The Smiley Smile Message Board

Non Smiley Smile Stuff => The Sandbox => Topic started by: Theydon Bois on May 07, 2016, 10:18:39 AM



Title: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Theydon Bois on May 07, 2016, 10:18:39 AM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html

(Note for posterity: This thread was originally titled "Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett" but was subsequently renamed.  I remain extraordinarily disappointed.)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 07, 2016, 10:26:42 AM
Justice was served and a bad apple is out of the BW band.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on May 07, 2016, 10:29:40 AM
Wow, that's very shocking and sad.  Even if they were both drunk, he should know better. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 07, 2016, 10:32:40 AM
I was going to post a topic about this earlier, but I wasn't sure whether this kind of territory is off limits or not. Hopefully this topic can stay and the conversation remain in the realm of rational thought.

But this is absolutely devastating. It's also tarnished That Lucky Old Sun quite a bit for me, of which I always thought he did an amazing job as a co-writer. Shockingly disappointing from someone who should have known better. The fact that he did this during one of Brian's tours makes my skin crawl.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Mendota Heights on May 07, 2016, 10:34:46 AM
I can't believe this happened. I am shocked. Scott took this poor woman somewhere quiet.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 07, 2016, 10:35:37 AM
Yeah this is shocking as hell...


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 10:36:21 AM
I'm very unhappy this happened and very unhappy that BW's name is linked to it in the headline.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 10:39:50 AM
I know attorneys have to do what they have to do, but given the description of the video, a retrial sounds like a pointless effort. Horrible.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 07, 2016, 10:39:58 AM
It's extremely disheartening that this was happening on Brian's tour, in the same building the band members were presumably staying in! Ugh..


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: rab2591 on May 07, 2016, 10:40:35 AM
Very very sad indeed. Reminds me of the Cosby allegations in a way - where someone you kinda admire stoops to a pretty sick level. I'm hoping in time this won't tarnish my enjoyment of TLOS...I think right now this is definitely a dark cloud over that solo music. What a shame.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: pixletwin on May 07, 2016, 10:42:17 AM
Wow. Very sad indeed.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on May 07, 2016, 10:42:50 AM
I was going to post a topic about this earlier, but I wasn't sure whether this kind of territory is off limits or not. Hopefully this topic can stay and the conversation remain in the realm of rational thought.

But this is absolutely devastating. It's also tarnished That Lucky Old Sun quite a bit for me, of which I always thought he did an amazing job as a co-writer. Shockingly disappointing from someone who should have known better. The fact that he did this during one of Brian's tours makes my skin crawl.

Agreed.  It's going to be hard to listen to anything he co-wrote with Brian without thinking of this.  At least for a while anyway.  I was really hoping they'd do another album together, as I think he's much better than Joe Thomas.  Just really disappointing news.  :-[


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 07, 2016, 10:45:14 AM
I was actually getting ready to download the Lucky Old Sun demos when I came across the news. I'm not sure i'll actually be able to listen to them now, considering his level of involvement in the project. What an absolute waste of a great musicians talents.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 07, 2016, 10:45:39 AM
Shocking, sad, disappointing, cruel, wrong...Everybody loses...no exceptions.  This is just horrible news.  ESPECIALLY for the victim.  Let's NOT forget about the victim.

Booze...in the long run?  It's NO one's friend.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on May 07, 2016, 10:45:50 AM
It's extremely disheartening that this was happening on Brian's tour, in the same building the band members were presumably staying in! Ugh..

I would think they knew about this.  Before the Pet Sounds Tour began, they announced Billy Hinsche would be part of the tour in some way.  I guess now we know why.  


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 07, 2016, 10:51:03 AM
Shocking, sad, disappointing, cruel, wrong...Everybody loses...no exceptions.  This is just horrible news.  ESPECIALLY for the victim.  Let's NOT forget about the victim.

Booze...in the long run?  It's NO one's friend.

Booze is no excuse really. Alcohol can make people do ridiculous things, but there's absolutely NO EXCUSING something so twisted as this is.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: GoodVibrations33 on May 07, 2016, 10:53:37 AM
It's extremely disheartening that this was happening on Brian's tour, in the same building the band members were presumably staying in! Ugh..

I would think they knew about this.  Before the Pet Sounds Tour began, they announced Billy Hinsche would be part of the tour in some way.  I guess now we know why.  

And apparently he was arrested on the same day as the incident, December 5, 2014.  Can't believe this news hasn't hit the board (and the mainstream public) before this, especially in this day and age.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: rab2591 on May 07, 2016, 10:55:03 AM
I was going to post a topic about this earlier, but I wasn't sure whether this kind of territory is off limits or not. Hopefully this topic can stay and the conversation remain in the realm of rational thought.

But this is absolutely devastating. It's also tarnished That Lucky Old Sun quite a bit for me, of which I always thought he did an amazing job as a co-writer. Shockingly disappointing from someone who should have known better. The fact that he did this during one of Brian's tours makes my skin crawl.

Agreed.  It's going to be hard to listen to anything he co-wrote with Brian without thinking of this.  At least for a while anyway.  I was really hoping they'd do another album together, as I think he's much better than Joe Thomas.  Just really disappointing news.  :-[

I was really hoping that too. An album of songs along the lines of 'One Kind Of Love' would've been a classic. Scott's lyrics were always a perfect match with Brian's musical input, such a damn shame this happened. I think over time the sting of this incident will lessen, and the music will be enjoyable again, but it'll take a lot of time for sure.

@Add Some, most definitely. Thoughts and prayers go out to the victim in this.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 07, 2016, 10:57:37 AM
Shocking, sad, disappointing, cruel, wrong...Everybody loses...no exceptions.  This is just horrible news.  ESPECIALLY for the victim.  Let's NOT forget about the victim.

Booze...in the long run?  It's NO one's friend.

Booze is no excuse really. Alcohol can make people do ridiculous things, but there's absolutely NO EXCUSING something so twisted as this is.

Ahhh...but it IS.  The victim was sloshed.  No excuse BUT she wasn't able to lookout for her own well being.  If she'd been sober this likely wouldn't have happened because she wouldn't have let it.  Not her fault.  Just a fact.  Perhaps Scott might have thought twice too.  We'll never know.  But to let booze off as if it played no part in this is what?  Way too politically correct for me.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 11:03:28 AM
Shocking, sad, disappointing, cruel, wrong...Everybody loses...no exceptions.  This is just horrible news.  ESPECIALLY for the victim.  Let's NOT forget about the victim.

Booze...in the long run?  It's NO one's friend.

Booze is no excuse really. Alcohol can make people do ridiculous things, but there's absolutely NO EXCUSING something so twisted as this is.
I think Add Some was referring to her drinking, not his. It is awful, but true, that it's unsafe to be vulnerable. Frankly, drunk women are frequent targets of predators and it's enraging to live your life feeling that you are to expect assault if you let your guard down and if it happens, some people will blame you for drinking as much as they will blame the predator for the assault. But Add Some is right that that's the world we live in.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: rab2591 on May 07, 2016, 11:06:42 AM
Shocking, sad, disappointing, cruel, wrong...Everybody loses...no exceptions.  This is just horrible news.  ESPECIALLY for the victim.  Let's NOT forget about the victim.

Booze...in the long run?  It's NO one's friend.

Booze is no excuse really. Alcohol can make people do ridiculous things, but there's absolutely NO EXCUSING something so twisted as this is.

Ahhh...but it IS.  The victim was sloshed.  No excuse BUT she wasn't able to lookout for her own well being.  If she'd been sober this likely wouldn't have happened because she wouldn't have let it.  Not her fault.  Just a fact.  Perhaps Scott might have thought twice too.  We'll never know.  But to let booze off as if it played no part in this is what?  Way too politically correct for me.

I think you're both right in this case. Yes, had she not been drinking this may not have taken place, so alcohol did play a factor in that. However, every human being has the absolute right to enjoy their evening drinking alcohol without being preyed upon and taken advantage of. Alcohol can lead to disastrous situations, but I fully agree with SamMcK that it should not be an excuse for what Scott did.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 07, 2016, 11:07:58 AM
Shocking, sad, disappointing, cruel, wrong...Everybody loses...no exceptions.  This is just horrible news.  ESPECIALLY for the victim.  Let's NOT forget about the victim.

Booze...in the long run?  It's NO one's friend.

Booze is no excuse really. Alcohol can make people do ridiculous things, but there's absolutely NO EXCUSING something so twisted as this is.

Ahhh...but it IS.  The victim was sloshed.  No excuse BUT she wasn't able to lookout for her own well being.  If she'd been sober this likely wouldn't have happened because she wouldn't have let it.  Not her fault.  Just a fact.  Perhaps Scott might have thought twice too.  We'll never know.  But to let booze off as if it played no part in this is what?  Way too politically correct for me.

Excuse me, as Emily said. I think I read your post wrong.

But the worrying thing for me is that the victim stated having no memory of Scott all the night before. So it's pretty heinous of him to take advantage considering the state she was presumably in. Particularly in such a horrific and tacky manner.

I mean, this is pretty damning:

The video ends with the man leaving the woman in a seventh-floor hallway ‘like a sack of trash’, Singer said.
“It is clear from watching the video that the victim is extreamly (sic) intoxicated and is unaware of her surroundings,” a Catoosa police officer wrote in the affidavit. “The subject however appears to be in complete control of his faculties.”
The woman told police the following morning that she didn’t remember anything and that she didn’t recall interacting with Bennett.

Unfortunately The Daily Mail has written an article around this, and YES, Brian's name is linked to it.. :-\


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 07, 2016, 11:12:24 AM
Okay, i'm not going to link to that vile website, but this makes me VERY angry to see Brian's name and picture used like this:

(http://s32.postimg.org/pncevzy2t/Screen_Shot_2016_05_07_at_19_11_01.png)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: pixletwin on May 07, 2016, 11:21:36 AM
I wonder how this is going to effect Brian's projects.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 11:26:35 AM
I doubt that it will affect Brian Wilson's reputation. But it might have an effect on his frame of mind. Of course he must have known about this for at least a year or so. I've googled the heck out of it and can find no press mentions until just now. Kind of strange.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: wantsomecorn on May 07, 2016, 11:31:09 AM
Damn, I am absolutely in shock over this.



Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: seltaeb1012002 on May 07, 2016, 11:31:41 AM
Damn. Had he been touring with BW this year?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 07, 2016, 11:36:59 AM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Jay on May 07, 2016, 11:38:17 AM
I wonder if he's done this before.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: wantsomecorn on May 07, 2016, 11:41:20 AM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?

He was at the October/November tour last year. Looks like the last gig they did before the Pet Sounds shows this year was December 6th, last year.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 07, 2016, 11:42:53 AM
I wonder if he's done this before.
I wonder if he's done this before.

Good question!


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 11:43:57 AM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 07, 2016, 11:47:17 AM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?

He was at the October/November tour last year. Looks like the last gig they did before the Pet Sounds shows this year was December 6th, last year.

He should have been immediately sacked!  They had video of him publically assualting the woman! Somebody may have dropped the ball  in Brian's camp!


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 07, 2016, 11:47:27 AM
As far as anyone outside of the band is aware of, he was just a bit player who just happened to be in his band, nothing more, nothing less. But part of me assumes (hopes) that Brian might not even be aware of the implications of this. Since we know that Brian doesn't really use the internet, they might have decided not to tell him in case of causing him stress, particularly during a heavy touring schedule.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 11:50:07 AM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?

He was at the October/November tour last year. Looks like the last gig they did before the Pet Sounds shows this year was December 6th, last year.

He should have been immediately sacked!  They had video of him publically assualting the woman! Somebody really dropped the ball  in Brian's camp!
I don't think it's a fair assumption that anyone in Brian's camp knew any details before the trial.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 11:51:54 AM
I wonder if he's done this before.
I think it's unlikely that someone starts behaving like this in his 50s.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 07, 2016, 11:54:39 AM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.


Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster_view.php?booking_num=341374

He was booked April 2016 so Brian's probably did not know.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 11:59:44 AM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.

The article said the police found her underwear in his room. So it is obviouss the police acted quite quickly and he was atleast detained at the time. There is a mug shot. No way the band didn't know as he couldn't leave the city.
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.
That was hard to read. They probably knew he was arrested for sexual assault, or even for rape. They probably didn't know the evidence. I don't personally think it's right for employers to terminate someone's employ because they've been arrested. And some states, including California which I assume is where Brian Wilson's business is incorporated, forbid terminations based on an arrest until there's a conviction.
The lack of press probably indicates that the arresting report was not made public. They wouldn't have sent it privately to his employers. That would be illegal.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: feelsflow on May 07, 2016, 12:02:03 PM
I was going to post a topic about this earlier, but I wasn't sure whether this kind of territory is off limits or not. Hopefully this topic can stay and the conversation remain in the realm of rational thought.

But this is absolutely devastating. It's also tarnished That Lucky Old Sun quite a bit for me, of which I always thought he did an amazing job as a co-writer. Shockingly disappointing from someone who should have known better. The fact that he did this during one of Brian's tours makes my skin crawl.

Agreed.  It's going to be hard to listen to anything he co-wrote with Brian without thinking of this.  At least for a while anyway. I was really hoping they'd do another album together, as I think he's much better than Joe Thomas.  Just really disappointing news.  :-[

I was really hoping that too. An album of songs along the lines of 'One Kind Of Love' would've been a classic. Scott's lyrics were always a perfect match with Brian's musical input, such a damn shame this happened. I think over time the sting of this incident will lessen, and the music will be enjoyable again, but it'll take a lot of time for sure.

@Add Some, most definitely. Thoughts and prayers go out to the victim in this.

Nice to see all the concern.  I for one think you, SamMcK, made the right decision not to post this earlier.  If we just had to know, a better place for it, would be in the Sandbox.  Obviously, Mr. Bennett won't be working with Brian anymore, no matter what... No more writing sessions, no more keyboard fills.  Let's leave this kind of news in the past.  Move forward.

...and now for your afternoon listening pleasure, a lovely rendition of "The Candy Man Can"  under construction  


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 07, 2016, 12:02:25 PM
I am in shock...I don't know what to say right now. I mean i let my daughter  near him. Please tell me this is a bad fucking dream


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 12:03:17 PM
I mean i let my daughter  near him.

Ugh. I'm so sorry.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 07, 2016, 12:03:51 PM
Billy.... :(


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 07, 2016, 12:07:06 PM
I mean i let my daughter  near him.

Ugh. I'm so sorry.
He was booked April 2016

 http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster_view.php?booking_num=341374


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 12:11:56 PM
I mean i let my daughter  near him.

Ugh. I'm so sorry.
He was booked April 2016

 http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster_view.php?booking_num=341374
I saw that. I'm assuming that was when he was booked into the local jail for the trial; not when he was arrested. There's no way it would've gone to trial that soon after an arrest.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: feelsflow on May 07, 2016, 12:12:02 PM
I doubt that it will affect Brian Wilson's reputation. But it might have an effect on his frame of mind. Of course he must have known about this for at least a year or so. I've googled the heck out of it and can find no press mentions until just now. Kind of strange.

Not that strange Emily.  Some people go looking for just this kind of exclusive, you got from me first, crap.

I listen to TLOS at least every couple of weeks, watch the DVD often.  Won't change any of that for me.  Life gets in the way sometimes.  Do you stop playing some ones music when they die?

No, it's Saturday, my get drunk day of the week.  I will be listening to Brian and Scott tonight.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Jay on May 07, 2016, 12:12:24 PM
The incident took place in 2014, but he wasn't booked until 2016?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: GhostyTMRS on May 07, 2016, 12:17:33 PM
This in indeed appalling and shocking news. It just goes to show that you can never know someone. I don't fault Brian and Melinda for keeping him on as long as they did. I'm sure he gave them a BS story and they had to take his word for it (in good faith) before the trial results.


Yes, our thoughts with the victim who fell prey to this despicable act.

In times like these, we do wonder how this affects us as fans. While at first it may be tough for some to listen to anything with Scott's lyrics, it should be noted that TLOS and the other tracks Scott collaborated on are first and foremost Brian's vision and Brian's voice. They may have been vetted through someone else, in this case someone who turned out to be a rapist, but they remain Brian's singular statement, and we can still appreciate that.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: jiggy22 on May 07, 2016, 12:24:48 PM
I am absolutely shocked and sickened after hearing the news about Scott. How could anyone with the talent that he has just absolutely throw everything away like this? Despite the awful news, I'm really just gonna try and keep the events for tarnishing my love for TLOS. It's like with Phil Spector. Try to remember his amazing contributions to music as opposed to the horrible crime he commited later on in his life.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Jay on May 07, 2016, 12:27:49 PM
So we're supposed to ignore the fact that he's a rapist, predator creep just because he wrote some good music? No thanks...


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on May 07, 2016, 12:30:24 PM
So we're supposed to ignore the fact that he's a rapist, predator creep just because he wrote some good music? No thanks...

I think you are misunderstanding what he's saying.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 07, 2016, 12:31:28 PM
So we're supposed to ignore the fact that he's a rapist, predator creep just because he wrote some good music? No thanks...

I myself can't look past that. It's different when you have someone close to you that was a victim of rape.  So yeah, this hits real hard.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: jiggy22 on May 07, 2016, 12:34:49 PM
I'm sorry if what I said didn't come out the right way. Ugh, I'm trying to come up with the right words to say what I meant, but I really don't know! It's just a horrible situation that we're in right now!


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 07, 2016, 12:43:34 PM
Understood. ..I think we're all having a hard time with this


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Jay on May 07, 2016, 12:49:01 PM
Yeah, I may have overreacted a bit.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 07, 2016, 01:09:00 PM
Should we consider moving this to the sandbox? He maybe an associate of Brian's but I don't like the idea of it being linked to The Beach Boys/Brian discussion. If that makes sense.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Shift on May 07, 2016, 01:21:42 PM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?

They were possibly working to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Which to my mind was absolutely the way to go.

I'd guess they knew of the case and the impending trial but might not have known the detail of the prosecution's evidence. If the suggestion that this is why Billy was waiting for a call proves correct, then they obviously planned for this possible outcome. Again, correct procedure to my mind: why should Scott's crime wreck the tour? The fans come first in this aspect of the story.

This is one terrible blow for all concerned. I hope it doesn't spoil people's enjoyment of the music because in the end that's what it's all about and what brings us here.

Echoes of what has happened before in BBs world, to even greater notoriety, with Manson and Cease to Exist. I can appreciate that tune without thinking about any of the connotations.

I hope we and everyone actually concerned with the case can move forward. I'll miss Scotty's contribution to Brian's music and the live experience, but it's right that he departs the scene now. This kind of crime is unforgiveable. I hope the poor victim has found some way forward from this.

Agree that this should be Sandboxed.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Shift on May 07, 2016, 01:23:54 PM
I wonder if he's done this before.

Is that an off the cuff statement or does something suggest he might have? I'd rather not even consider it. That's for the authorities.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Wirestone on May 07, 2016, 01:27:52 PM
Disagree on the sandbox. This affects Brian and his band in multiple areas, and Scott was a valued collaborator (and co-Golden Globe nominee). It happened on a BW tour.

This is the very definition of on topic.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Douchepool on May 07, 2016, 01:28:20 PM
I'm not disappointed. I'm thankful that a violent criminal has been served some justice. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Onward and upward; there are plenty of great musicians to replace him in Brian's group.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on May 07, 2016, 01:32:09 PM
Disagree on the sandbox. This affects Brian and his band in multiple areas, and Scott was a valued collaborator (and co-Golden Globe nominee). It happened on a BW tour.

This is the very definition of on topic.

Yeah I agree, especially considering the Stamos dui thread was allowed to stay in this section.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 07, 2016, 01:37:02 PM
Disagree on the sandbox. This affects Brian and his band in multiple areas, and Scott was a valued collaborator (and co-Golden Globe nominee). It happened on a BW tour.

This is the very definition of on topic.

That is true, so for now it stays.  Wish it wasnt, though.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Douchepool on May 07, 2016, 01:43:37 PM
Reading the article made me want to puke. What a fucking asshole.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Pretty Funky on May 07, 2016, 01:55:44 PM
From Brian's site...

 Posted 19 minutes ago    #1
What has happened between my former keyboard player Scott Bennet and the Rogers County District Court in Claremont, OK is a matter between them.
I have no further comment.
- Brian Wilson


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: STE on May 07, 2016, 01:56:06 PM
From BW.com:


What has happened between my former keyboard player Scott Bennet and the Rogers County District Court in Claremont, OK is a matter between them.
I have no further comment.
- Brian Wilson



Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cyncie on May 07, 2016, 01:58:41 PM
Wow, I just don't know what to say to this one.

Thoughts go out to the victim, though.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Douchepool on May 07, 2016, 02:01:10 PM
Posted 19 minutes ago    #1
What has happened between my former keyboard player Scott Bennet and the Rogers County District Court in Claremont, OK is a matter between them.
I have no further comment.
- Brian Wilson

Well said. Brian's washed his hands of this and we all should as well.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: coco1997 on May 07, 2016, 02:17:35 PM
This is very disturbing news. Just goes to show that you never really know someone is capable of.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Shift on May 07, 2016, 02:31:34 PM
Posted 19 minutes ago    #1
What has happened between my former keyboard player Scott Bennet and the Rogers County District Court in Claremont, OK is a matter between them.
I have no further comment.
- Brian Wilson

Well said. Brian's washed his hands of this and we all should as well.

Aye.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Freddie French-Pounce on May 07, 2016, 02:36:44 PM
I can't believe this happened. I am shocked. Scott took this poor woman somewhere quiet.

I see what you did there. I laughed too much.

Regardless, this is terrible. I would say I hope the victim gets their compensation, but you can't compensate for a horrific experience.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Lonely Summer on May 07, 2016, 03:28:38 PM
I haven't even read the article, I guess I really don't need to know, but it is shocking and disappointing. I haven't exactly been enamored of Brian's collaborators in recent years, but Scott was one guy I respected. Watching him in the TLOS video, I thought he came across as a guy who really tried to bring the best out of Brian, a guy that really cared about the man. True, everyone has a dark side...but ...well, I just don't know what to say. Get the guy some heavy duty counseling, make sure he understands "this is NOT acceptable!"


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: bachelorofbullets on May 07, 2016, 03:47:42 PM
.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: loucanova on May 07, 2016, 03:49:05 PM
Apparently there is still a lot of legal stuff going on with regard to this case particularly with regards to Scott's defence so I would suggest that discussion ceases on here about the case, at least until the 14th June when the court reconvenes.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emdeeh on May 07, 2016, 04:00:12 PM
Shocked and appalled...


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: pixletwin on May 07, 2016, 04:02:35 PM
Anyone in here going to the Bristol show on the 15th?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Wirestone on May 07, 2016, 04:03:05 PM
Apparently there is still a lot of legal stuff going on with regard to this case particularly with regards to Scott's defence so I would suggest that discussion ceases on here about the case, at least until the 14th June when the court reconvenes.

He's been found guilty by a jury. Full stop.

Scott Bennett is a convicted rapist. That is now a fact.

The court will reconvene to formally sentence him, not to weigh in further on his responsibility.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Douchepool on May 07, 2016, 04:12:19 PM
Apparently there is still a lot of legal stuff going on with regard to this case particularly with regards to Scott's defence so I would suggest that discussion ceases on here about the case, at least until the 14th June when the court reconvenes.

