose to become extremely intoxicated.

There was a time in my 20s, when I used to take great pleasure in getting together with my buddies, getting extremely intoxicated, and having some laughs.   Nobody did anything foolish or reckless.   Other than some bad hangovers, nobody got hurt.   And we're all still alive and well to tell the tale. 

Of course, now, I just prefer to catch a nice little buzz to relax.   But, I have zero regrets about those times from my 20s.   

Sounds perfectly reasonable and normal to me!  :)

Also, I should say that myself I very rarely drink and when I do it's almost never to the point of intoxication. However, I would never think to impose my own lifestyle choices on others. Just as when it irks me when people, say, want to impose their eating habits and workout regimes on others because they believe it to be a superior lifestyle choice. I don't eat beef or pork and I try to work out when I can but I make it a point never to criticize others who are not living the same lifestyle that I am. As far as political systems go, that's another matter...  :-D

I didn't say anything about superior lifestyle & deciding what the others live like. Not sure where you read it. Merely gave advice in 1st post. The way you stated point-blank it's normal & reasonable behavior to get intoxicated sounds like you stated it as fact. Which is not. It's your opinion. Some people may disagree with it.

It's not an opinion. It is a fact. And, yes, some people do disagree with facts but, to be honest, I have no patience for that.

Interesting. Care to bring sources where it's presented as fact?

That's an extraordinarily bizarre request. Would I need sources to suggest that it is a fact that it is perfectly normal and reasonable to not drink?

We don't need to (nor could we) run experiments to decide what is factually reasonable. Rather, we use reason to decide whether something is true or false.

I figured that when you said repeatedly it's fact, you based it on some scientific researches, to be frank.

So, do you actually say that it's perfectly reasonable & normal to both drink & not drink? Is it right conclusion?

Yes. Human freedom is reasonable, and human freedom means self-ownership. Therefore when someone is using their freedom to carry out any action that doesn't take away another person's same right to freedom, they are engaging reasonably.

Thanks, I'll take that answer. For the record, I didn't think it's right to bring excuses to Scott's behavior as to why he did what he did etc. Me & Emily discussed it via messages (I've got habit to talk with posters via messages, to ask question about sth. that doesn't make sense or am curious about, discuss serious/ not really issues etc).

No, I know - I didn't think you were making excuses for him.

I don't think many people regard "getting blitzed out beyond self-control" as reasonable behavior. In this context, they'd understand it to be inappropriate, excessive behavior (even if they enjoyed it).

There is probably a distinction to be made between reasonable and understandable. It is understandable why someone might get drunk: relieve social anxiety, relieve stress, self medicating, or even give oneself permission to behave in a certain way. But it isn’t really reasonable, in that the potential or likely (depending on how often and to what degree you do it) consequences by most accounts outweigh the benefits.

I say this as a pretty regular drinker. But ask someone whose liver is failing or who faces serious prison time after multiple DUIs whether the drinking was reasonable.

Well, a DUI is a different issue because there a predictable consequence of your actions is that you might hurt someone else. Again, if the result of your action is to deprive (or potentially deprive) others of their freedom and self-ownership, then you must take responsibility for your actions. If the result of your action is that it allows someone else the possibility to deprive you of your freedom and self-ownership, then you bear no responsibility whatsoever, as you are acting the way a human should be acting.

In the case of someone whose liver is failing, I can't fully say their drinking is unreasonable since that's a case of one's personal choice that is specifically affecting them. And here I'm strictly concerned with physical harm.

To answer B.E. - what one considers to be inappropriate or excessive has no bearing, for me, on reasonable behaviour. At one point, it was widely considered inappropriate to engage in a homosexual act but, in my view, it was a reasonable act. So if people do think that, it certainly wouldn't convince me in any way that the action of "getting blitzed out beyond self-control" is unreasonable.

I'm not a goody goody by any means. I smoke enough weed to make Snoop Dogg look like Pat Robertson (although at this point of my life I mainly do it to help with my seizures). That said, alcohol does ruin lives and I have not had so much as a drop of drink in 4 years. My mother basically drank herself to death. My dad quit drinking when I was born; he lived another 23 years but he had cirrhosis and the end of his life was terrible. Seeing him decline like that f***ed me up. Besides dementia and/or Alzheimers, I can't think of a worse way to go.

So yeah, I may be a bit biased but I have my reasons.

CSM, I don’t know if reasonable needs to be linked with consequences to others or only oneself. It seems to me that something could rightly be considered unreasonable if the likely consequences outweigh the benefits, even if only to oneself. Smoking is unreasonable...but you’re welcome to do it (so long as you’re not polluting my air). Ditto excessive drinking, I’d say (said the heavy drinker). I’m not advocating legislation against such behavior, just saying it is properly considered unreasonable.

In my view, if the consequences are that ultimately you have to give up your own free will in order to impose someone else's standard on yourself, then that might be the worst consequence of all - greater, in my view, than any physical damage one could do to oneself.

This does not mean that we should not work to educate others so that they can make informed choices - indeed, we should. But, again, to characterize these decisions as unreasonable seems to me to be missing the point of what it means to be reasonable.

I think alcohol has the ability to ruin lives, as does a lot of things.   

This is turning into a far bigger issue than it needs to be.

We don't know if this victim was an alcoholic, whether she intended to have a family, etc. What we do know is that she went out one night and got intoxicated to the point where she lost self-control and I maintain that that is not an unreasonable thing to do. We are muddying the waters here by discussing the long-term effects of alcohol use and the effects that being an alcoholic can have on those close to you. Do I think that a life-long alcoholic or smoker can still be acting reasonably - yes, I do, but that is unrelated to this discussion. There is nothing in her actions that suggests bearing responsibility whatsoever because it is unreasonable to suggest that she should have curbed her drinking because she was leaving herself open to an attack from another person.