First post. Interesting...coincidence perhaps?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered on May 07, 2016, 04:13:43 PM
Oh, wow. Not what I wanted to hear today.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ang Jones on May 07, 2016, 04:24:43 PM
I agree that is there is to be discussion about this matter it should be after June 14th,

I will write this though. IMO it is entirely inappropriate to speculate on whether Scott Bennet has behaved this way before. That surely comes close to libel.


Title:
Post by: zachrwolfe on May 07, 2016, 04:35:49 PM


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Alan Smith on May 07, 2016, 04:37:11 PM
Terrible and shocking news.

Obviously a real blow for Brian & his band, the wider circle, and Scott's now former fans/appreciators.

If anyone is so inclined, consider reaching out financially or voluntarily to local services/organisations that provide direct support or assistance to victims of rape and sexual abuse, or to agencies that work towards addressing the culture behind this horrible behaviour.



Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Pretty Funky on May 07, 2016, 04:40:16 PM
I agree that is there is to be discussion about this matter it should be after June 14th,

I will write this though. IMO it is entirely inappropriate to speculate on whether Scott Bennet has behaved this way before. That surely comes close to libel.

The court has made a decision so I think discussion is permitted.

Agreed on point 2 though.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Loaf on May 07, 2016, 04:49:57 PM
Anyone in here going to the Bristol show on the 15th?

I am.

Bit off topic though? :)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Rob Dean on May 07, 2016, 05:01:04 PM
I am in total shock, I have met Scott loads of times over the last 14 years even had a few beers with the guy (hell he has even bummed a few cigarettes off of me) all over the U.K./Europe and the U.S.A. - Feel really disappointed, saddened and to quite a degree personally let down.
Don't really know what to fucking think, however ultimately I hope Brian (and the rest of his Band, and the BB's band) have put this behind them and moved on.



Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Rob Dean on May 07, 2016, 05:02:58 PM
Anyone in here going to the Bristol show on the 15th?

Yep, I will be at the Bristol gig


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: pixletwin on May 07, 2016, 05:29:49 PM
Anyone in here going to the Bristol show on the 15th?

I am.

Bit off topic though? :)

Not really off topic. I am hoping for a report on how this news has affected the band's performance.  :(


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 07, 2016, 05:57:01 PM
Apparently there is still a lot of legal stuff going on with regard to this case particularly with regards to Scott's defence so I would suggest that discussion ceases on here about the case, at least until the 14th June when the court reconvenes.

First post. Interesting...coincidence perhaps?
Maybe Rocky has re-registered under a different name  :hat


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered on May 07, 2016, 06:00:52 PM
Apparently there is still a lot of legal stuff going on with regard to this case particularly with regards to Scott's defence so I would suggest that discussion ceases on here about the case, at least until the 14th June when the court reconvenes.

First post. Interesting...coincidence perhaps?
Maybe Rocky has re-registered under a different name  :hat

Can't be, too coherent and no  :) :) s


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Amy B. on May 07, 2016, 06:21:23 PM
Horrifying. To think the victim had no idea, and it was only the video that showed what happened. Sexual assault is devastatingly common. I think the statistic in the U.S. is that one in five women is sexually assaulted during college ALONE. That's a lot of rapists walking around out there. Violent criminals blend in and can seem perfectly wonderful and charming. And many rapists get away with it because authorities don't believe the victim, and/or the victim is too traumatized to tell anyone until there's no evidence left. And many victims are blamed because they wore revealing clothing or drank too much, putting the responsibility on them not to get raped, rather than the rapist not to rape.

 I'm shocked about this, but sort of not shocked at the same time, sadly. My heart goes out to the victim.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Autotune on May 07, 2016, 06:48:15 PM
Nothing will get in the way of my enjoyment of Brian's work with Scott. Nothing will get in the way of my enjoyment of Chuck Berry's music. Good or great artists are, alas, capable of pretty shitty stuff.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Michael Edward Osbourne on May 07, 2016, 06:57:33 PM
Disappointed big time!


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 07, 2016, 07:02:51 PM
Anyone in here going to the Bristol show on the 15th?

I am.

Bit off topic though? :)

Not really off topic. I am hoping for a report on how this news has affected the band's performance.  :(

I think they're pros and are fine and will be fine in terms of performance. They've done the tour so far without Bennett, have done gigs in the past without him.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Marty Castillo on May 07, 2016, 07:13:19 PM
From BW.com:


What has happened between my former keyboard player Scott Bennet and the Rogers County District Court in Claremont, OK is a matter between them.
I have no further comment.
- Brian Wilson



This seems to be fairly formulaic and to the point. I'm sure there is a feeling that with Scott's attorney talking appeal, it would be impossible to say more. It would have been nice to hear some empathy for the victim, but maybe something more official is forthcoming.

This has to be absolutely devastating for Brian and his bandmates.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: 37!ws on May 07, 2016, 07:25:59 PM
I...am just beyond shocked...at first I thought it was a cruel joke but then I saw the mug shot...wow. I feel dirty for loving TLOS. I took a couple of songwriting classes with his childhood best friend, who later gave me a CD that he recorded that Scott produced....I...just....yikes.

And I'll never, ever understand why people do this sh*t when too many people know who they are.

And usually I'm very innocent-until-proven-guilty, but FFS, they have him on camera being forceful with her. They have his DNA.

Good God...this....wow.....


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: GoofyJeff on May 07, 2016, 07:32:20 PM
Extremely shocked and saddened... 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 07, 2016, 07:40:08 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if we never hear Brian speak of this again. Whether one feels Brian should have to speak of any of this again is probably where it veers into sandbox territory.

But as I said, they will be fine musically without Bennett. I hope they continue to do a kickass tour and move on, and I sense they already have.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: 37!ws on May 07, 2016, 07:44:27 PM
I think so. And I think Brian needs as much love and support now as he can possibly get.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Margarita on May 07, 2016, 07:48:44 PM
I think (and hope) that the statement on bw.com will put the kibosh on any media inquiries.  

I hope that the victim receives all the help she needs to work through this and recover, and that it helps her to know that justice will be served. 

What the hell was he thinking?  What the hell is anyone who sexually violates another person thinking?  There is no excuse, ever, under any circumstances.

What horrible news.  I mean, we've been with this band for close to 20 years - they're like our musical family.  Even though I welcome Billy Hinsche to the fold, it's just going to be weird to not see Scott there and to know why.  For me, TLOS isn't tarnished so much as the Smile concert film.  I enjoyed watching that, but it's going to be different from now on.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: bringahorseinhere? on May 07, 2016, 07:55:43 PM
Terrible stuff to read about today.  What a downer! What a way to ruin his reputation now and for the rest of his days.
This wont detract me from the listening experience of his work.  As others have said, a lot of musicians have done really terrible
things in the past also, they are still human and do really F@cked up things.  Chuck Berry, John Phillips, Sam Cooke, Rolf Harris, Johnny Cash and many
more have had their shares also.  Most of us still find a way to enjoy their gift musically.  It's also a thing we see professional artists today and they have to be more than human and be fault free than what they are. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Robbie Mac on May 07, 2016, 08:07:17 PM
Coming in 2028: The reissue of THAT LUCKY OLD SUN. Now with solo Brian Wilson writing credits!


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 07, 2016, 08:13:02 PM
NOT Sam Cooke.  He was falsely accused, framed and murdered.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Competition Clutch on May 07, 2016, 08:21:53 PM
I think (and hope) that the statement on bw.com will put the kibosh on any media inquiries.  

I hope that the victim receives all the help she needs to work through this and recover, and that it helps her to know that justice will be served. 



It is almost guaranteed the victim will be suing Bennett and the hotel for substantial damages.   That will be another element of justice.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 07, 2016, 08:24:23 PM
NOT Sam Cooke.  He was falsely accused, framed and murdered.

and even if people thing he might have, there is a complete lack of evidence on all accounts other than the shooter's. Whose accounts of his death comes across as quite flimsy and untrustworthy imo.

Scott's situation is a completely different thing entirely, with video and dna evidence.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: bringahorseinhere? on May 07, 2016, 08:29:11 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anAegJddmFo
Not that it's our business, but, in this interview with Scott, he says he is married.  Was this still the case at the time of the offense?
Makes is worse if there is a wife, and maybe kids as well involved in all of this. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 08:32:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anAegJddmFo
Not that it's our business, but, in this interview with Scott, he says he is married.  Was this still the case at the time of the offense?
Makes is worse if there is a wife, and maybe kids as well involved in all of this. 
I understand that he has a lovely and very nice wife. I understand he has children with a former wife.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Competition Clutch on May 07, 2016, 08:37:37 PM
Horrifying. To think the victim had no idea, and it was only the video that showed what happened. Sexual assault is devastatingly common. I think the statistic in the U.S. is that one in five women is sexually assaulted during college ALONE. That's a lot of rapists walking around out there. Violent criminals blend in and can seem perfectly wonderful and charming. And many rapists get away with it because authorities don't believe the victim, and/or the victim is too traumatized to tell anyone until there's no evidence left. And many victims are blamed because they wore revealing clothing or drank too much, putting the responsibility on them not to get raped, rather than the rapist not to rape.

 I'm shocked about this, but sort of not shocked at the same time, sadly. My heart goes out to the victim.

I don't disagree with this post, but the one in five statistic is a myth.  The fact that it has been repeated by politicians who regularly lie does nothing to support its validity.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/campus-rape-myth-13061.html

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/



Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Bud Shaver on May 07, 2016, 09:10:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anAegJddmFo
Not that it's our business, but, in this interview with Scott, he says he is married.  Was this still the case at the time of the offense?
Makes is worse if there is a wife, and maybe kids as well involved in all of this. 

We were friends on Facebook and he had posted pictures and glowing messages about his current wife plenty of times in the past. Today there is no sign of his account.

I am shocked and sad at this development. Certainly not sad for him, just for his fans, friends, and (most of all) the victim. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: GoodVibrations33 on May 07, 2016, 09:14:03 PM
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster_view.php?booking_num=341374

He was booked April 2016 so Brian's probably did not know.

In one of the articles it said he was arrested the same day as the incident.

Here's the "docket sheet" regarding his case:  http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=264240&db=Rogers (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=264240&db=Rogers)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 07, 2016, 09:32:11 PM
Must be very tough for the band at this time i'd imagine. (Certainly the victim most of all) How someone who's been apart of such, sweet life affirming music can stoop to that level is quite hard to wrap my head around.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Pretty Funky on May 07, 2016, 10:44:58 PM
He still toured last year and you do wonder if the group knew. Convenient the UK tour was cancelled.  ;)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ron on May 07, 2016, 10:49:00 PM
Crap this is horrible all around.  Lots of bad decisions to take life lessons from

1. If you're going to get drunk (both sides) do it around people you know and trust... or just don't do it at all, it's a horrible idea

2. Crazy wild sex with strangers you just met sometimes puts you in prison.  Buy your wife a wig instead

3. There's sick people everywhere hiding amongst us


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 10:50:03 PM
Horrifying. To think the victim had no idea, and it was only the video that showed what happened. Sexual assault is devastatingly common. I think the statistic in the U.S. is that one in five women is sexually assaulted during college ALONE. That's a lot of rapists walking around out there. Violent criminals blend in and can seem perfectly wonderful and charming. And many rapists get away with it because authorities don't believe the victim, and/or the victim is too traumatized to tell anyone until there's no evidence left. And many victims are blamed because they wore revealing clothing or drank too much, putting the responsibility on them not to get raped, rather than the rapist not to rape.

 I'm shocked about this, but sort of not shocked at the same time, sadly. My heart goes out to the victim.

I don't disagree with this post, but the one in five statistic is a myth.  The fact that it has been repeated by politicians who regularly lie does nothing to support its validity.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/campus-rape-myth-13061.html

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/


Both of the opinion pieces you cited take the position that it's not sexual assault unless it fits Todd Akin's definition of "legitimate rape."


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ron on May 07, 2016, 10:53:09 PM


They were possibly working to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Which to my mind was absolutely the way to go.

Without seeing the video (which Brian's management almost certainly never saw before the trial)... and with knowing Scott for so long, it would have been easy for him to explain it away by saying he met a woman, she was coming on to him, practically begged him to take her back to his room, then the next day cries rape. 

If your friend framed it that way, would you drop all association with them?   I probably wouldn't.  Once everything came out in trial though I'm sure all the acquaintances were shocked.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 07, 2016, 10:54:31 PM
Crap this is horrible all around.  Lots of bad decisions to take life lessons from

1. If you're going to get drunk (both sides) do it around people you know and trust... or just don't do it at all, it's a horrible idea

2. Crazy wild sex with strangers you just met sometimes puts you in prison.  Buy your wife a wig instead

3. There's sick people everywhere hiding amongst us
ummm....
I think it's sandbox time.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ron on May 07, 2016, 11:01:56 PM
It is almost guaranteed the victim will be suing Bennett and the hotel for substantial damages.   That will be another element of justice.

To be honest, she deserves a fortune, doesn't get more clean cut then "raped in the hallway on camera".  Hell the place may go bankrupt, who would ever stay there again?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Shift on May 07, 2016, 11:15:44 PM
Apparently there is still a lot of legal stuff going on with regard to this case particularly with regards to Scott's defence so I would suggest that discussion ceases on here about the case, at least until the 14th June when the court reconvenes.

He's been found guilty by a jury. Full stop.

Scott Bennett is a convicted rapist. That is now a fact.

The court will reconvene to formally sentence him, not to weigh in further on his responsibility.

Wirestone's absolutely right. Bennett is guilty as charged. That doesn't change, at least not for now. Prior to the trial he was innocent until proven guilty; then he was proven guilty.

What he did - and a jury has determined from the evidence presented to them from both sides that he did do what he was accused of - was appalling. He can appeal of course but until an appeal finds otherwise he is guilty.

Bloody tragic for all involved.

Speculation should cease. Speculation that an appeal might find him innocent is extremely unfair on the victim. Speculation that be might have committed other crimes is unfair on Bennett, despite this conviction. Speculation is needless and cannot be fair on those actually involved with or close to the case.

Again, I think this needs Sandboxing; any implication for the tour could be discussed in the tour thread. Or maybe the two threads could be merged, if they really are all about the tour and the implications for the tour.

Was/is Bennett a member here?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Alan Smith on May 07, 2016, 11:46:05 PM

Speculation should cease. Speculation that an appeal might find him innocent is extremely unfair on the victim. Speculation that be might have committed other crimes is unfair on Bennett, despite this conviction. Speculation is needless and cannot be fair on those actually involved with or close to the case.

Again, I think this needs Sandboxing; any implication for the tour could be discussed in the tour thread. Or maybe the two threads could be merged, if they really are all about the tour and the implications for the tour.


Completely agree about stopping speculation due to the myriad implications.  I would not like to see people get in trouble for the wrong reasons.

Whether the thread is general or in the Sandbox doesn't really make a difference.

Would like to add, y'all may recall Garry Griffin covered the NZ/AU leg (at least) and the band fcukin' rocked it :rock Play on!


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Jim V. on May 07, 2016, 11:49:08 PM
Crazy wild sex with strangers you just met sometimes puts you in prison.  Buy your wife a wig instead


The f*** is wrong with you? Maybe you're not trying to come off as sarcastic or whatever, but I just think this is in bad taste. A girl was raped. Not one part of this situation is something to make light of.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: bringahorseinhere? on May 08, 2016, 12:40:41 AM
sweetdudejim, I don't think Ron meant it the way it was interpreted.  I think he was saying 'be careful', he was not to making 'fun' of the situation.
a lot of thoughts and opinions are going to come out of this, and we are all treadling on thin ice because of the severity of all of this.
Including myself  ::)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ron on May 08, 2016, 12:48:45 AM
SweetDudeJim, did you miss the part where I said people shouldn't have sex with strangers?  That kind of precludes this rape situation, doesn't it?  What the f*** is wrong with you?


I'll take my apology publicly. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ang Jones on May 08, 2016, 12:50:20 AM
I know it's no longer sub judice but the sentence hasn't yet taken place. It's inevitable it will be discussed among the fans but speculation about whether Scott Bennet had behaved this way before or whether Brian and the band knew is IMO completely indefensible. There is more than one victim here. Scott's wife, family, friends, Brian and his band have all been affected by this and need our consideration.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ron on May 08, 2016, 12:52:54 AM
I know it's no longer sub judice but the sentence hasn't yet taken place. It's inevitable it will be discussed among the fans but speculation about whether Scott Bennet had behaved this way before or whether Brian and the band knew is IMO completely indefensible. There is more than one victim here. Scott's wife, family, friends, Brian and his band have all been affected by this and need our consideration.


that's all true Ang, but keep in mind that the fans all had a pretty spiritual connection to Scott as of ... a couple hours ago, so everybody posting and commenting is a way folks are dealing with their own shock and confusion about what happened.  People are going to talk when they find out a musician they loved is a violent rapist.  


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 01:28:37 AM
SweetDudeJim, did you miss the part where I said people shouldn't have sex with strangers?  That kind of precludes this rape situation, doesn't it?  What the f*** is wrong with you?


I'll take my apology publicly. 
I agree with Sweet Dude Jim that to call rape 'crazy wild sex with strangers' is really, really off.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ang Jones on May 08, 2016, 01:33:16 AM
I know it's no longer sub judice but the sentence hasn't yet taken place. It's inevitable it will be discussed among the fans but speculation about whether Scott Bennet had behaved this way before or whether Brian and the band knew is IMO completely indefensible. There is more than one victim here. Scott's wife, family, friends, Brian and his band have all been affected by this and need our consideration.


that's all true Ang, but keep in mind that the fans all had a pretty spiritual connection to Scott as of ... a couple hours ago, so everybody posting and commenting is a way folks are dealing with their own shock and confusion about what happened.  People are going to talk when they find out a musician they loved is a violent rapist.  

I agree that people are bound to talk but it should be handled sensitively and without the speculation.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Zesterz on May 08, 2016, 01:53:57 AM
1. Flabbergasted.

2. Re BW press statement-- totally correct. The incident was not related to his musicianship nor part of his employment. A private life error.....but  as it happened in the band's hotel, it gives the media enough justification ( regrettably) to mention BW  and band.

Just so astonishing. Even our descriptions in this thread capture the guy I met, we met. Yes, he bummed drinks and cigarettes. He was a vivid character ( feel so sorry for his wife, a Brit btw)..........career totalled by this. Sorry for victim. An all around mess.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: JK on May 08, 2016, 02:29:07 AM
Horrible----as if the music world needed this too...

My sincere sympathy goes to those for whom this is close to home. But now it's time to move on. Please.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Pretty Funky on May 08, 2016, 02:41:46 AM
It is almost guaranteed the victim will be suing Bennett and the hotel for substantial damages.   That will be another element of justice.

To be honest, she deserves a fortune, doesn't get more clean cut then "raped in the hallway on camera".  Hell the place may go bankrupt, who would ever stay there again?p

Sorry to bring this up, but could Brian or the promotor be sued or counter sued in a case like this? Completely different situation but I remember The Who settled with the victims families after the Cincinnati tragedy in 79.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 08, 2016, 02:46:45 AM
It is almost guaranteed the victim will be suing Bennett and the hotel for substantial damages.   That will be another element of justice.

To be honest, she deserves a fortune, doesn't get more clean cut then "raped in the hallway on camera".  Hell the place may go bankrupt, who would ever stay there again?p

Sorry to bring this up, but could Brian or the promotor be sued or counter sued in a case like this? Completely different situation but I remember The Who settled with the victims families after the Cincinnati tragedy in 79.

I'm pretty certain thats not likely in any circumstances, especially since as it doesn't seem plausible that any of them knew until after the situation had already happened. If so, Brian's band could also counter-sue for slander against the group.

(To make some levity of a very dark situation, it wouldn't be a Beach Boys thread unless we brought up suing or counter suing!)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Pretty Funky on May 08, 2016, 02:51:22 AM
True, but in The Who case, they didn't know either.

Beach Boys and lawyers.....Yikes! ::)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Heartical Don on May 08, 2016, 02:58:21 AM
It is a tragedy.

Personally I don't feel any inclination to portray Scott Bennett as a 'monster' now. Or state something like: we never really knew him, did we? These expressions don't really represent my own view on human beings.

Yes, Scott fell from grace here. He transgressed. Many, if not all people are vulnerable in moral things, one way or another. Everyone can suffer a mental lapsus, experience some kind of situation where various bad things work against one.

And Scott has been sentenced.

For me, there is no reason to depict him as a terrible (habitual?) criminal, nor to get too involved in issues like: did he do this before?

And yes, I do seriously commiserate with the young lady who is the victim. Hearing what had truly happened must have been the shock of a lifetime. But I see hope for her: apparently she has no recollection whatsoever of the event itself. That offers a perspective for her future, since, from what I know, there is very little chance that she will have retained traumatic memories (in the form of, say, 'film clips' in her mind, or recollections of bodily sensations, feelings of total helplessness) - so I hope that there will be no post-traumatic stress disorder for her. Yes, she does have the a posteriori accounts of it all - but these thankfully usually get processed in a more rational way.

(Sorry if all this sounds very rational, but I really want to take a bit of distance on this issue.)

Taking things together: I used the word 'tragedy', I think that is an apt description of a situation like this. Apparently much alcohol was involved, so it's even harder to make out what was on Scott's mind than it would have been, had he been sober. I have the impression that he acted out of character, and did not really play out something he had precisely planned beforehand (I mean: he would certainly have been aware of the enormous risks he would be taking, in that particular environment, no?).

It's one of those occasions where there are only losers, I think.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: adamghost on May 08, 2016, 04:19:29 AM
Something's really been bothering me ever since this news broke, and it nagged at me enough to get up in the middle of the night and post about it.  I was reluctant to say anything because it could be so easily misconstrued as minimizing or excusing a terrible crime.  But I follow criminal cases from time to time and I also know a thing or two about how media shapes narrative - my background besides being a musician was working in newspapers, and in law offices.  And something's bugging me here.

First, I in no way condone the behavior and Scott was convicted in a court of law and that's that, at least pending appeal.  

But what's disturbing to me is how the damning the article seems to be, but when you read it very carefully (I did not catch on to this until the third reading), it's nearly entirely derived from police's and prosecuting attorneys' interpretation of what they're seeing on a video tape (the girl does not remember the encounter).  It's very carefully constructed to make Scott's behavior look as bad as possible.  Police said Scott "appear(ed) to be in complete control of his faculties" - but they can't know that, and it's a convenient assumption for them.  The video was characterized "very disturbing" - by the prosecuting attorney.  Scott dumped the girl "like a sack of trash" - again in the opinion of the prosecuting attorney.  Note also that the article counters the assertion that Scott had a sexual encounter with the girl in the room by saying that the woman's underwear was found in his room and DNA was found on her body.  It seems damning, but if you think about it, nothing about those facts actually make Scott a liar, since there's no question something happened in the hallway.  Just putting them together makes it sound like they do.

Now, look.  I've had many a drunken stupid debauched night on the road, so the 1 a.m. drunken return to the hotel room is all too easy to visualize - and what Scott did was unquestionably way over the line, stupid, and wrong.  So I am not in any way condoning the behavior or minimizing the trauma of rape or what the girl I'm sure felt the next day.  If you listen to my song "1 and 4" you'll know exactly how I feel about the topic.  But I also have strong feelings about how easily people can be ruined by a concerted media campaign and how quickly we all form opinions based on information that, when you look at it carefully, is designed to make us feel a certain way.

Scott without question showed spectacularly bad judgment and crossed lines he should have known better to cross even by the kindest reading of the facts at hand.  However, I'm very troubled as well by how the article comes across as totally damning when it's really just vary carefully constructed to give that impression.  To the extent Scott's side of the story is represented, it's by one quote from the attorney that sounds extremely flippant - but that's the one quote the reporter chose to put in the story.  I doubt that's all she said.

Scott may indeed be a monster and a total sexual predator.  I've never seen that side of him, myself, but everyone has a dark side, and the darker it is the better it's hidden.  However, I'm uncomfortable jumping to that conclusion based on this article, which is just very, very sneaky in how it portrays the case.  The fact that he was a visiting musician in a conservative part of the country means that he likely would get absolutely no sympathetic hearing at all if there were exculpatory factors in the case.  I'm sure some were presented at trial (or else why would they have gone to trail in the first place? If Scott was as dead to rights as portrayed here, one would have expected him to have pleaded out), but I'm not seeing them in this article.

What Scott has been convicted of is terrible.  I'm in no way trying to minimize it.  Just having followed various criminal stories and seeing how this kind of thing often plays out, and also having worked both inside the law and newspaper business, the set of facts that led to his arrest and conviction may not be quite as gross or clear-cut as they are made out to sound.  The way the article is written and the sources it favors give me serious pause.  Other than a couple of third hand things (which themselves may well have been spin on Scott's part), I don't know what Scott's side of the story is...but I'm tolerably sure it's not represented in this article.

I trust that everyone will understand that I'm not shilling for Scott -- who I barely know -- or trying to be an apologist for rape.  Just out of basic fairness, I just don't think it's right to make Scott out as the next Jeffrey Dahmer.  There's a reason this is shocking - past a certain point this absolutely heinous behavior does not seem to track what we know of the man.  Based on a very careful reading of the article, there might well be a reason for that.

It's a tragedy.  That much is for sure.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Alan Smith on May 08, 2016, 04:26:34 AM
It's one of those occasions where there are only losers, I think.
Yep. 

If only for these words 6 pages ago.

Cheers, THD - A


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Heartical Don on May 08, 2016, 04:31:23 AM
@ Adamghost -

thank you for writing. Obviously, we started from different vantage points (Me, I went by the story so far, since it is all we have to go by - you took the story itself and examined it critically.)

But somehow, esp. re: what you wrote in your conclusion, we arrived at similarities in our thinking about it. And that in itself is good, IMHO.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 04:38:52 AM
Without the room and the "sack of trash" and other editorializing, it's still awful and predatory and rape.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Heywood on May 08, 2016, 04:55:58 AM
I didnt want to appear to be defending or excusing anything but i thought exactly the same Adam when i read it the second or third time. Quite a few assumptions stated as facts.

Yes. Its still awful, predatory and rape.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 05:14:44 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Heartical Don on May 08, 2016, 05:37:11 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

Hi Emily -

I don't think that anyone here has been trying to make it all seem less tragic than it actually was, or exculpate Scott Bennett as to having done something bad. That wasn't my point, nor that of others (I think). I wanted to emphasize that with what we do know, we actually know not that much. Well, I am speaking for myself: I don't have the slightest idea about what was going through Scott's mind, save (probably) for my strong belief that he, IMHO an intelligent, sensitive man, can't possibly have been in his normal state of being when he did what he did, given the enormous risks that would have been so obvious to any clear-headed person in those surroundings (well, risks... I'd even go so far as to say that someone in a normal state would know that he'd have a 100% chance of being found out, given today's video observation techniques).

That is what puzzles me the most, in fact. That is why I used words like lapsus, he may have been aware regarding the events, and hence have a recollection of these, but at the same time he may not have had any capacity for sound judgment.

Perhaps one or another psychological assessment will be made, and perhaps even made public.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 05:50:30 AM
I guess it does sound to me like you guys are minimizing the crime. Adam mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer. Try adjusting this story just enough in your imagination that the crime was one that really horrifies you and would your reaction be the same?
Maybe it would, in which case you are more philosophical than I and there we are. But maybe it wouldn't. And maybe the impact of the crime itself is not as much to you as it may be to others.
On the other hand, maybe I'm projecting on to you my exasperation with the constant minimizing of rape. I don't know.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cliff1000uk on May 08, 2016, 06:01:22 AM
Anyone in here going to the Bristol show on the 15th?

Yep, I will be at the Bristol gig
I'll be at the Bristol gig plus I'll be at the soundcheck/meet and greet beforehand. Obviously, I won't be mentioning this to anyone there but I think the guys have a job to do and have already played a number of gigs without Scott so I don't think it is going to affect their performance.
I'm still pretty speechless over this and my first thoughts will always be with the victim. I've spoken to Scott, like many of us here, over the years and he has always been generous with his time with the fans. Unfortunately, over the same years, I've also heard comments about behaviour on tour.
Ultimately, regardless of Scott's CV, the albums and songs he has written/co-written, the people he has let down (let's not forget his wife in all this), a young lady has had her life changed for the considerable worse.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 08, 2016, 06:05:34 AM
I think all of us are still trying to wrap our heads around this foul situation. While Its true that perhaps some of our posts could be characterised as 'overreacting', (as well as the article) there is still no real way of excusing his actions. He may not be a 'monster', but he has still hugely let down his friends, family, fans and especially the victim. Some of us have friends or family who may have been in these types of situations, which makes it particularly hard to forgive. Especially considering the DNA and video evidence that has surfaced.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Heartical Don on May 08, 2016, 06:16:46 AM
I guess it does sound to me like you guys are minimizing the crime. Adam mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer. Try adjusting this story just enough in your imagination that the crime was one that really horrifies you and would your reaction be the same?
Maybe it would, in which case you are more philosophical than I and there we are. But maybe it wouldn't. And maybe the impact of the crime itself is not as much to you as it may be to others.
On the other hand, maybe I'm projecting on to you my exasperation with the constant minimizing of rape. I don't know.

Thanks for your comment, Emily, much appreciated -

I think all of us think alike when it comes down to the seriousness of Scott's actions. In my opinion, 'minimizing the crime' is: somehow belittling the impact it has on the victim. I don't assume that any SSnet member is doing precisely this.

In extreme fashion, belittling would amount to the unforgiveable (silent) advice to the woman: get over it, or something like that. No one in their right mind thinks like this.

As I said: my interest is with Scott's state of mind. He may have been overcome with serious impulsivity, which can temporarily but totally obliterate one's feelings and calm considerations. In fact for the moment I guess it's the only viable explanation. Which doesn't take one iota away from the pain of the victim.

That's why I said: a situation with only losers. Somehow I feel that Scott's there in his cell now, suffering from deep guilt and regret.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Lee Marshall on May 08, 2016, 06:37:53 AM
I don't see the crime being minimized by Adam.  I think his perception of the article makes sense and bears REAL consideration.  The way the story is 'told' is 100% damning.  Next to murder how could anyone have less respect or more contempt for another human being than that which Scott apparently had for the victim here?

IF the proof and the facts of the case are as cut and dried as they've been presented in the 'story'...it would be a waste of time and money to appeal.  Yet...an appeal seems to be planned.

I wonder how, in the name of anything rite or wholly, did they managed to keep this so stone cold quiet...and since 2014?

No matter how this eventually plays out two things seem to ring true.  There is a victim and while being abandoned and totally vulnerable she is not at fault in any way.  And Scott will likely never have a meaningful spot to occupy in the music business ever again.  At least that's the way I'm seeing it 22 hours in.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Angua on May 08, 2016, 06:53:16 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

It's impossible to fully understand what happened from the scant information given.  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.  Considering how much we don't know, speculation is futile and ridiculous.  Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.  What we do know is that this is nothing whatever to do with Scott as a professional musician nor the responsibility of Brian or his management.  It is a very sad tale and one which I think we would be better to stop telling and certainly to stop fabricating.  I certainly intend to.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cool Cool Water on May 08, 2016, 06:57:30 AM
Shocked as I met Scott at many VIP Brian Wilson concerts some years back.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ang Jones on May 08, 2016, 07:00:19 AM
Many years ago I did jury duty. We were told that we MUST NOT discuss the case outside of the court, the reason being that we would be given advice and therefore influenced by those who had not heard all of the evidence.

None of us has seen the footage nor I'm assuming heard the evidence in full. To express sympathy for those hurt by this is understandable and commendable and also to examine the articles closely to make sure our views are not being manipulated by the media. I commend the posts of Heartical Don and Adamghost but like them, I am not condoning what was done. At best, it was the worst kind of sexual opportunism even if somehow Scott Bennet believed the woman was compliant. I completely agree that there are only losers here and that it is tragic. I hope the victim recovers fully from the experience.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Amy B. on May 08, 2016, 07:04:49 AM
I guess it does sound to me like you guys are minimizing the crime. Adam mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer. Try adjusting this story just enough in your imagination that the crime was one that really horrifies you and would your reaction be the same?
Maybe it would, in which case you are more philosophical than I and there we are. But maybe it wouldn't. And maybe the impact of the crime itself is not as much to you as it may be to others.
On the other hand, maybe I'm projecting on to you my exasperation with the constant minimizing of rape. I don't know.

I agree with everything here, Emily. It seems like some people find Scott to be likable, so they're looking for ways to...not excuse his behavior, but find an explanation for it. It happens a lot with the public figures we've seen accused of bad behavior. Woody Allen is still making films, Bill Cosby still has his defenders, etc. "He's a really good guy, so he didn't do this. The accuser is just trying to get attention." With Scott, we have the evidence on video that he did do it, so it must have been that he wasn't in his right mind? Even if he was a bit drunk, you just don't go after a 21-year-old who is completely, out of her mind drunk. Even if she seemed to consent, which we don't know if she did. And you don't do it in a hallway, and you don't leave her in the hallway. Yes, I know the article was editorializing, but he DID leave her in the hallway, and in my mind, that's treating a human being like trash. At the very minimum, it's humiliating for her.

As for the victim hopefully being able to better deal with it because she has no memory of it, well, I don't know. Imagine that you (whether you are a man or a woman) went in for surgery, and when you woke up you found out that the surgeon had sexually assaulted you in some way while you were under. It's a complete violation, and I imagine it would haunt you forever.

As for the "1 in 5" statistic being inaccurate, maybe that's the case. But many, many rapes also go unreported.

So while the article was sensationalizing a bit, the facts that were included and are irrefutable are horrifying. Frankly, I don't care that his career is ruined. I feel terrible for his wife, his friends, and the band members who have to deal with this after working with him for years. And particularly for the victim.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Amy B. on May 08, 2016, 07:09:09 AM
OK. I will try to stop talking about this. I just get really angry about this sort of stuff.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 08, 2016, 07:22:18 AM
This is a difficult topic, all range of input is needed!


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: ruskalupagus on May 08, 2016, 07:28:13 AM
Very disappointing and disgusting. I was at that show, very sickening.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 08, 2016, 07:31:32 AM
Damn shame man... :(


Title: Very sad and disappointing news about Scott Bennett
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on May 08, 2016, 07:54:05 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/crime/keyboardist-brian-wilson-raped-woman-oklahoma-concert-article-1.2628569

How gross and irresponsible, he should be ashamed of himself.

EDIT: I missed the existing thread.  Feel free to merge.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 08, 2016, 07:56:30 AM
It is absolutely incredible that this didn't make news earlier. I see it was technically listed online way back in December 2014, along with an original mug shot from the day of, as evidenced by this link:

http://www.regionalinquirer.com/news/oklahoma/man-jailed-on-multiple-counts/14650881.html

I just cannot imagine what this has been like, keeping it a secret internally and away from public eye while touring and such. The incident occurred apparently just days before the Las Vegas Soundstage performance on Dec 12, 2014, and on the night of what would have been Denny's 70th birthday oddly enough.

It is a truly tragic an awful situation. It honestly makes me physically sick to think about this entire thing. Lives ruined over a bafflingly terrible action.  I wish the very best for all involved, this whole thing is just nearly incomprehensible to me. Let's all try to have empathy for everyone affected.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: 37!ws on May 08, 2016, 08:11:39 AM
I'm still trying to come to grips with this. Especially that his lawyer insists he's innocent. Despite the video evidence and the DNA collected. All I can think of is this:

1) I'm guessing the video didn't have sound. I supposed one could always claim that it was consensual, especially as the victim didn't have any memory of that night at all,

and 2) given that Scott is married, even if it was 100% consensual and he's 100% innocent of *rape*, he's still an asshole.

And just to add to the creepiness...the woman was 4 years old when Scott started working with Brian.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Jim V. on May 08, 2016, 08:30:12 AM
Something's really been bothering me ever since this news broke, and it nagged at me enough to get up in the middle of the night and post about it.  I was reluctant to say anything because it could be so easily misconstrued as minimizing or excusing a terrible crime.  But I follow criminal cases from time to time and I also know a thing or two about how media shapes narrative - my background besides being a musician was working in newspapers, and in law offices.  And something's bugging me here.

First, I in no way condone the behavior and Scott was convicted in a court of law and that's that, at least pending appeal.  

But what's disturbing to me is how the damning the article seems to be, but when you read it very carefully (I did not catch on to this until the third reading), it's nearly entirely derived from police's and prosecuting attorneys' interpretation of what they're seeing on a video tape (the girl does not remember the encounter).  It's very carefully constructed to make Scott's behavior look as bad as possible.  Police said Scott "appear(ed) to be in complete control of his faculties" - but they can't know that, and it's a convenient assumption for them.  The video was characterized "very disturbing" - by the prosecuting attorney.  Scott dumped the girl "like a sack of trash" - again in the opinion of the prosecuting attorney.  Note also that the article counters the assertion that Scott had a sexual encounter with the girl in the room by saying that the woman's underwear was found in his room and DNA was found on her body.  It seems damning, but if you think about it, nothing about those facts actually make Scott a liar, since there's no question something happened in the hallway.  Just putting them together makes it sound like they do.

Now, look.  I've had many a drunken stupid debauched night on the road, so the 1 a.m. drunken return to the hotel room is all too easy to visualize - and what Scott did was unquestionably way over the line, stupid, and wrong.  So I am not in any way condoning the behavior or minimizing the trauma of rape or what the girl I'm sure felt the next day.  If you listen to my song "1 and 4" you'll know exactly how I feel about the topic.  But I also have strong feelings about how easily people can be ruined by a concerted media campaign and how quickly we all form opinions based on information that, when you look at it carefully, is designed to make us feel a certain way.

Scott without question showed spectacularly bad judgment and crossed lines he should have known better to cross even by the kindest reading of the facts at hand.  However, I'm very troubled as well by how the article comes across as totally damning when it's really just vary carefully constructed to give that impression.  To the extent Scott's side of the story is represented, it's by one quote from the attorney that sounds extremely flippant - but that's the one quote the reporter chose to put in the story.  I doubt that's all she said.

Scott may indeed be a monster and a total sexual predator.  I've never seen that side of him, myself, but everyone has a dark side, and the darker it is the better it's hidden.  However, I'm uncomfortable jumping to that conclusion based on this article, which is just very, very sneaky in how it portrays the case.  The fact that he was a visiting musician in a conservative part of the country means that he likely would get absolutely no sympathetic hearing at all if there were exculpatory factors in the case.  I'm sure some were presented at trial (or else why would they have gone to trail in the first place? If Scott was as dead to rights as portrayed here, one would have expected him to have pleaded out), but I'm not seeing them in this article.

What Scott has been convicted of is terrible.  I'm in no way trying to minimize it.  Just having followed various criminal stories and seeing how this kind of thing often plays out, and also having worked both inside the law and newspaper business, the set of facts that led to his arrest and conviction may not be quite as gross or clear-cut as they are made out to sound.  The way the article is written and the sources it favors give me serious pause.  Other than a couple of third hand things (which themselves may well have been spin on Scott's part), I don't know what Scott's side of the story is...but I'm tolerably sure it's not represented in this article.

I trust that everyone will understand that I'm not shilling for Scott -- who I barely know -- or trying to be an apologist for rape.  Just out of basic fairness, I just don't think it's right to make Scott out as the next Jeffrey Dahmer.  There's a reason this is shocking - past a certain point this absolutely heinous behavior does not seem to track what we know of the man.  Based on a very careful reading of the article, there might well be a reason for that.

It's a tragedy.  That much is for sure.

I get what you are saying Adam and I think you are one of the most rational posters on this board. I always look forward to seeing what you post....

However, I think you gloss over or forget to mention a few things....like him blocking her from getting out of the elevator. Maybe maybe maybe the context is all screwed up and it was a playful thing and she really didn't wanna get out. But from what we've read it sure doesn't seem that way (whether the article was somewhat biased against him or not).


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Don Malcolm on May 08, 2016, 08:56:10 AM
I thought it would be pertinent to look at the statistics concerning rape so as to try to put to rest that portion of this discussion. Please understand that the following does not intend to dismiss or condone or in any way minimize the heinous nature of such acts, in general or in the specific case of Scott Bennett.

Current statistics for the USA indicate that the reported ratio of rapes is 3 in 1,000. I believe that this figure is artificially low for two reasons: 1) underreporting; 2) an inappropriate application of population size: the 1,000 denominator should be cut roughly in half to reflect the number of women.

When we make that change, the figure becomes 6 in 1,000 or 0.6%. The most reliable figures for rape ratios on college campuses (not using studies that produced the "1 in 5" figure, which were tainted by several unscientific elements of introduced bias, including inducing responses by offering $10 Amazon gift cards) is roughly twice the overall USA level, or 1.2%.

If we use a common rule of thumb that 75-80% of rapes are not reported, that means that there are least four times as many incidents than what is represented by the reported cases. That would mean that in the college environment, the likely percentage of women who have suffered such an experience is around 5%.

And in the context of violent crime rates, that really is itself a shockingly high incidence. If one examines the recent literature about rape statistics, one finds that Sweden has the highest rate per 1,000 population--but this is a reflection of Sweden's massive effort to have all rapes reported and to widen the definition of rape to minimize the grey areas that are often involved. Given all of this context, we can assume that Sweden's 6.6% rate represents a kind of ceiling for this statistic.

Again, none of this is in any way meant to minimize the catastrophic efforts of this heinous and hateful crime. Nor, of course, does it bear any relevance to the specific charges that have been upheld in court against Scott Bennett. As for those, I can say only that any man must always take into account the ability of a woman to say "no" before either initiating or continuing any type of sexual overtures. While Adam's point about the article containing sensationalistic elements is clearly correct, Scott Bennett clearly did not do what any morally responsible man should do when faced with someone whose faculties were impaired--which is to back off.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Gerry on May 08, 2016, 09:00:09 AM
This is a prime example of how things seem to work on this board; it's almost as if people are taking sides. I'm surprised Mike's name hasn't been mentioned. Why not  knock off the amateur detective work and lawyering  and let it go . I'm sure that'll happen.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered on May 08, 2016, 10:20:44 AM
This is a prime example of how things seem to work on this board; it's almost as if people are taking sides. I'm surprised Mike's name hasn't been mentioned. Why not  knock off the amateur detective work and lawyering  and let it go . I'm sure that'll happen.

Michael Edward Love

There ya go


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cyncie on May 08, 2016, 10:41:29 AM
This is a prime example of how things seem to work on this board; it's almost as if people are taking sides. I'm surprised Mike's name hasn't been mentioned. Why not  knock off the amateur detective work and lawyering  and let it go . I'm sure that'll happen.

I don't see people taking sides so much as trying to sort through how they feel about this. This is a person we've taken a great deal of interest in and had a great deal of admiration for. People are trying to sort through their responses.

To compare this discussion to the Mike vs. Brian bickering is a bit unfair, I think; especially since, no matter how they feel,  everyone seems to actually be on one side: the victim's.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 10:46:10 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 10:48:06 AM
OK. I will try to stop talking about this. I just get really angry about this sort of stuff.
No. Thank you very much for commenting.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 10:58:04 AM
I thought it would be pertinent to look at the statistics concerning rape so as to try to put to rest that portion of this discussion. Please understand that the following does not intend to dismiss or condone or in any way minimize the heinous nature of such acts, in general or in the specific case of Scott Bennett.

Current statistics for the USA indicate that the reported ratio of rapes is 3 in 1,000. I believe that this figure is artificially low for two reasons: 1) underreporting; 2) an inappropriate application of population size: the 1,000 denominator should be cut roughly in half to reflect the number of women.

When we make that change, the figure becomes 6 in 1,000 or 0.6%. The most reliable figures for rape ratios on college campuses (not using studies that produced the "1 in 5" figure, which were tainted by several unscientific elements of introduced bias, including inducing responses by offering $10 Amazon gift cards) is roughly twice the overall USA level, or 1.2%.

If we use a common rule of thumb that 75-80% of rapes are not reported, that means that there are least four times as many incidents than what is represented by the reported cases. That would mean that in the college environment, the likely percentage of women who have suffered such an experience is around 5%.

And in the context of violent crime rates, that really is itself a shockingly high incidence. If one examines the recent literature about rape statistics, one finds that Sweden has the highest rate per 1,000 population--but this is a reflection of Sweden's massive effort to have all rapes reported and to widen the definition of rape to minimize the grey areas that are often involved. Given all of this context, we can assume that Sweden's 6.6% rate represents a kind of ceiling for this statistic.

Again, none of this is in any way meant to minimize the catastrophic efforts of this heinous and hateful crime. Nor, of course, does it bear any relevance to the specific charges that have been upheld in court against Scott Bennett. As for those, I can say only that any man must always take into account the ability of a woman to say "no" before either initiating or continuing any type of sexual overtures. While Adam's point about the article containing sensationalistic elements is clearly correct, Scott Bennett clearly did not do what any morally responsible man should do when faced with someone whose faculties were impaired--which is to back off.
The 1/5 statistic is about sexual assault, not rape. The debunking attempts always twist it to rape in order to falsely claim it's incorrect.
The United States does not have a uniform definition of rape nor a central agency that collects statistics so there is no way of knowing how many 'rapes' are reported. Where did you get your statistics?





Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: VanDykeParksAndRec on May 08, 2016, 11:03:51 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

Trump has run for president before.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Angua on May 08, 2016, 11:27:55 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid. 

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.

 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Angua on May 08, 2016, 11:30:19 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?


  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

Trump has run for president before.

Hands up - you got me there.  I know virtually nothing about Trump and want to know less. :-)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: adamghost on May 08, 2016, 11:53:04 AM
There's no excuse for what we know Scott did, even spinning the best possible scenario for the events.

I can be appalled by the effects of rape and the aftermath (I too have had someone close to me go through this, not that it's anyone's business, but it apparently needs to be said) and still be concerned about the deliberate tone of the article (to which most of us, myself included, reacted exactly as intended) and also have an understanding of the weird non-reality of the touring musician (which is not an excuse, but it is context) and also of how media and law enforcement tend to spin facts.