Agreed.   People go out in public and drink, often too excess, quite often.   That shouldn't open them up to what this person went through. 

Oh gee you smoke weed no offense but that is not a drug that is a medicine. You are talking to someone who just relapsed on glass recently no I am not proud of it ( and I am a couple of weeks clean now)but pointing out there are different levels. That is the only think I can say that can make someone do something horrible like what this guy did. Alcohol come on now he would have done something like this regardless. If he was really drunk to the point of not actually being able to control himself from raping someone, he would not have been able to get it up! Not to be too graphic but the term whiskey dick exists for a reason so I do not buy this for A minute. He knew what he was doing period and to put the blame on her angers me

I don’t think anyone is putting the blame on her. I also think there’s nothing wrong with having a more nuanced discussion about these things, even being as sensitive as they are.

I agree that I don't think anyone in this discussion is putting the blame on her. I also agree there's nothing wrong with having a nuanced discussion about the topic.

Was this supposed to be in response to me ? I didn't put any blame on her at all; if anything  I was trying to agree with you....if you look up the original thread on his arrest, we are mostly in agreement.  If I offended you, I apologize.

Never thought I'd see "whisky dick" on this board though ::) I actually had to look that up :lol  Good point on that, although I wish you would've chosen a different way of putting it.

I took Lee's statement "Sometimes, although not 50/50, people have to share the blame" to mean that the victim, well, shared the blame. When I walk in certain neighborhoods in my fine city, I see people who are extremely vulnerable to criminal behavior everywhere. Still, I never consider stealing a woman's last dollar, mounting men for my own gratification, punching anyone out in order to get out my frustrations. If I were to do any of these things, I would hold myself 100% responsible for my actions. It would NEVER occur to me that the poor sick addicts would share in the responsibility for my choice to violate their rights to feel secure in terms of person or property. "Well, he was just lying there and the money was hanging out of his pocket, so..."

As for the drinking issue, I am always amazed at how people across cultures seem to not view alcohol as the drug it is. It never ceases to amaze me when I read studies calling pot "the gateway drug" for addicts. Right. I've actually never met an addict (and I've known more than a few, worked in a rehab center) who did not have their first sips of booze well before their first tokes of Mary Jane. And I've seen many, many more lives destroyed  by alcohol addiction than addiction to any other substance. I've accompanied people to AA meetings when NA meetings were not available, always sharing the caveat that one should never admit to being addicted to something other than booze because the reaction is swift and sure - the dignity of the other attendees is shored up by the belief that they are not like THEM. Sure, I'll have one mixed drink when out to dinner, but despise drunkenness. I wish that this woman was not drunk, for her own sake. But she shares no blame for someone raping her.

If your singular definition of reasonable behavior is any action that does not deprive (or potentially deprive) others of their freedom and self-ownership, then it's going to be met with some confusion. Beyond that, I agree with everyone who is expressing that the victim does not share any of the blame for Scott's criminal actions.

2B.E. - good to see I'm not single poster confused by that definition/ statement.

Re: detailed discussion - maybe it's me being old-fashioned but frankly, things like wrinkly turkey neck don't bring anything to discussion. There's literally zero to gain in the topic at hand by discussing these issues.

Wrinkly ;D turkey neck? Does that mean what I think it means? :)

There's an important component you're missing - reasonable behaviour is primarily when one has control over their own decisions.

This is far from my "singular definition" - this is one of the primary tenets of Western philosophy, borne out of the Age of Reason.

2Buckethead: Well, I can't know what you think it means. It's in reply to ChewBecca. Euphemism to chap's organ. It's boring to discuss such things, even if it's tangentially, distantly maybe related to the subject we discuss. It's not big deal in the grand scheme.

Oh, that's what I thought you meant. On that note, I must go to bed and try not to ponder further.

I think what she was trying to say was that if he had drank enough not to know what he was doing, he wouldn’t be able to get an erection in the first place, so basically he wasn’t impaired enough.

2Billy: As I said, to discuss body bits in details like presented in ChewBecca's post isn't significant. There's time & place to get bluntly detailed but not here imo. Besides, didn't Scott not do technically the intercourse? IIRC, it's sth. else. Then effects of tipsy state to body wouldn't be relevant. The type of rape he did didn't include the "fudging".

Oh yeah no doubt. I was just trying to make sense of that post.

As far as we know,  this was Scott's first offense. Which means there is hope that he has learned from his mistake. Perhaps it will keep him away from alcohol,  knowing what he is capable of. I think there is a big difference between a serial rapist, and someone who got drunk and couldn't control themselves. I agree, the harm on the victim is the same. But the question is if Scott should be considered dangerous after serving a year in prison? I know most of us, if we did something stupid that we had never done before, and spent a year in prison, it would scare us straight! Weather that means stop drinking, or get counsiling for sex addiction or whatever. A serial rapist on the other hand, is someone who has done it many times over and were perfectly sober for doing so. Some may say that Scott may have done it other times. But our justice system protects innocence until proven guilty.  Thus, as far as the law is concerned,  he did this once, whole intoxicated. Each and every one of us have evil base desires that we have self control over. Which is why getting drunk or abusing drugs can be dangerous to ourselves and others. Therefore, if something has not been determined as a person's regular behavior,  I believe they deserve a second chance.

He did not rape because of alcohol. He raped because he views women as inferior and he wanted to exact and enjoy having power over that woman. The alcohol was a catalyst, not a cause.

Hmm.

.