This is not taking sides, nor is it excusing anything.  It's holding a lot of different ideas in one's head simultaneously and sifting through them and trying to have a fuller understanding of what happened.  We all have things we stand for.  Fairness, entertaining all sides of a question and thinking for myself, even when it's socially uncomfortable or makes people mad, is what I do - anyone who follows me on FB knows this.  Whatever horrible biases or denials people may ascribe to that trait - you're wrong.  I know me and you don't.  And I'm used to people getting mad at me because I won't just jump on board whatever train everyone is on.  I've learned too many times that later more facts emerge and what seemed like a clear picture is a lot blurrier.  I can reach a conclusion for myself in a day, a week, or a month.  And it's very possibly going to be exactly the same conclusion that everyone else has reached already.  But if it isn't, I'm going to be glad I didn't just go "fry him, the monster!"  It's a moral question to me, and so no offense meant, I don't care what anybody else happens to think about it.  A lot of times, doing what you think is right is going to p*ss everyone around you off.  (And the need for/responsibility to have a moral compass in all circumstances is the central question of this event, no?  Since substance abuse, nor peer pressure in another situation, is not an excuse for this kind of act)

No one's excusing Scott.  No matter what happened, even if there were exculpatory facts, he behaved like a pig and an idiot and apparently showed zero concern for the welfare of the woman.  And he's also been convicted so he's lost his presumption of innocence.  

I think everyone who is up in arms about the idea that anybody is "minimizing rape" needs to face one salient fact:  Scott's life is over. If he doesn't win on appeal, he's going to jail for a long time, and face years of monitoring, difficulty getting work or finding a place to live, after he gets out.  If he does, he's still damaged goods and he probably won't be able to work.  So whatever he has done he will be amply punished in full.

I personally hope (assuming that the verdict holds) that it's all true and Scott is a sack of crap, because he is most likely going down regardless of what the full circumstances may have been.  People who might point fingers because some of us are a little concerned with some of the questions around the edges and think that concern is somehow going light on Scott or the topic of rape need to keep that in mind.  Rape is serious business; so are the penalties for sex offender laws in this country, and so are the flaws in the media and in law enforcement.  It is possible to be concerned about all these things, simultaneously, without denying due weight to any one of them.

That's my final post on this topic.  I've been clear; anybody who wants to project something further on it - meaning absolutely no acrimony or disrespect (since I know this is a highly charged, emotional topic with widely differing experiential sets between genders that can frustrate any discussion), but I am very clear that such a projection is a function of your own views and biases, and not mine.

The woman endured a horrible trauma.  The guy's life is over.  That's bad enough.  I don't do pitchforks, tar and feathers. I'm sorry.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cool Cool Water on May 08, 2016, 12:30:15 PM
There's no excuse for what we know Scott did, even spinning the best possible scenario for the events.

I can be appalled by the effects of rape and the aftermath (I too have had someone close to me go through this, not that it's anyone's business, but it apparently needs to be said) and still be concerned about the deliberate tone of the article (to which most of us, myself included, reacted exactly as intended) and also have an understanding of the weird non-reality of the touring musician (which is not an excuse, but it is context) and also of how media and law enforcement tend to spin facts.

This is not taking sides, nor is it excusing anything.  It's holding a lot of different ideas in one's head simultaneously and sifting through them and trying to have a fuller understanding of what happened.  We all have things we stand for.  Fairness, entertaining all sides of a question and thinking for myself, even when it's socially uncomfortable or makes people mad, is what I do - anyone who follows me on FB knows this.  Whatever horrible biases or denials people may ascribe to that trait - you're wrong.  I know me and you don't.  And I'm used to people getting mad at me because I won't just jump on board whatever train everyone is on.  I've learned too many times that later more facts emerge and what seemed like a clear picture is a lot blurrier.  I can reach a conclusion for myself in a day, a week, or a month.  And it's very possibly going to be exactly the same conclusion that everyone else has reached already.  But if it isn't, I'm going to be glad I didn't just go "fry him, the monster!"  It's a moral question to me, and so no offense meant, I don't care what anybody else happens to think about it.  A lot of times, doing what you think is right is going to p*ss everyone around you off.  (And the need for/responsibility to have a moral compass in all circumstances is the central question of this event, no?  Since substance abuse, nor peer pressure in another situation, is not an excuse for this kind of act)

No one's excusing Scott.  No matter what happened, even if there were exculpatory facts, he behaved like a pig and an idiot and apparently showed zero concern for the welfare of the woman.  And he's also been convicted so he's lost his presumption of innocence.  

I think everyone who is up in arms about the idea that anybody is "minimizing rape" needs to face one salient fact:  Scott's life is over. If he doesn't win on appeal, he's going to jail for a long time, and face years of monitoring, difficulty getting work or finding a place to live, after he gets out.  If he does, he's still damaged goods and he probably won't be able to work.  So whatever he has done he will be amply punished in full.

I personally hope (assuming that the verdict holds) that it's all true and Scott is a sack of crap, because he is most likely going down regardless of what the full circumstances may have been.  People who might point fingers because some of us are a little concerned with some of the questions around the edges and think that concern is somehow going light on Scott or the topic of rape need to keep that in mind.  Rape is serious business; so are the penalties for sex offender laws in this country, and so are the flaws in the media and in law enforcement.  It is possible to be concerned about all these things, simultaneously, without denying due weight to any one of them.

That's my final post on this topic.  I've been clear; anybody who wants to project something further on it - meaning absolutely no acrimony or disrespect (since I know this is a highly charged, emotional topic with widely differing experiential sets between genders that can frustrate any discussion), but I am very clear that such a projection is a function of your own views and biases, and not mine.

The woman endured a horrible trauma.  The guy's life is over.  That's bad enough.  I don't do pitchforks, tar and feathers. I'm sorry.

Well said.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ang Jones on May 08, 2016, 12:46:23 PM
There's no excuse for what we know Scott did, even spinning the best possible scenario for the events.

I can be appalled by the effects of rape and the aftermath (I too have had someone close to me go through this, not that it's anyone's business, but it apparently needs to be said) and still be concerned about the deliberate tone of the article (to which most of us, myself included, reacted exactly as intended) and also have an understanding of the weird non-reality of the touring musician (which is not an excuse, but it is context) and also of how media and law enforcement tend to spin facts.

This is not taking sides, nor is it excusing anything.  It's holding a lot of different ideas in one's head simultaneously and sifting through them and trying to have a fuller understanding of what happened.  We all have things we stand for.  Fairness, entertaining all sides of a question and thinking for myself, even when it's socially uncomfortable or makes people mad, is what I do - anyone who follows me on FB knows this.  Whatever horrible biases or denials people may ascribe to that trait - you're wrong.  I know me and you don't.  And I'm used to people getting mad at me because I won't just jump on board whatever train everyone is on.  I've learned too many times that later more facts emerge and what seemed like a clear picture is a lot blurrier.  I can reach a conclusion for myself in a day, a week, or a month.  And it's very possibly going to be exactly the same conclusion that everyone else has reached already.  But if it isn't, I'm going to be glad I didn't just go "fry him, the monster!"  It's a moral question to me, and so no offense meant, I don't care what anybody else happens to think about it.  A lot of times, doing what you think is right is going to p*ss everyone around you off.  (And the need for/responsibility to have a moral compass in all circumstances is the central question of this event, no?  Since substance abuse, nor peer pressure in another situation, is not an excuse for this kind of act)

No one's excusing Scott.  No matter what happened, even if there were exculpatory facts, he behaved like a pig and an idiot and apparently showed zero concern for the welfare of the woman.  And he's also been convicted so he's lost his presumption of innocence.  

I think everyone who is up in arms about the idea that anybody is "minimizing rape" needs to face one salient fact:  Scott's life is over. If he doesn't win on appeal, he's going to jail for a long time, and face years of monitoring, difficulty getting work or finding a place to live, after he gets out.  If he does, he's still damaged goods and he probably won't be able to work.  So whatever he has done he will be amply punished in full.

I personally hope (assuming that the verdict holds) that it's all true and Scott is a sack of crap, because he is most likely going down regardless of what the full circumstances may have been.  People who might point fingers because some of us are a little concerned with some of the questions around the edges and think that concern is somehow going light on Scott or the topic of rape need to keep that in mind.  Rape is serious business; so are the penalties for sex offender laws in this country, and so are the flaws in the media and in law enforcement.  It is possible to be concerned about all these things, simultaneously, without denying due weight to any one of them.

That's my final post on this topic.  I've been clear; anybody who wants to project something further on it - meaning absolutely no acrimony or disrespect (since I know this is a highly charged, emotional topic with widely differing experiential sets between genders that can frustrate any discussion), but I am very clear that such a projection is a function of your own views and biases, and not mine.

The woman endured a horrible trauma.  The guy's life is over.  That's bad enough.  I don't do pitchforks, tar and feathers. I'm sorry.

Well said.

Seconded except that I can not in honesty state that I hope that it is true. Scott is certainly going to face bad consequences even if he gets off on appeal.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: barsone on May 08, 2016, 01:01:15 PM
Curious, was it the hotel security staff who called the police department ?  I imagine in a hotel this size, the security staff is monitoring a multitude of hotel  camera's just as they are also looking at the gaming tables.  Article mentions them in the elevator at 1am the morning of 12/5/14.  Then it mentions the police speaking with both Scott and the unnamed lady the next morning.  All just so sad on so many levels for all concerned.

Who knows where this goes in the hell lawsuits and lawyers.  Sad yes this couldn't be stopped real time by security.  Because the young lady doesn't recall the incident, I'm thankful that in 2014 we have this stuff is real time and apparently (though its unclear to me) the hotel called the local authorities.  Yes they did their job.....I'm just glad for her sake, they made the call.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cool Cool Water on May 08, 2016, 01:04:16 PM
I wonder how Taylor Mills feels about this event, as herself and Scott were not only band mates but close friends. She must be disgusted I would imagine.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: mojoman3061 on May 08, 2016, 01:49:36 PM
I've just read this entire thread in one gulp.

This is awful.  Whoever said there are only losers in this situation is spot on.  I applaud Brian's remark about it and respect him for it.

I can't think of anything more to say that hasn't been said.  I'm glad we're all trying to give each other the benefit of the doubt.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: adamghost on May 08, 2016, 01:51:43 PM

Seconded except that I can not in honesty state that I hope that it is true. Scott is certainly going to face bad consequences even if he gets off on appeal.

Since that quote about "hoping it's true" could obviously be taken out of context and be hurtful, I just want to stress that when I said "hope" what I meant is that if for some reason (not apparent now) this is NOT all true, and the same penalties apply regardless, then the situation is more tragic than I am personally prepared to take in.  


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ang Jones on May 08, 2016, 02:08:29 PM

Seconded except that I can not in honesty state that I hope that it is true. Scott is certainly going to face bad consequences even if he gets off on appeal.

Since that quote about "hoping it's true" could obviously be taken out of context and be hurtful, I just want to stress that when I said "hope" what I meant is that if for some reason (not apparent now) this is NOT all true, and the same penalties apply regardless, then the situation is more tragic than I am personally prepared to take in.  

Yes, of course I realised what you meant. It is awful to think of someone who is innocent of the charge suffering these consequences. I'm not suggesting full innocence because obviously there is no way this was a good way to behave.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Don Malcolm on May 08, 2016, 02:08:48 PM
Here is one of the more recent sources, Emily:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

I think a heated issue of this type, which quickly draws social and political battlelines, is something that can easily be swayed by definitional parsing. Clearly the incidence of inappropriate sexual advances is much higher than outright rape. Getting a precse handle on those figures is quite a bit murkier, however, because there is some unavoidable interpretive grey area in that terminology. The CDC's study, as noted in many media articles, is not definitive due to reasons already stated and there are massive problems in getting definitive data.

What I think is clear is that there is a still a lack of synthesis  between feminist critique and the dangerous social pressures placed on young women at virtually all college campuses around the USA. Reading Peggy Orenstein's GIRLS AND SEX will make that abundantly and harrowingly clear. That is why it's undeniable that rape/assault figures are much higher there than anywhere else, because so many triggering factors simply get slammed together. Whether it's actually as high as 1 in 5 is not an incontrovertible fact, but what's important for people to know is that even if it is 1 in 7 or 1 in 10, it is still a shocking statistic and needs more resources applied to the problem so that it can be minimized to the greatest extent possible.

I think Adam made an excellent point that those people who are convicted of these crimes are (quite justifiably) shamed for the rest of their lives. Our best bet for the future is to try to deal with these difficult issues prior to sending boys to college without a thorough grounding in proper conduct with regard to the opposite sex.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on May 08, 2016, 02:09:26 PM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.

Well, I don't think it's a coincidence that Scott was never part of the Pet Sounds 50 tour.  So I think they probably knew and let him go quietly.  It might be for a different reason but if not, it seems pretty convenient.  If the press got a hold of this while he was part of the tour, it would reflect on the whole band and on Brian and that's not something anybody would want, including Scott probably.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: adamghost on May 08, 2016, 02:10:08 PM

Seconded except that I can not in honesty state that I hope that it is true. Scott is certainly going to face bad consequences even if he gets off on appeal.

Since that quote about "hoping it's true" could obviously be taken out of context and be hurtful, I just want to stress that when I said "hope" what I meant is that if for some reason (not apparent now) this is NOT all true, and the same penalties apply regardless, then the situation is more tragic than I am personally prepared to take in.  

Yes, of course I realised what you meant. It is awful to think of someone who is innocent of the charge suffering these consequences. I'm not suggesting full innocence because obviously there is no way this was a good way to behave.

Exactly.  Thanks Ang.  Not everybody might get it, I appreciate that you did.  So easy (almost a given) to be misconstrued on a topic this sensitive.  Signing off now.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 02:12:13 PM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid. 

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.

 

In Oklahoma, the definition of rape includes a sex act with a person who is not of sound mind, whether temporary or permanent, including due to intoxication.
The description of what happened in the hall alone is, by definition, rape. One needs no more information than that.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: drbeachboy on May 08, 2016, 02:13:25 PM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.

Well, I don't think it's a coincidence that Scott was never part of the Pet Sounds 50 tour.  So I think they probably knew and let him go quietly.  It might be for a different reason but if not, it seems pretty convenient.  If the press got a hold of this while he was part of the tour, it would reflect on the whole band and on Brian and that's not something anybody would want, including Scott probably.
I am sure that he was not permitted to leave the country, pending the trial.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on May 08, 2016, 02:17:03 PM
Forgive me for spoiling your day if you hadn't heard about this already.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/former-keyboardist-for-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_80e34812-8f14-5ba2-a8f5-d45f1f22938f.html



Reading this account, (much of the attack on video), is stomach turning and disgusting! He should be thrown in prison for the maximum allowable penalty!

My questions are when did Brian's camp know about this and why wasn't he immediately fired? Anybody know how many shows he played after his arrest?
I can't find any information about when he was arrested, nor can I find anything that indicates that any details were made public until the conviction. There's no reason to assume that the BW camp didn't respond appropriately when they learned what happened.

Well, I don't think it's a coincidence that Scott was never part of the Pet Sounds 50 tour.  So I think they probably knew and let him go quietly.  It might be for a different reason but if not, it seems pretty convenient.  If the press got a hold of this while he was part of the tour, it would reflect on the whole band and on Brian and that's not something anybody would want, including Scott probably.
I am sure that he was not permitted to leave the country, pending the trial.

Good point.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cool Cool Water on May 08, 2016, 02:19:11 PM
Well, I don't think it's a coincidence that Scott was never part of the Pet Sounds 50 tour.  So I think they probably knew and let him go quietly.  

Yeah obviously they knew as this crime happened in 2014.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 02:24:37 PM
Here is one of the more recent sources, Emily:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

I think a heated issue of this type, which quickly draws social and political battlelines, is something that can easily be swayed by definitional parsing. Clearly the incidence of inappropriate sexual advances is much higher than outright rape. Getting a precse handle on those figures is quite a bit murkier, however, because there is some unavoidable interpretive grey area in that terminology. The CDC's study, as noted in many media articles, is not definitive due to reasons already stated and there are massive problems in getting definitive data.

What I think is clear is that there is a still a lack of synthesis  between feminist critique and the dangerous social pressures placed on young women at virtually all college campuses around the USA. Reading Peggy Orenstein's GIRLS AND SEX will make that abundantly and harrowingly clear. That is why it's undeniable that rape/assault figures are much higher there than anywhere else, because so many triggering factors simply get slammed together. Whether it's actually as high as 1 in 5 is not an incontrovertible fact, but what's important for people to know is that even if it is 1 in 7 or 1 in 10, it is still a shocking statistic and needs more resources applied to the problem so that it can be minimized to the greatest extent possible.

I think Adam made an excellent point that those people who are convicted of these crimes are (quite justifiably) shamed for the rest of their lives. Our best bet for the future is to try to deal with these difficult issues prior to sending boys to college without a thorough grounding in proper conduct with regard to the opposite sex.

What's nice to see in that report is the downward trend. When I was in college, soon before the start-date of that data, the rate was probably higher, extrapolating from that trend and from experience. It's certainly the case that young men and women these days are much more educated about their own rights and about other people's rights regarding sexual activity. When I was in college the sort of thing described in the video, without the elevator, would have happened to several people in one weekend. It was a basic, everyday part of frat culture.
The downward trend is a good sign.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 02:36:34 PM
 And I'm used to people getting mad at me because I won't just jump on board whatever train everyone is on...It's a moral question to me, and so no offense meant, I don't care what anybody else happens to think about it.  A lot of times, doing what you think is right is going to p*ss everyone around you off.  

Welcome to my every day reality.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Wirestone on May 08, 2016, 02:41:36 PM
Some indications going around on FB that this is indeed murkier than presented initially. Unfortunately, the reporter wasn't actually at the trial, so we only have the prosecution's account of the evidence. Which, as Adam pointed out, makes him look terrible.

In the 1960s, of course, no one would have thought twice about this. Which is a good thing. Newer attitudes are a good thing.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on May 08, 2016, 02:48:03 PM
In the 1960s, of course, no one would have thought twice about this. Which is a good thing.

It is?  :o


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 08, 2016, 03:00:05 PM
Our society is improving on these issues instead of "it's only Rock and roll" ;)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Wirestone on May 08, 2016, 03:46:55 PM
Inelegantly phrased post revised!


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 08, 2016, 04:00:49 PM
Some indications going around on FB that this is indeed murkier than presented initially. Unfortunately, the reporter wasn't actually at the trial, so we only have the prosecution's account of the evidence. Which, as Adam pointed out, makes him look terrible.

In the 1960s, of course, no one would have thought twice about this. Which is a good thing. Newer attitudes are a good thing.
What are the indications?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Shift on May 08, 2016, 05:13:37 PM
Disappointed that this thread about rape is still in the General On Topic arena.

Thought we were here for the music. Surely the Sandbox is for this serious stuff.

I get why some are speculating as to evidence that wasn't presented in a news column. However it's the evidence that was presented to the jury that's pertinent.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Kylo Ren on May 08, 2016, 05:27:22 PM
Just goes to show you can't really know people.

I mean, a member of a band (any band) could have loads of kiddie porn on their laptop and we wouldn't be any wiser until they were nabbed by the FBI.

There are a lot of weird people out there, hiding terrible secrets behind their masks of civility.

At least I can rest in the knowledge that my skeletons in the closet aren't so bad.

Not that I actually have skeletons... in my closet...  :angel:   


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: wantsomecorn on May 08, 2016, 09:45:10 PM
Some indications going around on FB that this is indeed murkier than presented initially.

Care to elaborate?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: KDS on May 09, 2016, 05:17:06 AM
Just finding out about this terrible sickening turn of events. 

Very sad indeed.  Thoughts and good vibes to the victim first of all. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2016, 07:43:56 AM
Let me be very clear that the one and only victim of this is of course the victim, and the family connected to this who have been affected.

But it has also dawned on me that the already super-slim chances of some additional release of C50 footage has now likely gone down the toilet. I suppose some audio releases wouldn't be impossible; one person can easily be mixed out I suppose. But given how it was already unlikely that stuff was going to be revisited, I'm curious if essentially pretty much most pre-2016 Brian stuff (including C50) being revisited is now an impossibility. And as I'm sure others might feel, I don't even know how *I* feel about that prospect. Too soon anyway I suppose.

Hopefully both the tour and perhaps a resulting Blu-ray release of the PS 50th tour could help to get Brian and the band and fans past this.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: KDS on May 09, 2016, 07:47:57 AM
Let me be very clear that the one and only victim of this is of course the victim, and the family connected to this who have been affected.

But it has also dawned on me that the already super-slim chances of some additional release of C50 footage has now likely gone down the toilet. I suppose some audio releases wouldn't be impossible; one person can easily be mixed out I suppose. But given how it was already unlikely that stuff was going to be revisited, I'm curious if essentially pretty much most pre-2016 Brian stuff (including C50) being revisited is now an impossibility. And as I'm sure others might feel, I don't even know how *I* feel about that prospect. Too soon anyway I suppose.

Hopefully both the tour and perhaps a resulting Blu-ray release of the PS 50th tour could help to get Brian and the band and fans past this.

I didn't even think about that.  But editing can accomplish a lot.  I just recently broke down and got the existing C50 BluRay, and Scott is barely seen. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: filledeplage on May 09, 2016, 08:29:31 AM
Let me be very clear that the one and only victim of this is of course the victim, and the family connected to this who have been affected.

But it has also dawned on me that the already super-slim chances of some additional release of C50 footage has now likely gone down the toilet. I suppose some audio releases wouldn't be impossible; one person can easily be mixed out I suppose. But given how it was already unlikely that stuff was going to be revisited, I'm curious if essentially pretty much most pre-2016 Brian stuff (including C50) being revisited is now an impossibility. And as I'm sure others might feel, I don't even know how *I* feel about that prospect. Too soon anyway I suppose.

Hopefully both the tour and perhaps a resulting Blu-ray release of the PS 50th tour could help to get Brian and the band and fans past this.
Hey Jude - the footage is not even on my radar screen.   This jury trial which found Bennett guilty appears from the very limited info, that related to the trial in that article to be very convinced by the evidence. Someone kindly attached a link with the timeline of court events including pre-trial conferences.  My hat is off to Brian's organization for allowing the process to go forward with discretion and be measured in it's statement.

Rape is a crime of power and control (over the victim.)

Part of the reason, apart from punishment, with incarceration is "rehabilitation," and I do hope that whatever, perhaps underlying issues compelled this horrendous action, will be addressed medically, if it already has not begun, during the pre-trial phase.  How he addresses these issues matters, because at some point he will be re-integrated into society.  And, I hope Scott's family has support to go forward and be ok.  They are victims, of this bad action, too.   

Hotels are very much aware, after the very public Erin Andrews trial (which went on for a very long time) about security and safety for everyone who uses a hotel and expects that they can move around in safety. That girl was not smart to be so intoxicated, but even if she was, should have been able to go to her room, to sleep it off, without being assaulted.

The thing that really baffles me is how a guy, whose living has largely been made in front of a camera, and in a place where he knew there were security cameras everywhere (maybe more-so in a casino-hotel) would disregard those onmi-present devices in the elevators and hallways.  There are signs everywhere telling you of the presence of cameras.  But, even without the presence of cameras, it is a terrible breach of any "gentleman" to violate another person.  DNA evidence and a security camera system is hard to beat.     

But, it is great that Billy will be on the road with Brian.  He "knows the road" and needs neither a map, nor lyrics.  Billy is the best!  ;)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2016, 08:33:53 AM
Let me be very clear that the one and only victim of this is of course the victim, and the family connected to this who have been affected.

But it has also dawned on me that the already super-slim chances of some additional release of C50 footage has now likely gone down the toilet. I suppose some audio releases wouldn't be impossible; one person can easily be mixed out I suppose. But given how it was already unlikely that stuff was going to be revisited, I'm curious if essentially pretty much most pre-2016 Brian stuff (including C50) being revisited is now an impossibility. And as I'm sure others might feel, I don't even know how *I* feel about that prospect. Too soon anyway I suppose.

Hopefully both the tour and perhaps a resulting Blu-ray release of the PS 50th tour could help to get Brian and the band and fans past this.

I didn't even think about that.  But editing can accomplish a lot.  I just recently broke down and got the existing C50 BluRay, and Scott is barely seen. 

Certainly editing and whatnot could address the issues. But I'm thinking it's all a non-starter now, mostly because it already was.

On the musical/entertainment/fan side of things (which is obviously of no importance in relation to this awful crime), I think the best thing to do is continue to do an awesome tour, and perhaps if we're lucky they'll do a Blu-ray for PS50. Plus, I'm not ever prepared to stop at least *hoping* for another reunion.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Robbie Mac on May 09, 2016, 08:49:11 AM
Er, Derek and the Dominos is still in print. And Jim Gordon was more famous than Scott (and his crime more horrific too).


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: marcella27 on May 09, 2016, 08:59:20 AM
What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

Hi Emily -

I don't think that anyone here has been trying to make it all seem less tragic than it actually was, or exculpate Scott Bennett as to having done something bad. That wasn't my point, nor that of others (I think). I wanted to emphasize that with what we do know, we actually know not that much. Well, I am speaking for myself: I don't have the slightest idea about what was going through Scott's mind, save (probably) for my strong belief that he, IMHO an intelligent, sensitive man, can't possibly have been in his normal state of being when he did what he did, given the enormous risks that would have been so obvious to any clear-headed person in those surroundings (well, risks... I'd even go so far as to say that someone in a normal state would know that he'd have a 100% chance of being found out, given today's video observation techniques).

That is what puzzles me the most, in fact. That is why I used words like lapsus, he may have been aware regarding the events, and hence have a recollection of these, but at the same time he may not have had any capacity for sound judgment.

Perhaps one or another psychological assessment will be made, and perhaps even made public.


Does it really matter what his mental state was at the time?  This was right after a gig, so he was obviously functional on the day of.  Apparently he was intoxicated, but that excuses nothing.  It does come across as apologist to speculate that maybe he "did not have any capacity for sound judgement" and to say that on other occasions he seemed intelligent and sensitive.  Intelligent people do horrific things all the time.  People make choices, and it looks like he made a choice to get drunk and do something horrible.  

Yes, the media sensationalizes things all the time.  However, we're not talking about an allegation here.  This went to court, and the court found him guilty (based on video evidence).  


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: KDS on May 09, 2016, 09:00:39 AM
Er, Derek and the Dominos is still in print. And Jim Gordon was more famous than Scott (and his crime more horrific too).

Yeah, that was released before Gordon's crimes.  

HJ was saying that it wouldn't be good PR to release a new product with Scott on it now.  

Back in 1996, Tony Iommi and Glenn Hughes recorded an album with Dave Holland on drums.  It was never released.  A few years later, Holland was busted for pedophilia.  When Iommi and Hughes finally released the album in 2004, they had Holland's drum tracks removed.  

But Holland's older work with Trapeze and Judas Priest was never changed.  


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cool Cool Water on May 09, 2016, 09:05:49 AM
Thoughts and good vibes to the victim first of all. 


The most important factor in all this, totally agree! 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2016, 09:18:24 AM
HJ was saying that it would be good PR to release a new product with Scott on it now.  


I don't know if a typo is involved or what, but I definitely *didn't* say that. I don't think anyone thinks anything to do with Bennett is good PR.

I was only commenting on the likelihood that due to what they might feel is appropriate (in addition to avoiding bad PR), it would be *less* likely to see future releases that showcase Bennett, and one area where this would come up would be past live stuff (any studio stuff kicking around that Bennett plays or sings on can easily have his parts replaced; while I would guess any co-writes in the vault would be unlikely to be released.)

As others have pointed out regarding *existing* projects/releases that involve someone who committed heinous crimes (e.g. the myriad of sessions involving Jim Gordon), those usually aren't removed from the marketplace. Even when the main artist in question committed the crime (as opposed to a backing musician, collaborator, etc.), the stuff is not literally completely pulled from the marketplace.

Ultimately, whether a BW fan can still pull out "That Lucky Old Sun" (or whatever) and still enjoy it is a question each fan will have to address for themselves. As I've said, the plight of the "fans" is nothing compared to the actual victims of the crime. But it undoubtedly makes being a fan nothing but at least a little more conflicted and confusing.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: 37!ws on May 09, 2016, 09:25:43 AM
Don't think they can't digitally remove Scott from video footage. Heck, for the Brian Wilson On Tour documentary, both Joe Thomas and Steve Dahl were digitally erased. Not that there were frames of them edited out -- they were actually literally erased FROM the frames.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: KDS on May 09, 2016, 09:25:56 AM
HJ was saying that it would be good PR to release a new product with Scott on it now.  


I don't know if a typo is involved or what, but I definitely *didn't* say that. I don't think anyone thinks anything to do with Bennett is good PR.

I was only commenting on the likelihood that due to what they might feel is appropriate (in addition to avoiding bad PR), it would be *less* likely to see future releases that showcase Bennett, and one area where this would come up would be past live stuff (any studio stuff kicking around that Bennett plays or sings on can easily have his parts replaced; while I would guess any co-writes in the vault would be unlikely to be released.)

As others have pointed out regarding *existing* projects/releases that involve someone who committed heinous crimes (e.g. the myriad of sessions involving Jim Gordon), those usually aren't removed from the marketplace. Even when the main artist in question committed the crime (as opposed to a backing musician, collaborator, etc.), the stuff is not literally completely pulled from the marketplace.

Ultimately, whether a BW fan can still pull out "That Lucky Old Sun" (or whatever) and still enjoy it is a question each fan will have to address for themselves. As I've said, the plight of the "fans" is nothing compared to the actual victims of the crime. But it undoubtedly makes being a fan nothing but at least a little more conflicted and confusing.

HJ,

I'm sorry, that was a typo.  I edited my post to say "wouldn't be good PR to release a new product with Scott."

My apologies.  

I'm not sure how anyone else feels, but when it comes to entertainment (music, movies, etc), I'm usually able to still enjoy the works of somebody who crosses that line.  I guess I can add Scott Bennett to the list that includes Phil Spector, Dave Holland, Vince Neil, among others.  


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cool Cool Water on May 09, 2016, 09:30:13 AM
Heck, for the Brian Wilson On Tour documentary, both Joe Thomas and Steve Dahl were digitally erased. Not that there were frames of them edited out -- they were actually literally erased FROM the frames.

*Quickly off topic here

Why were they erased if you don't mind me asking?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: 37!ws on May 09, 2016, 09:32:23 AM
I can only speculate, but I think it might have to do how Joe Thomas was exiled at the time. (It might also explain why it took three damn years to get that DVD out.) Steve was part of Joe's crowd -- so I guess he was exiled along with him, although I think it was a mutual feeling there. (No big loss; Steve is a douche. Not the same way that, say, Scott is, but still a douche.)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cool Cool Water on May 09, 2016, 09:33:20 AM
I can only speculate, but I think it might have to do how Joe Thomas was exiled at the time. (It might also explain why it took three damn years to get that DVD out.) Steve was part of Joe's crowd -- so I guess he was exiled along with him, although I think it was a mutual feeling there.

Cheers.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2016, 09:34:15 AM
Heck, for the Brian Wilson On Tour documentary, both Joe Thomas and Steve Dahl were digitally erased. Not that there were frames of them edited out -- they were actually literally erased FROM the frames.

*Quickly off topic here

Why were they erased if you don't mind me asking?

There was a falling out between Joe Thomas and Brian and company in mid-1999 or so. Joe missed the Japan tour, Brian felt they were fine without Joe, and Joe was let go from the touring band at that point (and thus Dahl was also gone). Eventually some lawsuits were filed unrelated specifically to touring (not sure what happened with those; I would assume settled). I think this is covered at least a bit in the Carlin book.

They were then stuck with 1999 footage that they wanted to work into that "On Tour" documentary, which ended up coming out around 2003. Why they didn't just shoot footage of a newer show, I don't know. Maybe digitally erasing Thomas and Dahl was cheaper than a new video shoot? Or perhaps part of the novelty was that the 1999 footage was Brian's "first" tour?

As to why they couldn't just keep Thomas and Dahl in the footage, I'm not sure if there were legal reasons (pending lawsuits), or they just *really* wanted to wash their hands of the whole thing.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2016, 09:38:12 AM
Don't think they can't digitally remove Scott from video footage. Heck, for the Brian Wilson On Tour documentary, both Joe Thomas and Steve Dahl were digitally erased. Not that there were frames of them edited out -- they were actually literally erased FROM the frames.

They certainly *could* try to remove him digitally, but I just don't think it's going to happen. With C50 footage, there are already a ton of legal and political roadblocks keeping another release from happening, that I can't imagine *all* of that would be overcome in addition to having to do a bunch of extra post-production work to remove him.

Now, maybe some of the shows were covered with enough cameras that *very little* digital editing would need to be done, and the could rely mostly on just using shots that don't include him.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: drbeachboy on May 09, 2016, 09:38:16 AM
I just played Nothing But Love and I didn't feel any different listening to it. What was created before has nothing to do with what has happened. I never thought about Scott Bennett before this all happened and I probably won't in the future.

For myself, I will never understand why one person would take advantage of another person, at anytime, let alone when they are vulnerable. As a young man I had a few encounters with women that I turned down even though they wanted to, but who (in my mind) were just too inebriated to make that kind of decision. I always found it best to act when both parties knew exactly what they were getting into.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: 37!ws on May 09, 2016, 09:43:41 AM
Ehh, I never liked "Nothing But Love" in the first place; I don't think I'll feel any different. :)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Amy B. on May 09, 2016, 09:45:32 AM
VDP just tweeted out Scott's mug shot. Why?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: drbeachboy on May 09, 2016, 09:47:40 AM
Ehh, I never liked "Nothing But Love" in the first place; I don't think I'll feel any different. :)
I played it because I like it. I wasn't really thinking about whether you did or not. ;)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: drbeachboy on May 09, 2016, 09:53:54 AM
VDP just tweeted out Scott's mug shot. Why?
Something about sharing a lyric he'd written before this all happened? Very strange post by him, indeed.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cool Cool Water on May 09, 2016, 09:59:06 AM
There was a falling out between Joe Thomas and Brian and company in mid-1999 or so. Joe missed the Japan tour, Brian felt they were fine without Joe, and Joe was let go from the touring band at that point (and thus Dahl was also gone). Eventually some lawsuits were filed unrelated specifically to touring (not sure what happened with those; I would assume settled). I think this is covered at least a bit in the Carlin book.

They were then stuck with 1999 footage that they wanted to work into that "On Tour" documentary, which ended up coming out around 2003. Why they didn't just shoot footage of a newer show, I don't know. Maybe digitally erasing Thomas and Dahl was cheaper than a new video shoot? Or perhaps part of the novelty was that the 1999 footage was Brian's "first" tour?

As to why they couldn't just keep Thomas and Dahl in the footage, I'm not sure if there were legal reasons (pending lawsuits), or they just *really* wanted to wash their hands of the whole thing.

Ah right.  :o


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 09, 2016, 10:29:22 AM
The fact that the press is gonna keep pestering Brian for further comment just makes me pissed as hell.

Brian's representative posts yesterday on his website that Brian will have no further comment on the topic... Rolling Stone is aware of this (and even quotes Brian from Brian's site), then Rolling Stone proceeds to state that they then ignored what he said, and asked him for further comment. As though a guy in his mid 70s needs to deal with this crap.

What the f*ck about Brian not having anything more to say on the topic does Rolling Stone not understand? Unbelievable.

(http://i67.tinypic.com/1q04na.png)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2016, 10:36:41 AM
Brian's probably going to be asked about it if he does interviews, especially for the next few weeks or months.

I'm not sure what the PR plans were for the UK tour, but we may see less in the way of interviews if the assumption is that they're going to be asking about it.

My thing is, what could Brian possibly say? What insight could he offer? In that way, I'm guessing he's much like fans. We don't have any answers. It's totally bizarre and awful. It's like asking someone to comment on a death. It starts to just turn into that scene from the "Rutles" movie. "Shocked." "Yes, shocked.... and stunned."


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: urbanite on May 09, 2016, 10:39:09 AM
I'd like to know if Scott Bennett testified at the trial or if he asserted the 5th amendment.  The newspaper article was damning, in and of itself.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2016, 10:44:20 AM
I'd like to know if Scott Bennett testified at the trial or if he asserted the 5th amendment.  The newspaper article was damning, in and of itself.

In a criminal trial, one wouldn't have to plead the fifth if they didn't want to testify. One simply would choose not to testify. Although, perhaps not testifying is essentially an extension of one's fifth amendment rights.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 09, 2016, 10:44:34 AM
Brian's probably going to be asked about it if he does interviews, especially for the next few weeks or months.

I'm not sure what the PR plans were for the UK tour, but we may see less in the way of interviews if the assumption is that they're going to be asking about it.

My thing is, what could Brian possibly say? What insight could he offer? In that way, I'm guessing he's much like fans. We don't have any answers. It's totally bizarre and awful. It's like asking someone to comment on a death. It starts to just turn into that scene from the "Rutles" movie. "Shocked." "Yes, shocked.... and stunned."

All the media wants from Brian at this point is clickbait. Either saying something to throw Scott under the bus, or saying something of any remotely empathetic way about his colleague who by all accounts also appeared to be his friend (that can be spun into a "Brian defends rapist" headline).

There's nothing Brian can say that won't be exploited about this topic one way or another, and he, of all people, absolutely shouldn't have to deal with the emotional heartache and aggravation of this awful and tragic subject anymore than he already has.

Also - I'm trying to fathom what it's like for Brian (and Melinda), not to mention the makers of Love & Mercy, that the main theme song for the film, One Kind of Love, which Melinda seemed to be emotionally moved by and to really hold the song's sentiment close to her heart, now has the baggage of Scott having cowritten it. Even if that fact doesn't bother them personally, the fact that they might have to worry about public perception - what people might think if the band keeps playing the song live, and that it could largely be considered basically tainted now - this is just is one heartbreaking aspect of an incredibly heartbreaking story all around. F*ck.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Matt H on May 09, 2016, 10:48:02 AM
VDP just tweeted out Scott's mug shot. Why?
Something about sharing a lyric he'd written before this all happened? Very strange post by him, indeed.

Did he delete it, I don't see it?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: KDS on May 09, 2016, 10:48:47 AM
I don't think Scott Bennett's actions in any way detract from the music he made with Brian.  

Maybe I'm way off base here, but I really don't think that, when Brian plays OKOL in the future, people will say, "Oh it's that song co-written by a rapist."  

Phil Spector's music is still very much revered and respected.  


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 09, 2016, 10:52:19 AM
The Rolling Stone article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/former-brian-wilson-band-member-convicted-of-rape-20160509


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 09, 2016, 10:53:14 AM
I don't think Scott Bennett's actions in any way detract from the music he made with Brian.  

Maybe I'm way off base here, but I really don't think that, when Brian plays OKOL in the future, people will say, "Oh it's that song co-written by a rapist."  

Phil Spector's music is still very much revered and respected.  

I still love Spector's music, and can enjoy it untainted. I think of Spector as a guy with mental illness that got severely worse over the years. With Scott, I'm sure the same enjoyment will be true down the line, but for a lot of people, it's *such* fresh brand new news that it's just gonna be more difficult right this moment. Right now,  I just feel incredibly, incredibly sad for Scott, the victim, Brian, and everyone involved.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2016, 10:54:27 AM
VDP just tweeted out Scott's mug shot. Why?
Something about sharing a lyric he'd written before this all happened? Very strange post by him, indeed.

Did he delete it, I don't see it?

It appears to be gone. I don't know what Parks was trying to say. It kind of seemed like he was trying to indicate that he (Parks) gave Bennett some lyrics for something prior to all of this news breaking.

I don't know if any potential collaborators or associates are worried about any *future* things Bennett might release, or do or say, that might imply they were working with Bennett after learning of his conviction.

Just a guess.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Matt H on May 09, 2016, 11:00:48 AM
VDP just tweeted out Scott's mug shot. Why?
Something about sharing a lyric he'd written before this all happened? Very strange post by him, indeed.

Did he delete it, I don't see it?

It appears to be gone. I don't know what Parks was trying to say. It kind of seemed like he was trying to indicate that he (Parks) gave Bennett some lyrics for something prior to all of this news breaking.

I don't know if any potential collaborators or associates are worried about any *future* things Bennett might release, or do or say, that might imply they were working with Bennett after learning of his conviction.

Just a guess.

Interesting, I wonder if Brian will stay play "One Kind Of Love" live after this.  Since I first saw the story this morning, I have felt ill in my stomach ever since.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Amy B. on May 09, 2016, 11:01:34 AM
VDP just tweeted out Scott's mug shot. Why?
Something about sharing a lyric he'd written before this all happened? Very strange post by him, indeed.

Did he delete it, I don't see it?

The text of the tweet (not the photo) is still on my feed:

@thevandykeparks  2h2 hours ago
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/brian-wilson-band-member-rape/?trackback=twitter_mobile_top … @UltClassicRock VDP: I've chosen to let Scott use lyrics I'd provided him prior to this, as I do love mercy.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2016, 11:06:38 AM
I can't tell if VDP is being snarky or, as I mentioned above, trying to inform people that any future item Bennett might release with some VDP lyrics would be something VDP offered to him *prior* to all of this.

Not sure how likely it is we're going to see Bennett "using" any VDP lyrics for anything anytime soon, which makes me think the VDP comment is maybe meant as snark.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Amy B. on May 09, 2016, 11:12:00 AM
I'm choosing to interpret it as snark against Scott as well. I was annoyed that VDP chose to spread the news, which would only invite more speculation and possibly hurt Brian more. But I don't think VDP meant any harm. It's just that compassion for the victim may be more what's called for, if he was going to tweet about it at all. Clearly, he had second thoughts about the tweet, though.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: sjeffery on May 09, 2016, 11:13:52 AM
For those that have heard/downloaded, Scott's recently released song, "Only Love", the irony is nothing short of stunning. Described as follows: "Scott Bennett has teamed up with Billy Roach to create a beautiful ballad reminiscent of a John Lennon classic. The song tackles life's difficulties and how only love can save us sometimes." Obviously, one can never know what really transpires in another couple's life and marriage, but listening to these lyrics, it's hard not to imagine that this is an expression of his regret to his wife.

As to all the posts on this topic. For me, I think it's because all of us feel such a connection to Brian and the band that this just feels like such a betrayal. Clearly, our feelings are of no consequence or importance. I feel heartsick for the victim in this as well as Scott's wife, daughter, friends and family. He has shattered many lives by his actions and some things are simply too much to ever really be repaired.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: pixletwin on May 09, 2016, 11:19:58 AM
I was a facebookfriend of Scott's prior to the deletion of his account and I had taken note that many of his posts over the pasts few months wered focused on praising his wife. I feel bad for her in all this too.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Paul J B on May 09, 2016, 11:34:41 AM
Just so this thread. Somewhat speechless. Also trying not to let emotion weigh in but after sifting through a lot of these pages...a couple of points.

Sorry, but Bennett is a pig. The truth can hurt but it is what it is. No excuses, no " yes but "....a freaking creep and a criminal. Nice people are funny when they are drunk, creeps are ugly when they are drunk.

Some of you mentioned suing the casino. That is moronic. Bennett is the rapist. Some of you also mentioned his life being ruined. Don't count on it. Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Bill Clinton....just a few other pigs that come to mind and millions of people overlook the fact that they are pigs because of other more noteworthy accomplishments.







Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: barsone on May 09, 2016, 11:35:46 AM
I just went back and re-read the docket sheet GV33 posted back on page 4 (I believe).  A lot has been said about the video evidence which obviously is damning, but look also at the actual trial itself.  It looks like the prosecutors had over 2 days of witnesses.  Guessing these would be hotel security people.....All the DNA stuff and the associated people....who knows, maybe the victim knew others at the hotel.  None of us are sure of the timing, but she obviously got help and some GREAT advice the next morning whether it be the hotel security staff, the police, or friends that allowed for the DNA to be collected.  Though it wasn't stopped real time by hotel security, it appears they did come to her aid at some point.

It also spoke of the court telling the Bennett NOT to have any contact with the defendant.  Not sure if this is normal protocol in a rape case, or sadly their may have been some communication between 12/14 and 4/16 and the judge maybe had to re-state this in the court record.  My gut just wrenches seeing him remanded over to the local authorities with no bail..

Time to go listen to Pet Sounds I guess.....


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 09, 2016, 11:50:54 AM
The fact that the press is gonna keep pestering Brian for further comment just makes me pissed as hell.

Brian's representative posts yesterday on his website that Brian will have no further comment on the topic... Rolling Stone is aware of this (and even quotes Brian from Brian's site), then Rolling Stone proceeds to state that they then ignored what he said, and asked him for further comment. As though a guy in his mid 70s needs to deal with this crap.

What the f*ck about Brian not having anything more to say on the topic does Rolling Stone not understand? Unbelievable.

(http://i67.tinypic.com/1q04na.png)
"He said 'No comment.' When we asked for a comment, he said, 'no comment.'" Jesus.  ::). They at least could have written it to sound less dorky.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Douchepool on May 09, 2016, 12:23:09 PM
"As it happens, Ms. O'Neil, I have no off the record record. Make a record of that!"


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 09, 2016, 12:27:30 PM
Quote
Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid.  

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.
 

I've been thinking about this and it's occurred to me that maybe some people are unaware of the legal definitions of rape. They've been changing in the last few decades, and now in most states of the US using another person's body to perform a sex act when they are incapacitated due to inebriation or drugs is rape, whether or not they verbally consented.
In this case, unless the information in that article was outright incorrect, that's what happened. Why the woman was there, what she said, whether she flirted with him, whether he was drunk, whether she wanted to go to his room, all of that is irrelevant. He used her body for a sex act when she was incapacitated. That's all that needs to be known.
It's a change from earlier definitions and will be a cultural change in some subsets of the population.

Keep that in mind when you are in the US, and if you have children, make them aware as well.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: JK on May 09, 2016, 12:35:49 PM
.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: JK on May 09, 2016, 12:41:39 PM
Please, please, mods, move this topic to the Sandbox. This is no longer about Brian, or even about music.  It hasn't been since Brian publicly washed his hands of it----and rightly so.

Edit: Tone of post slightly modified... apologies.

Thank you, Billy. Sorry I shouted. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 09, 2016, 02:01:54 PM
Please, please, mods, move this topic to the Sandbox. This is no longer about Brian, or even about music.  It hasn't been since Brian publicly washed his hands of it----and rightly so.

Edit: Tone of post slightly modified... apologies.

Thank you, Billy. Sorry I shouted. 

No worries!


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Shift on May 09, 2016, 02:04:39 PM
Many thanks for moving the thread Billy, I believe this thread belongs here in the Sandbox, if anywhere.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 09, 2016, 02:07:56 PM
Yes, thanks Billy. I believe Brian & The Band should be distanced the f*ck away from this tragic event.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cool Cool Water on May 09, 2016, 02:15:00 PM
Please, please, mods, move this topic to the Sandbox. This is no longer about Brian, or even about music.  It hasn't been since Brian publicly washed his hands of it----and rightly so.
 

A great and modest move, John! It needed to be said and needed to be acted upon. It's not about Brian or his band, let alone music for that matter anymore. It's an off topic discussion now and rightly so


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Fire Wind on May 09, 2016, 02:37:07 PM
Not that it really matters, but barring a couple of people discussing rape per se, it's as on topic as it gets.  Given VDP's tweet and Rolling Stone bothering Brian's people for a comment, this isn't finished being played out in an on-topic sense.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: feelsflow on May 09, 2016, 03:36:07 PM
Thank You for moving this.  It was (and will here) continue to fuel the hate among members that are just needing a place to still vent days after the telling.  Hell, it had gotten to the point earlier today where anybody who had ever did anything like this, or worse, was being examined.  I don't have the time to waste, held my interest for about a hour.  I don't want to know more details. 

Glad I won't have to see it in my face every time I go to the General (About the Beach Boys) section of this forum.

I played NPP last Saturday night with no thought about Scott.  That is Brian's album.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Wirestone on May 09, 2016, 04:20:23 PM
As stated earlier, this thread is the definition of on topic. Member of Brian's band, an incident on Brian's tour, etc., etc.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: feelsflow on May 09, 2016, 04:49:28 PM
Have you folks heard the World is round?

Life is Life.

Move on.

https://youtu.be/Wc2hq3vbO7w


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cristian Kiper on May 09, 2016, 05:11:23 PM
Was Scott part of the Pet Sounds sessions that Brian recently recorded for Spotify? If so, I wonder if this will affect their release...

I'm talking about these sessions: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/a.329031750468900.73041.136456489726428/1050471824991552/?type=3&theater


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: beatle608 on May 09, 2016, 06:22:47 PM
Was Scott part of the Pet Sounds sessions that Brian recently recorded for Spotify? If so, I wonder if this will affect their release...

I'm talking about these sessions: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/a.329031750468900.73041.136456489726428/1050471824991552/?type=3&theater

I don't believe so, based on this (what I would assume to be) group photo: https://www.facebook.com/officialbrianwilson/photos/pb.34250497240.-2207520000.1462843277./10154029289597241/?type=3&theater


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Aum Bop Diddit on May 09, 2016, 07:27:09 PM
Damn. Don't know the guy but his presence, talent,  and energy brought so much to the table during this amazing Brian Wilson renaissance we've been privileged to witness.

The Dark Side is strong....


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 09, 2016, 09:52:03 PM
I just went back and re-read the docket sheet GV33 posted back on page 4 (I believe).  A lot has been said about the video evidence which obviously is damning, but look also at the actual trial itself.  It looks like the prosecutors had over 2 days of witnesses.  Guessing these would be hotel security people.....All the DNA stuff and the associated people....who knows, maybe the victim knew others at the hotel.  None of us are sure of the timing, but she obviously got help and some GREAT advice the next morning whether it be the hotel security staff, the police, or friends that allowed for the DNA to be collected.  Though it wasn't stopped real time by hotel security, it appears they did come to her aid at some point.

It also spoke of the court telling the Bennett NOT to have any contact with the defendant.  Not sure if this is normal protocol in a rape case, or sadly their may have been some communication between 12/14 and 4/16 and the judge maybe had to re-state this in the court record.  My gut just wrenches seeing him remanded over to the local authorities with no bail..

Time to go listen to Pet Sounds I guess.....

It is totally gutwrenching to read that court docket sheet.

The amount of times Scott had to fly back to Oklahoma and appear in court pre-trial, over and over again, in between gigs, it's just pretty mindblowing to think about emotionally juggling that, and then appearing onstage a day or two later, trying to put on a happy show-ready face and solid work ethic. All the while, inside, he must little by little have began to realize he was on borrowed time while he played every BW gig in 2015. One can go to AGD's bellagio site and look at the BW gigs from Dec. 2014 and throughout 2015, and compare the dates of gigs to the court appearances listed on the court docket sheet, and there were many.

I can't imagine how desperate things must have gotten near the end, and what it must be like for someone to be dying inside, slowly read the writing on the wall that they've ruined their own life with their actions. The whole thing is just completely excruciating to think about in every way - the incident, the victim, Scott, Scott's family.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: mabewa on May 10, 2016, 02:46:05 AM
Love the art, not the artist. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SamMcK on May 10, 2016, 03:32:36 AM
Y'know, I've realised after the last couple of days that this won't really effect my enjoyment of TLOS and the likes of One Kind Of Love too much. The reason being that whenever He wrote those songs he was almost always trying to channel Brian. So it's hard to associate the likes of Midnights Another Day with Scott particularly, even if that is his voice in the Demo. I understand it's still far too soon to talk about this type of thing, (and perhaps a bit inconsiderate) but I didn't want to start a new thread just to say it. The music will recover, Scott's life will not. Hopefully the victim, and their families will get the compensation they need. That's all I've got left to say at this point.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: c-man on May 10, 2016, 03:57:08 AM
I can't tell if VDP is being snarky or, as I mentioned above, trying to inform people that any future item Bennett might release with some VDP lyrics would be something VDP offered to him *prior* to all of this.

Not sure how likely it is we're going to see Bennett "using" any VDP lyrics for anything anytime soon, which makes me think the VDP comment is maybe meant as snark.

Just a guess, but could he be referring to "Live Let Live", which VDP "gave" BW and SB to use in "That Lucky Old Sun"? The title of that song is complimentary to VDP's statement "I do love mercy".


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: KDS on May 10, 2016, 05:10:55 AM
Love the art, not the artist. 

Very efficient post, and very wise. 

There's a lot of questionable characters in the entertainment and sports world, ranging from people who've done horrible things to people who are just prickly.  But, I fully believe fans will be happier separated that from the art. 

I know if I didn't, I'd probably have to jettison about 1/4 of my CD collection. 


Title: Re: Very sad and disappointing news about Scott Bennett
Post by: Awesoman on May 10, 2016, 05:30:17 AM
Damn. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 10, 2016, 07:36:33 AM
Was Scott part of the Pet Sounds sessions that Brian recently recorded for Spotify? If so, I wonder if this will affect their release...

I'm talking about these sessions: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/a.329031750468900.73041.136456489726428/1050471824991552/?type=3&theater

I don't believe so, based on this (what I would assume to be) group photo: https://www.facebook.com/officialbrianwilson/photos/pb.34250497240.-2207520000.1462843277./10154029289597241/?type=3&theater

That group photo is not from the Spotify in-studio session, but simply from the general tour rehearsals. There were some separate pics (one is in the top link in the posts above) of the separate Spotify session which looked to be set up a bit more like an actual studio session, albeit live in the studio (wearing headphones, etc.)

I don't know if Bennett was at any of these sessions. He was absent in all extant photos up to a certain point, while both Billy Hinsche and Gary Griffin were pictured. One person did post in the 2016 tour thread during the time those rehearsal pics were being shown, that Bennett  (on Facebook I would guess) "posted a pic of Brian and Al in the studio yesterday and said it was a fun day", which seemed to imply but not state outright that Bennett was at some of the sessions or rehearsals. But I don't know if Bennett actually appeared in any photos, nor do I know if there's a way to parse Bennett's words to suggest he wasn't actually there but noted that it was a good day for Brian and Al. Bennett doesn't appear to have been at the rehearsal during which that big group shot was taken.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: 37!ws on May 10, 2016, 07:41:40 AM
The only shred of hope I could hold on to was that maybe because Scott was (apparently) intoxicated, he might have done something that he would never, ever have dreamed of doing with a clear head...but that the reports of his testimony (or what he told the police, I don't remember) show that he had a clear understanding of what was happening, I can't even think THAT much now.

Was he indeed guilty? If so, he's a rapist. And therefore a dirtbag.

Was there consent? If so, he took advantage of someone who was too bombed out of her mind to make any kind of judgment. And therefore he's a dirtbag.

Was there consent regardless? The guy is married. He's a dirtbag.

But regardless of whether he was intoxicated or not, he knew exactly what he was doing. He remembered what he did. He's a dirtbag.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: EgoHanger1966 on May 10, 2016, 09:12:17 AM
.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Paul J B on May 10, 2016, 09:39:35 AM
As stated earlier, this thread is the definition of on topic. Member of Brian's band, an incident on Brian's tour, etc., etc.

Agreed...as ugly as it is. We got to what, 80 pages of Pamplin's nonsense and this is dumped into the box after a few days. Not Brian's fault or anyone else associated with the band but this IS a big deal. Scott was not just a "former keyboard player". He has been a huge part of Brian's band all along and cowrote a lot of songs. He's all over every live performance with Brian out there including the c50 stuff. I actually lost sleep last night thinking about this.

Since Bennett has posted here is he now banned too?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Howie Edelson on May 10, 2016, 10:32:57 AM
Could not agree more.

THIS thread stays on -- "Put a Beatle in The BBs + a BB in The Beatles" --  and this nonsense BEACHB-oysters' (sand-corny) POETRY PEARLS - YULEtide-edit... -- but Brian Wilson's primary collaborator for the past decade convicted of rape after a BW show while on a BW tour gets pulled for not being relevant?

How is that off-topic?

Y'know, there's a Beatles fanzine that prides itself as being as factual and as hard news as you can get -- except -- the refuse to print Mark David Chapman's name. They maintain that by doing so they're "giving the killer what he wanted."
But news is news and sh it gets dirty. You can't have it both ways. (And who was that dude BEGGING the mods to have it moved to The Sandbox? Jeez. . . )

Granted, if the Scott Bennett thread devolved into moronica, The Sandbox would've been a better place for it. But not three days in. Not when the person has been so closely involved with all aspects of this music for nearly 20 years.

I think it's incredibly thin-skinned to get this off the main board so quickly. What I believe SHOULD have been the case is that due to the nature of this subject, the mods should've watched it closely and actually MODERATED it.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on May 10, 2016, 10:40:17 AM
Could not agree more.

THIS thread stays on -- "Put a Beatle in The BBs + a BB in The Beatles" --  and this nonsense BEACHB-oysters' (sand-corny) POETRY PEARLS - YULEtide-edit... -- but Brian Wilson's primary collaborator for the past decade convicted of rape after a BW show while on a BW tour gets pulled for not being relevant?

How is that off-topic?

Y'know, there's a Beatles fanzine that prides itself as being as factual and as hard news as you can get -- except -- the refuse to print Mark David Chapman's name. They maintain that by doing so they're "giving the killer what he wanted."
But news is news and sh it gets dirty. You can't have it both ways. (And who was that dude BEGGING the mods to have it moved to The Sandbox? Jeez. . . )

Granted, if the Scott Bennett thread devolved into moronica, The Sandbox would've been a better place for it. But not three days in. Not when the person has been so closely involved with all aspects of this music for nearly 20 years.

I think it's incredibly thin-skinned to get this off the main board so quickly. What I believe SHOULD have been the case is that due to the nature of this subject, the mods should've watched it closely and actually MODERATED it.


I agree.  As I said earlier in the thread, if the Stamos dui thread (which immediately turned very off topic) was allowed to stay in the other forum, then so should this. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Howie Edelson on May 10, 2016, 10:54:53 AM
AND. . . . . .

It is the ONLY thing people are thinking and talking about.

How is this MORE relevant -- "Put a Beatle in The BBs + a BB in The Beatles"?!

I'm not suggesting that this thread needs to be ongoing forever, but we've had threads about why people hate members of The Beach Boys stay on for eons.

Maybe we should all just ask Bruce how the surfing is today.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 10, 2016, 11:02:54 AM
And, stunningly, the discussions of this topic here have all remained cordial and have largely not gotten into the normal hyperbole and political rants and random victim blamers that often pop up in discussions like this in many other corners of the internet.

When we're even for one moment thinking about whether we can bring ourselves to even listen to what amounts to the majority of Brian's solo output, that's a pretty important topic.

And yes, as nausea-inducing as it might be, it's also sadly a case where this happened during a BW tour. This all happened, and a week later they were filming the PBS "Soundstage" special that I've been enjoying on Blu-ray for the last year. I was watching the thing literally hours before the news broke. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 10, 2016, 11:14:53 AM
AND. . . . . .

It is the ONLY thing people are thinking and talking about.

How is this MORE relevant -- "Put a Beatle in The BBs + a BB in The Beatles"?!

I'm not suggesting that this thread needs to be ongoing forever, but we've had threads about why people hate members of The Beach Boys stay on for eons.

Maybe we should all just ask Bruce how the surfing is today.

100% agree Howie! This should not have been moved yet. Hell,the Stamos DUI thread is still in General Topics after 11 months!

I wonder if a "request" was made to move it?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 10, 2016, 11:18:09 AM
I can understand the concerns of the mods and the posters who wanted it moved. Perhaps there could be a guideline that if people want to discuss the nature of the crime or the trial they should do so in the sandbox but if they want to discuss the impact on Brian Wilson and his band, that should be in the main forum?

And, ORR, yes, upthread you can see many people wanted to move it.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 10, 2016, 11:22:26 AM
I can understand the concerns of the mods and the posters who wanted it moved. Perhaps there could be a guideline that if people want to discuss the nature of the crime or the trial they should do so in the sandbox but if they want to discuss the impact on Brian Wilson and his band, that should be in the main forum?

And, ORR, yes, upthread you can see many people wanted to move it.

I just edited my post, Stamos DUI thread, 11 months and counting "not in the Sandbox".

By request, I mean "someone's camp...."


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on May 10, 2016, 11:27:24 AM
I can understand the concerns of the mods and the posters who wanted it moved. Perhaps there could be a guideline that if people want to discuss the nature of the crime or the trial they should do so in the sandbox but if they want to discuss the impact on Brian Wilson and his band, that should be in the main forum?

And, ORR, yes, upthread you can see many people wanted to move it.

I just edited my post, Stamos DUI thread, 11 months and counting "not in the Sandbox".

By request, I mean "someone's camp...."

I did notice on Brian's forum that all comments were deleted and the thread was locked.  Not that it has anything to do with this moving to the sandbox.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: drbeachboy on May 10, 2016, 11:45:32 AM
Does it really matter where the thread is located? If people want to talk about it, they will find it, just like we've been doing since it was started.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 10, 2016, 11:53:40 AM
Generally speaking, I'm thinking the "Sandbox" gets far less views and traffic in general, because there are plenty of folks who come to the board specifically for BB-related topics. I for one have largely stayed away from the "Sandbox", and my general perception has been that this is generally the area where people talk about things I have no interest in reading on this board, like politics, palindromes or whatever that one thread is, etc.

So while all areas of this board are accessible to all, I'm sure some folks who normally pay zero attention to the Sandbox might miss something if an on-topic thread is moved there.

Indeed, my bookmarks all point straight to the "General On Topic Discussions" section of the board.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 10, 2016, 12:16:58 PM
To be honest, I've been thinking about creating an sub-forum of off-topic BB/BW related posts, like the word games and stuff. Kind of like the Sandbox, but relating to the BB/BW.

As for why this is moved here, since he's no longer in the band, it technically is off-subject. If there was an off-topic on-topic board right now, would've moved it there.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 10, 2016, 12:18:05 PM
Generally speaking, I'm thinking the "Sandbox" gets far less views and traffic in general, because there are plenty of folks who come to the board specifically for BB-related topics. I for one have largely stayed away from the "Sandbox", and my general perception has been that this is generally the area where people talk about things I have no interest in reading on this board, like politics, palindromes or whatever that one thread is, etc.

So while all areas of this board are accessible to all, I'm sure some folks who normally pay zero attention to the Sandbox might miss something if an on-topic thread is moved there.

Indeed, my bookmarks all point straight to the "General On Topic Discussions" section of the board.

I'm thinking that the desire for this thread to be payed less attention to (which while I understand, I also have mixed feelings about) is exactly the main reason why it's being moved here.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: drbeachboy on May 10, 2016, 12:22:09 PM
Generally speaking, I'm thinking the "Sandbox" gets far less views and traffic in general, because there are plenty of folks who come to the board specifically for BB-related topics. I for one have largely stayed away from the "Sandbox", and my general perception has been that this is generally the area where people talk about things I have no interest in reading on this board, like politics, palindromes or whatever that one thread is, etc.

So while all areas of this board are accessible to all, I'm sure some folks who normally pay zero attention to the Sandbox might miss something if an on-topic thread is moved there.

Indeed, my bookmarks all point straight to the "General On Topic Discussions" section of the board.
I take it then that you do not use "Show unread posts since last visit"? It shows me everything, including the Sandbox entries.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 10, 2016, 12:25:11 PM


As for why this is moved here, since he's no longer in the band, it technically is off-subject. If there was an off-topic on-topic board right now, would've moved it there.

The thing is, there are many members of the band who got kicked out/quit and were no longer members of the band, including (for a time) Dennis, Brian, Carl, and David, but that doesn't erase the fact that they were (even during their time away from the band) and remain an integral part of the history. I can't think that if the SS board existed back during those times, that any topic involving any of those guys (even when for all anyone knew, they'd never return to the band in the future) would be considered off-topic.

Even though the circumstances are obviously much more terrible here, and even though Scott's not an original BB, he is basically an original member of the Brian Wilson Band, Brian's main collaborator of late, and it's not possible to just pretend that he's not part of the story... especially since this very unfortunate incident occurred on tour, and does have an effect on the public perception of the band. I wish it didn't, I don't want the band's image dragged down... and maybe moving this thread is the only way to accomplish that. And I can understand and respect that. I'm just speaking in the interest of what's actually accurate and impartial, and where this fits in with being a relevant topic, and I don't think we can really claim that it's not. Just IMHO.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: drbeachboy on May 10, 2016, 12:32:57 PM
I can understand the concerns of the mods and the posters who wanted it moved. Perhaps there could be a guideline that if people want to discuss the nature of the crime or the trial they should do so in the sandbox but if they want to discuss the impact on Brian Wilson and his band, that should be in the main forum?

And, ORR, yes, upthread you can see many people wanted to move it.

I just edited my post, Stamos DUI thread, 11 months and counting "not in the Sandbox".

By request, I mean "someone's camp...."

I did notice on Brian's forum that all comments were deleted and the thread was locked.  Not that it has anything to do with this moving to the sandbox.
Maybe gf2000 will answer your question. He is also a Mod over there, as well.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Howie Edelson on May 10, 2016, 12:37:41 PM
This is literally the first time I've EVER posted on The Sandbox -- and actually ever read a thread on it.

I've always considered this the place for people ranting about race/politics or being silly/immature (or burying topics.)
My point is -- once it's here, it's dead.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: drbeachboy on May 10, 2016, 12:39:58 PM
This is literally the first time I've EVER posted on The Sandbox -- and actually ever read a thread on it.

I've always considered this the place for people ranting about race/politics or being silly/immature (or burying topics.)
My point is -- once it's here, it's dead.

Hey, at least you can post here, somewhere. If you were over on Brian's board, you'd be left mumbling. ;)


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 10, 2016, 01:05:33 PM

As for why this is moved here, since he's no longer in the band, it technically is off-subject. If there was an off-topic on-topic board right now, would've moved it there.

Billy, the Stamos DUI thread is still in GOTD after 11 months. This should not be in the Sandbox. It's major news in the BB universe.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: KDS on May 10, 2016, 01:20:26 PM
So, random BB related threads are just being thrown into the Sandbox now? 

I noticed two more. 


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Gertie J. on May 10, 2016, 01:37:47 PM
To be honest, I've been thinking about creating an sub-forum of off-topic BB/BW related posts, like the word games and stuff. Kind of like the Sandbox, but relating to the BB/BW.

As for why this is moved here, since he's no longer in the band, it technically is off-subject. If there was an off-topic on-topic board right now, would've moved it there.

neat idea


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Smilin Ed H on May 10, 2016, 01:41:21 PM
(http://www.cjmediasource.com/images/uploads/attachments/ActionGraphic_Boom_3x2.39.jpg)

I can understand the need for sensitivity and also the need to avoid cracker-barrel psychology; on the other hand, I sorta see Howie's point; this board isn't visited too much and the main board is currently deluged in some fairly crappy threads.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 10, 2016, 01:54:47 PM
This is literally the first time I've EVER posted on The Sandbox -- and actually ever read a thread on it.

I've always considered this the place for people ranting about race/politics or being silly/immature (or burying topics.)
My point is -- once it's here, it's dead.

Evidently not.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Fire Wind on May 10, 2016, 02:36:14 PM
Bennett's side of things.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/former-brian-wilson-band-member-convicted-of-rape-20160509


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Susan on May 10, 2016, 02:45:56 PM
I feel like an ambulance chaser on this board right now, having been drawn in through one unsavory incident and then back through an even less savory story.  Please understand, in light of what i am about to say, that i believe with all my heart that Scott did wrong, that the victim gets all the concern, and that there is nothing good about this as it stands right now.

Scott was a very important piece of Brian's development over the last ten years.  Brian, early on, referred to him as "the most talented member of my band," or similar (one of the tour books).  He was a collaborator, a motivator, and a friend, and as such will always be an important part of the ouvre.

That said, his conviction clearly marks him as, at the very least, a troubled individual, and quite probably worse.  He is a rapist.

Love.  And Mercy.

If we believe in mercy, we believe in redemption.  

I understand the need to vilify right now.  I agree with it; i am participating.  The victim and her family are, and must be, our first concern, because this never goes away.  But if we believe in mercy, then we believe in redemption.  I hope that Scott will use his enforced time out - likely to last several years - to figure it out.  Not just come out saying he has changed, but actually...changing.  Getting the help he needs.  Fixing whatever that broken thing is inside that lead him to do this heinous thing, and coming out humbled, ready to make real amends, and live his life as something other than a pariah.

If you've known me a long time - damned near 20 years, some of you - then you know i'm a Pollyanna.  I believe in redemption.  I believe in appropriate punishment, and restitution, and fixing what you broke...and i believe in redemption.  I am well aware that this does not happen over night, but i hope with all of my heart that some day there will be redemption and reparations, and that Scott will be able to get on with his life having served his sentence and having made his amends.  I hope that love and mercy find him on the other side.


Title: Scott Bennett Releases Statement Regarding Oklahoma Incident
Post by: rab2591 on May 10, 2016, 02:51:25 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/former-brian-wilson-band-member-convicted-of-rape-20160509 (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/former-brian-wilson-band-member-convicted-of-rape-20160509)

"Mr. Bennett did not have sexual intercourse, let alone rape the woman who brought charges. This is a case of drunken misjudgment, that led to kissing and fondling in the lobby of a hotel," McMurray adds. "The investigator admitted to leaving critical statements supporting Mr. Bennett's innocence out of his report, including but certainly not limited to Mr. Bennett going to get help for the woman, leaving her briefly in the 7th floor hallway where she couldn’t remember her room number, and going in search of security. Mr. Bennett cooperated entirely with investigators, waived all rights, but was not asked to take a blood alcohol test, which would have provided the jury crucial evidence of his level of intoxication."

I couldn't find the thread for this in the General On Topic Discussion sub-forum for some reason...regardless, here is Scott's side of the story.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: alf wiedersehen on May 10, 2016, 03:21:44 PM
I've been thinking about posting here and finding the right words, but I'm no longer bothered to find the right words. What follows is just me working through a difficult, complicated subject.


Rape is pretty high up there on the "worst thing to do to another person" list. The fact that women are the victims of sexual aggression and used simply because they have the right biological parts is both sickening and frustrating. Vaginas appear to be a bit of a curse. I have a close family member who was raped while she was a young woman, and I still remember the way I felt when it was described to me. I've also had conversations with female friends about this subject, and they've more than once said they would be willing to fight and kill the other person if they were in this situation. It's hard to sympathize as a male, but if I ever have a daughter, she is going to know how to defend herself.

While I'm keen on throwing rapists into the trash bin that is prison, I'm also inclined to believe sometimes people just make bad, f***ed-up mistakes. It's been said I always find the good in a person, so maybe that's just my desire to believe that. However, as has been pointed out previously, the original article is really written to convince you of his guilt. It's filled with interpretation, negative wording, and it usually gives you just the right amount of details. How did he stop her on the elevator, exactly? Did she fight him? Don't get me wrong here, I'm not blaming the victim, but the article doesn't give me many details of her resistance, which is usually a reliable indication of rape. Of course, if he took advantage of her while she was incredibly drunk, that is undeniably rape. However, Scott's defense claims the encounter began in the lobby with consensual contact, and that he was drunk as well. At the moment, the circumstances are murky.

However, that's not to say that what happened to the victim is to be brushed aside. This is a traumatic, life-altering experience. The way the original article describes the color draining from her body is a clear indication of her response to what happened to her. However, even that detail is just another part of the sensationalism the article is riddled with. I'm not saying we should dismiss this experience, what I am saying is that we shouldn't be ready to hang Scott for what happened--not yet, anyway. With that said, all my sympathies go to the victim for having experienced this. I hope she can work through this and return to her normal, social existence.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett Releases Statement Regarding Oklahoma Incident
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 10, 2016, 03:43:24 PM
Yeah, it's in the Sandbox...for now. I'm going to do a sub-forum on this particular board in a couple of days and move it there .


Title: Re: Scott Bennett Releases Statement Regarding Oklahoma Incident
Post by: joe_blow on May 10, 2016, 04:54:58 PM
Yeah, it's in the Sandbox...for now. I'm going to do a sub-forum on this particular board in a couple of days and move it there .

The SJWs having a filed day.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett Releases Statement Regarding Oklahoma Incident
Post by: Emily on May 10, 2016, 05:00:24 PM
Yeah, it's in the Sandbox...for now. I'm going to do a sub-forum on this particular board in a couple of days and move it there .

The SJWs having a filed day.
You mean me? Having a field day by myself here?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cristian Kiper on May 10, 2016, 05:09:39 PM
Was Scott part of the Pet Sounds sessions that Brian recently recorded for Spotify? If so, I wonder if this will affect their release...

I'm talking about these sessions: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/a.329031750468900.73041.136456489726428/1050471824991552/?type=3&theater

I don't believe so, based on this (what I would assume to be) group photo: https://www.facebook.com/officialbrianwilson/photos/pb.34250497240.-2207520000.1462843277./10154029289597241/?type=3&theater

That group photo is not from the Spotify in-studio session, but simply from the general tour rehearsals. There were some separate pics (one is in the top link in the posts above) of the separate Spotify session which looked to be set up a bit more like an actual studio session, albeit live in the studio (wearing headphones, etc.)

I don't know if Bennett was at any of these sessions. He was absent in all extant photos up to a certain point, while both Billy Hinsche and Gary Griffin were pictured. One person did post in the 2016 tour thread during the time those rehearsal pics were being shown, that Bennett  (on Facebook I would guess) "posted a pic of Brian and Al in the studio yesterday and said it was a fun day", which seemed to imply but not state outright that Bennett was at some of the sessions or rehearsals. But I don't know if Bennett actually appeared in any photos, nor do I know if there's a way to parse Bennett's words to suggest he wasn't actually there but noted that it was a good day for Brian and Al. Bennett doesn't appear to have been at the rehearsal during which that big group shot was taken.

Is this him?

(https://scontent-grt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10565029_1051198741585527_4564178764981770583_n.jpg?oh=b018717d3a9f41384cd5296d49f53022&oe=579B9D1B)

Got it from here: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/ms.c.eJxNkUESxTAIQm~;UkUQTvP~;F2mo~;~_Zss3iCCgQWQXIlgxBwXPkBPkGt9IA0cMfAHZgP~;jexdHkOAVh5xFLMVFPAG~_4Bea~;IYtYUhEA2UlKs8IEWiPHxK0eUwjqI89hLwBhrJ7mKK~;iZ526ZANjhdGpA60K4cKpfP~_5h66oSwBjhX72~_YN8h2Upg~-.bps.a.1051198674918867.1073741836.136456489726428/1051198741585527/?type=3&theater

But I can't see the face that clearly...


Title: Re: Scott Bennett Releases Statement Regarding Oklahoma Incident
Post by: alf wiedersehen on May 10, 2016, 05:11:59 PM
Yeah, it's in the Sandbox...for now. I'm going to do a sub-forum on this particular board in a couple of days and move it there .

The SJWs having a filed day.
You mean me? Having a field day by myself here?

No, not yet. We've only filed for one.
We're waiting for the tax information to come through.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Gertie J. on May 10, 2016, 05:20:59 PM
nah thats not scott


Title: Re: Scott Bennett Releases Statement Regarding Oklahoma Incident
Post by: barsone on May 10, 2016, 05:56:19 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/former-brian-wilson-band-member-convicted-of-rape-20160509 (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/former-brian-wilson-band-member-convicted-of-rape-20160509)

"Mr. Bennett did not have sexual intercourse, let alone rape the woman who brought charges. This is a case of drunken misjudgment, that led to kissing and fondling in the lobby of a hotel," McMurray adds. "The investigator admitted to leaving critical statements supporting Mr. Bennett's innocence out of his report, including but certainly not limited to Mr. Bennett going to get help for the woman, leaving her briefly in the 7th floor hallway where she couldn’t remember her room number, and going in search of security. Mr. Bennett cooperated entirely with investigators, waived all rights, but was not asked to take a blood alcohol test, which would have provided the jury crucial evidence of his level of intoxication."

I couldn't find the thread for this in the General On Topic Discussion sub-forum for some reason...regardless, here is Scott's side of the story.

I'm still troubled by some of the timing of events....what time did the concert end...where did Scott drink post concert...the lobby scene....elevator scene.....hallway scene....his room for 35 minutes......then the 7th floor scene.   None of us have had the ability to have scene the hotel video, right ?  Did Scott go for help at the end or did he just leave her there on the 7th floor hallway?  Had the hotel already called the police ?  At some point this leads to the interrogations the next morning and the gathering of evidence.  Sad but always true, guilty is guilty.  Just a lot of unanswered questions and gut-wrenching feelings for all of us.

I remember seeing BW's group for the 2nd time in St. Charles Ill. in 2011 or 2012.  This was the town on the west side of Chicago where BW bought the home in 1998 and where his band was founded.  At the intermission I was bringing back 3 waters to my seats.  It was very crowded and hot in this old vaudeville theatre.  As I was going to turn into my 2 row seats, Scott came out the side door with his daughter to get her something to drink in the back.  Crowded as heck and he couldn't even take two steps.  I gave him one of my waters for his daughter.  He was very thankful and I said no problem, just glad to help.

I now think back to the beginning...BW with the Wondermints and the sound they produced in person. And now there seems to be a hole that's tough to patch.  Yeah Billy and Griffin are the back-ups but its not the same IMO.  People aren't perfect and we all have warts.  I pray for the victim as rape is as awful a crime that can be committed.  I also pray for Scott....hoping with all my hope this was only a one time incident.  Going to be a long 34 days till 6/14....especially if one is sitting in a cell.



Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 10, 2016, 06:18:13 PM
Yeah, it's in the Sandbox...for now. I'm going to do a sub-forum on this particular board in a couple of days and move it there .

The SJWs having a filed day.

What do you mean?


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cam Mott on May 10, 2016, 06:26:56 PM
If you've known me a long time - damned near 20 years, some of you - then you know i'm a Pollyanna.  I believe in redemption.

Hi, Sooz.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on May 10, 2016, 06:38:01 PM
Yeah, it's in the Sandbox...for now. I'm going to do a sub-forum on this particular board in a couple of days and move it there .

The SJWs having a filed day.

What do you mean?

Social Justice Warrior


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 10, 2016, 06:44:53 PM
Hmmm...not sure how I feel about that term. Not sure I like it one bit.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on May 10, 2016, 07:25:04 PM
Yeah, it's in the Sandbox...for now. I'm going to do a sub-forum on this particular board in a couple of days and move it there .

The SJWs having a filed day.

What do you mean?

Social Justice Warrior

I fail to see what any of this discussion has to do with social justice.  Unfortunately, these kind of incidents occur everyday.  The only reason we're talking about this particular one is because it involves a musician whom quite a few of us have admired in the past.  The case will not have a giant impact on society and having an opinion on the matter is not taking a bold political stance. 


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: joe_blow on May 10, 2016, 07:57:00 PM
Yeah, it's in the Sandbox...for now. I'm going to do a sub-forum on this particular board in a couple of days and move it there .

The SJWs having a filed day.

What do you mean?

Social Justice Warrior
Exactly - add a typo to rant over and the field...yes field day become even more.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: joe_blow on May 10, 2016, 08:00:36 PM
Yeah, it's in the Sandbox...for now. I'm going to do a sub-forum on this particular board in a couple of days and move it there .

The SJWs having a filed day.

What do you mean?

Social Justice Warrior

I fail to see what any of this discussion has to do with social justice.  Unfortunately, these kind of incidents occur everyday.  The only reason we're talking about this particular one is because it involves a musician whom quite a few of us have admired in the past.  The case will not have a giant impact on society and having an opinion on the matter is not taking a bold political stance. 
I just find it odd how people are quick to call him names upon the conviction. That would mean that calling OJ names after his acquittal would have been inappropriate, right?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 10, 2016, 08:04:19 PM
A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on May 10, 2016, 08:31:07 PM
I just find it odd how people are quick to call him names upon the conviction. That would mean that calling OJ names after his acquittal would have been inappropriate, right?

Not really.  That was a high profile murder case that was very clearly mishandled... Also I don't really understand the comparison.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 10, 2016, 08:32:18 PM
Yeah, it's in the Sandbox...for now. I'm going to do a sub-forum on this particular board in a couple of days and move it there .

The SJWs having a filed day.

What do you mean?

Social Justice Warrior

I fail to see what any of this discussion has to do with social justice.  Unfortunately, these kind of incidents occur everyday.  The only reason we're talking about this particular one is because it involves a musician whom quite a few of us have admired in the past.  The case will not have a giant impact on society and having an opinion on the matter is not taking a bold political stance. 
I just find it odd how people are quick to call him names upon the conviction. That would mean that calling OJ names after his acquittal would have been inappropriate, right?

Have you had a close family member or spouse be the victim of rape? I have, so yeah, I'm a bit sensitive to this.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: joe_blow on May 10, 2016, 08:59:54 PM
A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 10, 2016, 09:14:40 PM
A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.
Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 10, 2016, 09:29:49 PM
Was Scott part of the Pet Sounds sessions that Brian recently recorded for Spotify? If so, I wonder if this will affect their release...

I'm talking about these sessions: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/a.329031750468900.73041.136456489726428/1050471824991552/?type=3&theater
It says at the bottom of the linked Rolling Stone piece that he did not participate.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: 37!ws on May 10, 2016, 10:10:46 PM
The same Rolling Stone that quoted the official Brian Wilson statement that he had no further comment, then added that he could not be reached for further comment?  :)


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 10, 2016, 10:20:01 PM
The same Rolling Stone that quoted the official Brian Wilson statement that he had no further comment, then added that he could not be reached for further comment?  :)
:-D
No. The one with the Bennett defense.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Cool Cool Water on May 10, 2016, 11:41:05 PM
Is this him?

(https://scontent-grt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10565029_1051198741585527_4564178764981770583_n.jpg?oh=b018717d3a9f41384cd5296d49f53022&oe=579B9D1B)

Got it from here: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/ms.c.eJxNkUESxTAIQm~;UkUQTvP~;F2mo~;~_Zss3iCCgQWQXIlgxBwXPkBPkGt9IA0cMfAHZgP~;jexdHkOAVh5xFLMVFPAG~_4Bea~;IYtYUhEA2UlKs8IEWiPHxK0eUwjqI89hLwBhrJ7mKK~;iZ526ZANjhdGpA60K4cKpfP~_5h66oSwBjhX72~_YN8h2Upg~-.bps.a.1051198674918867.1073741836.136456489726428/1051198741585527/?type=3&theater

But I can't see the face that clearly...

Nope...


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ang Jones on May 11, 2016, 02:30:03 AM
Quote
Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid.  

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.
 

I've been thinking about this and it's occurred to me that maybe some people are unaware of the legal definitions of rape. They've been changing in the last few decades, and now in most states of the US using another person's body to perform a sex act when they are incapacitated due to inebriation or drugs is rape, whether or not they verbally consented.
In this case, unless the information in that article was outright incorrect, that's what happened. Why the woman was there, what she said, whether she flirted with him, whether he was drunk, whether she wanted to go to his room, all of that is irrelevant. He used her body for a sex act when she was incapacitated. That's all that needs to be known.
It's a change from earlier definitions and will be a cultural change in some subsets of the population.

Keep that in mind when you are in the US, and if you have children, make them aware as well.

I promised myself not to comment on this story further but just want to write this. I'm not trying to justify Scott's behaviour but if he was also extremely drunk he may not have realised exactly how incapacitated the victim was. Obviously that would be more clear to those who had seen the video. 

I live in the UK and the law here differs - I believe what Scott did would have been called 'sexual assault by penetration' here and the fact that the woman is over 16 would have been a mitigating factor. It would also have been in his favour if the incident was opportunistic or impulsive rather than planned.

I don't think we should judge based on the newspaper article. We can of course accept that those who heard the evidence made their informed judgment but from the details in the Rolling Stone article which give more of Scott's side of the story, it seems that the evidence MAY not have been complete.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: 37!ws on May 11, 2016, 05:30:49 AM
I just have to get this out...throughout this whole $#!tstorm, what's been going through my mind has been: Please, dear God, tell me Probyn and Darian aren't douchebags, too.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: filledeplage on May 11, 2016, 06:00:15 AM
I feel like an ambulance chaser on this board right now, having been drawn in through one unsavory incident and then back through an even less savory story.  Please understand, in light of what i am about to say, that i believe with all my heart that Scott did wrong, that the victim gets all the concern, and that there is nothing good about this as it stands right now.

Scott was a very important piece of Brian's development over the last ten years.  Brian, early on, referred to him as "the most talented member of my band," or similar (one of the tour books).  He was a collaborator, a motivator, and a friend, and as such will always be an important part of the ouvre.

That said, his conviction clearly marks him as, at the very least, a troubled individual, and quite probably worse.  He is a rapist.

Love.  And Mercy.

If we believe in mercy, we believe in redemption.  

I understand the need to vilify right now.  I agree with it; i am participating.  The victim and her family are, and must be, our first concern, because this never goes away.  But if we believe in mercy, then we believe in redemption.  I hope that Scott will use his enforced time out - likely to last several years - to figure it out.  Not just come out saying he has changed, but actually...changing.  Getting the help he needs.  Fixing whatever that broken thing is inside that lead him to do this heinous thing, and coming out humbled, ready to make real amends, and live his life as something other than a pariah.

If you've known me a long time - damned near 20 years, some of you - then you know i'm a Pollyanna.  I believe in redemption.  I believe in appropriate punishment, and restitution, and fixing what you broke...and i believe in redemption.  I am well aware that this does not happen over night, but i hope with all of my heart that some day there will be redemption and reparations, and that Scott will be able to get on with his life having served his sentence and having made his amends.  I hope that love and mercy find him on the other side.
Agree, Susan...

Redemption, and (love and mercy.)   


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Susan on May 11, 2016, 06:50:38 AM
If you've known me a long time - damned near 20 years, some of you - then you know i'm a Pollyanna.  I believe in redemption.

Hi, Sooz.

Hi Cam.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: HeyJude on May 11, 2016, 07:40:05 AM
Was Scott part of the Pet Sounds sessions that Brian recently recorded for Spotify? If so, I wonder if this will affect their release...

I'm talking about these sessions: https://www.facebook.com/aljardine/photos/a.329031750468900.73041.136456489726428/1050471824991552/?type=3&theater
It says at the bottom of the linked Rolling Stone piece that he did not participate.

Whether Bennett sat it for some rehearsals is not of much import at this stage, but I think the Rolling Stone article was simply saying that Bennett has not played any of the dates on the current PS tour.

People are wondering if Bennett was at any of the rehearsals probably for two reasons: They had a larger contingent rehearsing than would play at any given show (e.g. Griffin, Hinsche, and Darian all attending), essentially rehearsing all of the musicians who might come into the band over the course of the tour. Also, there was one report on the 2016 tour thread of a Facebook post from Bennett in which Bennett commented on a rehearsal with Brian and Al being a "good day" or something along those lines.

It seems pretty likely he wasn't at all rehearsals, as he wasn't part of the big group shot taken near the end of rehearsals. I don't think a pic of him at the rehearsals or Spotify session has surfaced, so it may well be that he never attended. The last public appearance with Brian that I'm aware of would have been the January 10 Golden Globes ceremony.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 07:48:43 AM
You're right. Didn't catch the word "trek".


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: joe_blow on May 11, 2016, 10:00:27 AM
A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.
Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.
So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 10:33:53 AM
A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.
Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.
So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?
The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 11:22:40 AM
Quote
Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid.  

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.
 

I've been thinking about this and it's occurred to me that maybe some people are unaware of the legal definitions of rape. They've been changing in the last few decades, and now in most states of the US using another person's body to perform a sex act when they are incapacitated due to inebriation or drugs is rape, whether or not they verbally consented.
In this case, unless the information in that article was outright incorrect, that's what happened. Why the woman was there, what she said, whether she flirted with him, whether he was drunk, whether she wanted to go to his room, all of that is irrelevant. He used her body for a sex act when she was incapacitated. That's all that needs to be known.
It's a change from earlier definitions and will be a cultural change in some subsets of the population.

Keep that in mind when you are in the US, and if you have children, make them aware as well.

I promised myself not to comment on this story further but just want to write this. I'm not trying to justify Scott's behaviour but if he was also extremely drunk he may not have realised exactly how incapacitated the victim was. Obviously that would be more clear to those who had seen the video.  

I live in the UK and the law here differs - I believe what Scott did would have been called 'sexual assault by penetration' here and the fact that the woman is over 16 would have been a mitigating factor. It would also have been in his favour if the incident was opportunistic or impulsive rather than planned.

I don't think we should judge based on the newspaper article. We can of course accept that those who heard the evidence made their informed judgment but from the details in the Rolling Stone article which give more of Scott's side of the story, it seems that the evidence MAY not have been complete.
By the way, Ang, the charge would have been different and more serious if she were underage. And the planned/impulse aspect is usually taken into account at sentencing. "Rape by instrumentation" is probably analogous to "sexual assault by penetration" and is not as strictly sentenced usually as flat-out rape. So the there's a fair amount of similarity.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Wirestone on May 11, 2016, 11:25:17 AM
I just have to get this out...throughout this whole $#!tstorm, what's been going through my mind has been: Please, dear God, tell me Probyn and Darian aren't douchebags, too.

I think the chances of that are probably pretty low.


Title: Re: Extraordinarily disappointing news regarding Scott Bennett
Post by: Ang Jones on May 11, 2016, 11:45:47 AM
Quote
Some questions - why was she in the lift if she was only at a party, did they meet before and have conversation, was anything said in the lift, if he wanted sexual gratification why limit himself to a practice which is usually to provide pleasure to the other person rather than yourself.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here and am not trying to denigrate the victim and do have sympathy with her predicament but this is just to show the stupidity of discussing something of which we know very little.

What I see, looking back and trying to read between the lines, is what I saw the first time: a much older man and younger woman, he in a famous touring band: socially, there's an imbalance that he should have been cautious not to exploit (obviously he wasn't). She was impaired enough that she wasn't fully ambulatory and that she didn't remember anything. He was unimpaired enough that he remembered things and that he got her to his room and out again. He raped her on camera in the hall. Later, he left her passed out in the hall.
Unless the article is actually incorrect, those are the facts.
What's the mitigation here?

  Your earlier post actually suggested that he may have done this previously because he did it this time.  On that basis Trump has run for president before and Kennedy was killed more than once.

That's absolutely not analogous and quite absurd.
As for the rest - prosecuting the victim - wth? really?

The whole point was to exaggerate.  You said that because he had done it this time he may have done it before.  I was making the point that this presumption is absolutely stupid.  

Who is prosecuting the victim?  Do you not know the meaning of the phrase 'devil's advocate'?  I'm pointing out to you that there is an enormous amount of information missing which could, perhaps, show that the sexual encounter was consensual. As he admitted to oral sex the defence is obviously down to this and yet there is nothing in the article about it at all which begs the question what else is missing?

It looks to me like the reporter turned up for the summing up by the prosecution, judging by the inflammatory wording, and based most of his article on it.  Deciding on the fairness of the trial based on a couple of paragraphs from a local paper and without the complete information is silly and pointless.
 

I've been thinking about this and it's occurred to me that maybe some people are unaware of the legal definitions of rape. They've been changing in the last few decades, and now in most states of the US using another person's body to perform a sex act when they are incapacitated due to inebriation or drugs is rape, whether or not they verbally consented.
In this case, unless the information in that article was outright incorrect, that's what happened. Why the woman was there, what she said, whether she flirted with him, whether he was drunk, whether she wanted to go to his room, all of that is irrelevant. He used her body for a sex act when she was incapacitated. That's all that needs to be known.
It's a change from earlier definitions and will be a cultural change in some subsets of the population.

Keep that in mind when you are in the US, and if you have children, make them aware as well.

I promised myself not to comment on this story further but just want to write this. I'm not trying to justify Scott's behaviour but if he was also extremely drunk he may not have realised exactly how incapacitated the victim was. Obviously that would be more clear to those who had seen the video.  

I live in the UK and the law here differs - I believe what Scott did would have been called 'sexual assault by penetration' here and the fact that the woman is over 16 would have been a mitigating factor. It would also have been in his favour if the incident was opportunistic or impulsive rather than planned.

I don't think we should judge based on the newspaper article. We can of course accept that those who heard the evidence made their informed judgment but from the details in the Rolling Stone article which give more of Scott's side of the story, it seems that the evidence MAY not have been complete.
By the way, Ang, the charge would have been different and more serious if she were underage. And the planned/impulse aspect is usually taken into account at sentencing. "Rape by instrumentation" is probably analogous to "sexual assault by penetration" and is not as strictly sentenced usually as flat-out rape. So the there's a fair amount of similarity.

I keep promising not to post further but, yes, there are similarities. I was pointing out the differences because this may explain some difference in attitude between posters.

A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.
Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.
So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?
The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

Another analogy. What if you left your keys in your car and it was stolen? Of course the criminal would be the thief but you might find the insurance company wouldn't pay up because they might feel you hadn't taken adequate care of your property. Those who allow themselves to become so drunk that they are passed out on the floor in a public place are also not taking due care. It may not be a criminal act; it may, though, be a misdemeanour. I've behaved irresponsibly on occasion and been lucky. If I got THAT drunk I'd be ashamed of myself as well as furious with anyone who had taken advantage of me.



Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 11:50:52 AM
I'm sure she feels awful about her choices that night. But, legally, the person who stole your car still stole it. The court won't find "the keys were in it" to be a mitigating factor on their behalf.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Angua on May 11, 2016, 11:51:51 AM
A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.
Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.
So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?
The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

I understand the law says that you can't have sex with an unconscious body even if until the moment they passed out they had been gagging for it (though I'm not saying that's what happened here) and you were so drunk you didn't notice.  It also says as I understand it that if you and your wife/long term partner, go out get plastered out of your minds, come home have happy consensual sex your wife (whatever) could accuse you of rape because she was insensible at the time.  So context is everything under these circumstances and as I don't know the full details and I'm completely confident that neither do you, I think we should just shut up about it until we know something instead of going on and on and on.  I have no doubt that Scott did wrong - to what extent I'm personally unsure - but the inflammatory statement published in the original article makes me slightly wary.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 11:56:40 AM
A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.
Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.
So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?
The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

I understand the law says that you can't have sex with an unconscious body even if until the moment they passed out they had been gagging for it (though I'm not saying that's what happened here) and you were so drunk you didn't notice.  It also says as I understand it that if you and your wife/long term partner, go out get plastered out of your minds, come home have happy consensual sex your wife (whatever) could accuse you of rape because she was insensible at the time.  So context is everything under these circumstances and as I don't know the full details and I'm completely confident that neither do you, I think we should just shut up about it until we know something instead of going on and on and on.  I have no doubt that Scott did wrong - to what extent I'm personally unsure - but the inflammatory statement published in the original article makes me slightly wary.
No need to be unconscious - "of unsound mind, whether permanent or temporary."
Every single day you treat the people you know differently than the people you don't know. And you treat the different people you know differently from each other, because you have relationships with them, and you know what they enjoy, and you know what's OK with them. Your wife is not a person you picked up that night in a hotel bar. Unless you're in Vegas.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Ang Jones on May 11, 2016, 12:02:20 PM
I'm sure she feels awful about her choices that night. But, legally, the person who stole your car still stole it. The court won't find "the keys were in it" to be a mitigating factor on their behalf.

No argument except that we don't know enough.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 11, 2016, 12:02:54 PM
Darian is a GREAT guy...rather shy and reserved, and was extremely kind and friendly with my family. Haven't met Probyn in person, just talked online a few times.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: KDS on May 11, 2016, 12:05:08 PM
Darian is a GREAT guy...rather shy and reserved, and was extremely kind and friendly with my family. Haven't met Probyn in person, just talked online a few times.

Probyn talked to me and my wife outside of the Montgomery College show in Rockville,MD last November for a good five minutes or so.  He also gave us a setlist from the first set that night.  Seemed like a very nice guy. 


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
I'm sure she feels awful about her choices that night. But, legally, the person who stole your car still stole it. The court won't find "the keys were in it" to be a mitigating factor on their behalf.

No argument except that we don't know enough.
Frankly, my rant wasn't targeting you. I find "I don't know enough to comment" to be perfectly reasonable. I don't feel the same, but I have no criticism of that position. It's the maybe she was flirting, maybe he was drunk too, that bothers me.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Angua on May 11, 2016, 12:09:13 PM
A couple of people on this board are really bad at analogy.
How is it different? You judge one because of the jury's decision (without hearing how the trial went), but not the other? SJW exemplified.
Actually, in neither case was I basing my opinion on the jury's decision; and if I were, a not guilty verdict <> an innocent verdict.
Bad at analogy exemplified.
So, if in Bennett's case you were not basing the decision on the verdict, what were you basing it upon? The prosecutor's side and only that? Or are you privy to more on this matter than the rest, who were not in the court?
The uncontroverted information that he, in the hallway of a hotel, removed the pants of, and performed a sexual act upon the body of, a woman so drunk that she couldn't walk on her own who was previously unknown to him.
Again, legally, and to me morally, no more information is needed.

And to all who are interested in his statement:
His additional evidence was that he'd been drinking, which I'd guessed anyway.
A number of posters here indicate that his drinking is a mitigating factor. How much?
To what degree is a theft mitigated by the fact that the thief had been drinking? To what degree is murder mitigated by the fact that the murderer had been drinking? To what degree is removing a barely conscious person's pants and performing a sex act on their body in the hall of a hotel mitigated by the perpetrator's drinking?

You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?
Gross.

I understand the law says that you can't have sex with an unconscious body even if until the moment they passed out they had been gagging for it (though I'm not saying that's what happened here) and you were so drunk you didn't notice.  It also says as I understand it that if you and your wife/long term partner, go out get plastered out of your minds, come home have happy consensual sex your wife (whatever) could accuse you of rape because she was insensible at the time.  So context is everything under these circumstances and as I don't know the full details and I'm completely confident that neither do you, I think we should just shut up about it until we know something instead of going on and on and on.  I have no doubt that Scott did wrong - to what extent I'm personally unsure - but the inflammatory statement published in the original article makes me slightly wary.
No need to be unconscious - "of unsound mind, whether permanent or temporary."
Every single day you treat the people you know differently than the people you don't know. And you treat the different people you know differently from each other, because you have relationships with them, and you know what they enjoy, and you know what's OK with them. Your wife is not a person you picked up that night in a hotel bar. Unless you're in Vegas.

And if he is of unsound mind too?  And married men don't rape their wives?  And we still don't know enough and I'm not continuing a discussion with you.  I've some paint I need to watch and I know when I'm waisting my breath.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 12:15:51 PM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: alf wiedersehen on May 11, 2016, 12:28:21 PM
You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?

Emily, I'm usually on your side, but the last line of your argument here is the straw man fallacy. No one is making that argument. Her flirting "kissing and fondling" in the hotel lobby shows her to have been a willing participant in the moment. Yes, she was drunk, so she wasn't thinking clearly, and therefore couldn't reliably make these decisions for herself. However, if Scott was drunk as well, then he too--by that same reasoning--wouldn't have been able to think or make decisions reliably. We don't actually know what happened between those two that night. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rapist, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 12:34:58 PM
You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?

Emily, I'm usually on your side, but the last line of your argument here is the straw man fallacy. No one is making that argument. Her flirting "kissing and fondling" in the hotel lobby shows her to have been a willing participant in the moment. Yes, she was drunk, so she wasn't thinking clearly, and therefore couldn't reliably make these decisions for herself. However, if Scott was drunk as well, then he too--by that same reasoning--wouldn't have been able to think or make decisions reliably. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.
Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: 37!ws on May 11, 2016, 12:38:03 PM
Darian is a GREAT guy...rather shy and reserved, and was extremely kind and friendly with my family. Haven't met Probyn in person, just talked online a few times.

Probyn talked to me and my wife outside of the Montgomery College show in Rockville,MD last November for a good five minutes or so.  He also gave us a setlist from the first set that night.  Seemed like a very nice guy.  

He's probably my favorite of all of Brian's band. He's great with the fans, and he's kind of silly. When Brian and Jeff Beck played in Washington in 2013 (or was it 2014?) the Mrs. and I and a couple of friends had after-show passes due to a connection that a FOAF has. We were waiting off to the side after the show, and someone came out and asked if there was anybody in particular we'd like to see. I swear, had to be at least a dozen people practically in unison who said "PROBYN!" And he did come out and chat for a few minutes, just being the nicest guy. (And I felt bad for him. I overheard someone ask him if he heard Made in California, and he said he had to borrow a couple of discs from a friend because he couldn't afford to buy it himself!)

My impression of Darian from the times I've met him: very humble guy, very nice guy.

Emily, I'm usually on your side, but the last line of your argument here is the straw man fallacy. No one is making that argument. Her flirting "kissing and fondling" in the hotel lobby shows her to have been a willing participant in the moment.

I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 12:40:51 PM
In any case, Bubs, I'm pleased to know that we agree in other discussions.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: adamghost on May 11, 2016, 12:41:24 PM
Having known them both for more than 20 years, I can say that Darian and Probyn are about the sweetest guys you will ever meet.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: alf wiedersehen on May 11, 2016, 12:47:30 PM
You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?

Emily, I'm usually on your side, but the last line of your argument here is the straw man fallacy. No one is making that argument. Her flirting "kissing and fondling" in the hotel lobby shows her to have been a willing participant in the moment. Yes, she was drunk, so she wasn't thinking clearly, and therefore couldn't reliably make these decisions for herself. However, if Scott was drunk as well, then he too--by that same reasoning--wouldn't have been able to think or make decisions reliably. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.
Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.

I'm not saying what she did in the hotel lobby gives him permission to do what he did. What I am saying is it's entirely possible she was a willing participant in what happened while it was happening. We don't know what happened between the two of them. All we have is (seemingly) silent footage that's described in such a way to convince you of his guilt. If he was only as drunk as they tell us ("all his faculties in check" or however they described it), then yeah, he took advantage of her. Case closed, he raped that woman.


No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping them is ok when they're drunk

Exactly. Isn't is possible--if he was reasonably drunk himself--he didn't think he was committing an act of rape?



I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??

The article is unclear. It just mentions it happening.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 12:58:03 PM
You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?

Emily, I'm usually on your side, but the last line of your argument here is the straw man fallacy. No one is making that argument. Her flirting "kissing and fondling" in the hotel lobby shows her to have been a willing participant in the moment. Yes, she was drunk, so she wasn't thinking clearly, and therefore couldn't reliably make these decisions for herself. However, if Scott was drunk as well, then he too--by that same reasoning--wouldn't have been able to think or make decisions reliably. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.
Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.

I'm not saying what she did in the hotel lobby gives him permission to do what he did. What I am saying is it's entirely possible she was a willing participant in what happened while it was happening. We don't know what happened between the two of them. All we have is (seemingly) silent footage that's described in such a way to convince you of his guilt. If he was only as drunk as they tell us ("all his faculties in check" or however they described it), then yeah, he took advantage of her. Case closed, he raped that woman.


No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping them is ok when they're drunk

Exactly. Isn't is possible--if he was reasonably drunk himself--he didn't think he was committing an act of rape?



I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??

The article is unclear. It just mentions it happening.
I'm on my phone in my car at a gas station so I'm not going to navigate in-line answers.
He, from his statement, still seems to think it wasn't rape. My point is that he probably didn't think it was rape because he seems to think, from his statement, that "kissing and fondling" means it wasn't rape. That, sober or drunk, his mindset is that it's all ok because they kissed and fondled. A mindset replicated here.
She, from the description of the video - and if you don't believe this to be necessarily true, perhaps Ang doesn't, I don't know, that would be a reasonable demurral to my mind - was drunk enough that she was unable to walk on her own - that's how they ended up on the floor in the hall - and that she was unable to get to her room after. This is too drunk to consent; something that evidently Mr. Bennett and several people on this board don't fully grasp.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Paul J B on May 11, 2016, 01:54:35 PM
I suggest people stop referring to articles or Scott's side of the "story". He was convicted and found guilty. Any reasonable person knows cases like this almost never end with a conviction if the accused is not guilty. The trials never get that far. The truth here really sucks but people need to face it.

Egohanger1966 posted a Facebook rant from a friend of Bennett's yesterday that was almost immediately deleted. Well it was there long enough for me to read and it was pathetic. Stating he committed no crime and he loves his wife and the usual crap people spew when someone they care about screws up big time. I don't doubt the guy loves his wife but that has NOTHING to do with having been really stupid and breaking the law. And enough about alcohol. It's an excuse for people with bad tendencies and judgment to act terrible.

People of stature are rarely convicted even when they are blatantly guilty and deserve it. I HATE that this happened, but I'll be damned if I'm going to rationalize an ugly event because I like the guys work and he has a ton of talent. I don't intend to post again about this as it will just start sounding too judgmental.

As far as love and mercy goes.....that's between the people truly involved in this case. Forgiveness is between them. I'm just a fan of some music by a person involved.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Rob Dean on May 11, 2016, 02:43:27 PM
Having known them both for more than 20 years, I can say that Darian and Probyn are about the sweetest guys you will ever meet.

+1 Adam


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Ang Jones on May 11, 2016, 03:04:52 PM
You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?

Emily, I'm usually on your side, but the last line of your argument here is the straw man fallacy. No one is making that argument. Her flirting "kissing and fondling" in the hotel lobby shows her to have been a willing participant in the moment. Yes, she was drunk, so she wasn't thinking clearly, and therefore couldn't reliably make these decisions for herself. However, if Scott was drunk as well, then he too--by that same reasoning--wouldn't have been able to think or make decisions reliably. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.
Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.

I'm not saying what she did in the hotel lobby gives him permission to do what he did. What I am saying is it's entirely possible she was a willing participant in what happened while it was happening. We don't know what happened between the two of them. All we have is (seemingly) silent footage that's described in such a way to convince you of his guilt. If he was only as drunk as they tell us ("all his faculties in check" or however they described it), then yeah, he took advantage of her. Case closed, he raped that woman.


No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping them is ok when they're drunk

Exactly. Isn't is possible--if he was reasonably drunk himself--he didn't think he was committing an act of rape?



I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??

The article is unclear. It just mentions it happening.
I'm on my phone in my car at a gas station so I'm not going to navigate in-line answers.
He, from his statement, still seems to think it wasn't rape. My point is that he probably didn't think it was rape because he seems to think, from his statement, that "kissing and fondling" means it wasn't rape. That, sober or drunk, his mindset is that it's all ok because they kissed and fondled. A mindset replicated here.
She, from the description of the video - and if you don't believe this to be necessarily true, perhaps Ang doesn't, I don't know, that would be a reasonable demurral to my mind - was drunk enough that she was unable to walk on her own - that's how they ended up on the floor in the hall - and that she was unable to get to her room after. This is too drunk to consent; something that evidently Mr. Bennett and several people on this board don't fully grasp.

This is from the NY Daily News but the others seem consistent: "After Bennett blocked the 21-year-old woman from exiting the elevator, the two get off at the 12th floor and at one point he tries to carry the victim down the hallway, according to the affidavit.
The two then lie down on the hallway floor and Bennett appears to sexually assault the woman, the surveillance footage shows."  "The two then lie down..." no mention of her collapsing. Perhaps she did BUT IT DOESN'T SAY SO. I admit openly that maybe had I seen the video I'd have also found Scott Bennett guilty but we are relying on a report which isn't detailed enough to prove to everyone's satisfaction that justice has been done. Hence it being unhelpful for us to continue to speculate about it.

I'm sorry really that I ever heard about the incident, ever read the comments on the various MBs. Brian Wilson's stance was the best: to refuse to comment at all. I didn't mean to come back to it but it's like biting on an aching tooth.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Angua on May 11, 2016, 05:21:25 PM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Amy B. on May 11, 2016, 05:27:09 PM
The sequence of events is rather confusing, based on the articles. It sounds like she got on the elevator from the lobby and he got in after her. Then she tried to get out but he stopped her. And if that's the case, then why would he need to stop her, if it was consensual?
Then they got out on the 12th floor, where he tried to carry her. Then they had sex (or oral sex or whatever) there, in the hallway of the 12th floor. Then somehow they ended up in his room for 35 minutes, where, according to Scott, nothing happened. Then they were in the 7th floor hallway. Was his room on the 12th floor? Is that why they got out there first? Was her room on the 7th floor? Did she tell him that, and then when they got to the 7th floor, she said she couldn't remember her room number, so he left her there to get security, like he claims?  DIdn't he have a cell phone he could use to call security/the front desk while staying with her instead of leaving her there? Was he so drunk that he wasn't being logical? Or was he so callous that he thought nothing of leaving her there?

There would be a scenario where he's innocent of rape, where they had what he thought was consensual sex and then he tried to help her when he realized she did'nt know where he room was. But only if he was completely, completely drunk. And given that he remembered what happened enough to tell authorities, and he said for certain that nothing happened in his room, he couldn't have been as drunk as she was, right?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 11, 2016, 05:36:40 PM
You all really seem to think that if you're drunk and you were flirting with/making out with/whatever with someone that that mitigates this action? That makes it -meh, I can understand that- to do that her barely conscious body? Her flirting or your drinking just gives away her ownership and makes it common property?

Emily, I'm usually on your side, but the last line of your argument here is the straw man fallacy. No one is making that argument. Her flirting "kissing and fondling" in the hotel lobby shows her to have been a willing participant in the moment. Yes, she was drunk, so she wasn't thinking clearly, and therefore couldn't reliably make these decisions for herself. However, if Scott was drunk as well, then he too--by that same reasoning--wouldn't have been able to think or make decisions reliably. There's a fine line between tragic accident and rape, and I don't think the facts of the case are clear enough to yet make that distinction.
Not a straw man. That's the problem, is some of you think that "kissing and fondling" is permission to take off her pants and perform oral sex (I guess? Whatever he did) on her in the hotel hall. I've kissed and fondled people and I've never thought that that gave them permission to do that. She can kiss and fondle all she wants and he doesn't get the right to remove her pants because of it. Kissing and fondling is not ceding rights to your body and what will happen to it.
And when you're drunk, I don't care how drunk you are, your ethics don't change. No one who thinks murder is wrong suddenly thinks it's ok when they're drunk. No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping the is ok when they're drunk if they don't when they're sober.

I'm not saying what she did in the hotel lobby gives him permission to do what he did. What I am saying is it's entirely possible she was a willing participant in what happened while it was happening. We don't know what happened between the two of them. All we have is (seemingly) silent footage that's described in such a way to convince you of his guilt. If he was only as drunk as they tell us ("all his faculties in check" or however they described it), then yeah, he took advantage of her. Case closed, he raped that woman.


No one thinks jumping on a passing stranger and raping them is ok when they're drunk

Exactly. Isn't is possible--if he was reasonably drunk himself--he didn't think he was committing an act of rape?



I thought it was Scott who did the kissing and fondling, no??

The article is unclear. It just mentions it happening.
I'm on my phone in my car at a gas station so I'm not going to navigate in-line answers.
He, from his statement, still seems to think it wasn't rape. My point is that he probably didn't think it was rape because he seems to think, from his statement, that "kissing and fondling" means it wasn't rape. That, sober or drunk, his mindset is that it's all ok because they kissed and fondled. A mindset replicated here.
She, from the description of the video - and if you don't believe this to be necessarily true, perhaps Ang doesn't, I don't know, that would be a reasonable demurral to my mind - was drunk enough that she was unable to walk on her own - that's how they ended up on the floor in the hall - and that she was unable to get to her room after. This is too drunk to consent; something that evidently Mr. Bennett and several people on this board don't fully grasp.

This is from the NY Daily News but the others seem consistent: "After Bennett blocked the 21-year-old woman from exiting the elevator, the two get off at the 12th floor and at one point he tries to carry the victim down the hallway, according to the affidavit.
The two then lie down on the hallway floor and Bennett appears to sexually assault the woman, the surveillance footage shows."  "The two then lie down..." no mention of her collapsing. Perhaps she did BUT IT DOESN'T SAY SO. I admit openly that maybe had I seen the video I'd have also found Scott Bennett guilty but we are relying on a report which isn't detailed enough to prove to everyone's satisfaction that justice has been done. Hence it being unhelpful for us to continue to speculate about it.

I'm sorry really that I ever heard about the incident, ever read the comments on the various MBs. Brian Wilson's stance was the best: to refuse to comment at all. I didn't mean to come back to it but it's like biting on an aching tooth.

There are lots of things we don't know, yet I understand the knee-jerk reaction to feel that there has been an indefensible action made by Scott at some point(s) during the incident. Still, I think it's best to think through many potential possibilities, as things aren't necessarily always what they might seem. I would feel this way in a murder trial too, or other cases involving people who aren’t musicians that I happen to be a fan of. Yet I fully admit that this case, and Scott’s actions, may in fact be just as bad as it’s being painted in the article.

Some things that I ponder: providing she was as messed up as was indicated in the prosecution's statements within the article... if Scott and her were heading up in the direction of a private room (not on camera) and he was intentionally intending to take advantage of the situation, why wouldn't he wait to do so until being behind closed doors in the room? One might think that someone who was knowingly doing something insidious like that would go to the room to do it, being that a private room was easily nearby and accessible. Also, is it possible that a drunk person could verbally give consent, or ask for an act to be performed on them (not documented by a camera filming silently), but that the person might still not recall the entire incident and details at all the next day? There could certainly be answers to these questions that would paint Scott's actions in a negative light too.

Again - these questions may have been asked in the courtroom... and maybe regardless of the answers, everything I've mentioned would perhaps still be absolutely, unequivocally completely irrelevant to the final outcome of the case. I just think it doesn't hurt to ponder different conceivable possibilities when trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Especially since the victim doesn't have a memory of the event, and only (apparently?) has a silent video to draw conclusions from, as opposed to a first-hand recollection of what really went on. 


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: beatle608 on May 11, 2016, 05:57:54 PM
I just have to get this out...throughout this whole $#!tstorm, what's been going through my mind has been: Please, dear God, tell me Probyn and Darian aren't douchebags, too.

Darian and Probyn are a couple of the nicest guys I have ever met.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 06:53:06 PM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.
Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
Edited in an attempt to be more civil:
If you don't understand why many people don't think you should proceed with sexual activity with a person you don't know who's falling down drunk, at least understand for your own sake that in many jurisdictions it's illegal.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 06:54:23 PM
CD, I think it's rather a knee-jerk reaction that there must be some mitigation. And remember that Mr. Bennett himself concedes that he left her sitting in the hall while he says he went to find help. If she was in sound mind, could she not have helped herself find her room? I think if her state of mind was a fiction of the prosecution, that would have been in Mr. Bennett's statement. People are making up stuff that isn't there to counter what is. It's wishful thinking. Whether motivated by an allegiance to Mr. Bennett, an allegiance to the bro code, or a misguided sense of allegiance to Brian Wilson, I do not know.

Also, by law, her consent when drunk would not have been consent. And this is not unique to sex. By law in most states you can't be held to a contract that you signed while not of sound mind, temporary or permanent, including due to inebriation.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: alf wiedersehen on May 11, 2016, 07:05:23 PM
Whether motivated by an allegiance to Mr. Bennett, an allegiance to the bro code, or a misguided sense of allegiance to Brian Wilson, I do not know.

Um, none. I just don't happen to think this case is as black-and-white as you do.


Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

Also, I think it's really unfortunate that you insinuated people here are rapists.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 11, 2016, 07:09:14 PM
Whether motivated by an allegiance to Mr. Bennett, an allegiance to the bro code, or a misguided sense of allegiance to Brian Wilson, I do not know.

Um, none. I just don't happen to think this case is as black-and-white as you do.


Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

Also, I think it's really unfortunate that you insinuated people here are rapists.
Those people don't believe it's rape. I've edited my above post to be more civil. Again, even if you don't think it's black and white, by law, it pretty much is.



Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 11, 2016, 07:17:40 PM
And this past page is why it was moved to the Sandbox.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Cam Mott on May 11, 2016, 07:29:32 PM
I guess we will see if there is an appeal and what that changes, if anything.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: China Pig on May 11, 2016, 09:50:14 PM
This is getting absurd, people are arguing both sides of the coin based on a short article that used only a couple of damming quotes from the prosecuting attorney.
Without access to the full court transcripts nobody here knows exactly what went down. Presuming the defense team did their job correctly, every aspect to prove Scott didn't willfully rape the lady in question would have been discussed and scrutinized thoroughly during the trial and the jury still reached the verdict that he did.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Angua on May 12, 2016, 12:55:02 AM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.
Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand. 

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision. 

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty. 

We don't know the full details of how involved and complicit she was. 

He wasn't competent either.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 12, 2016, 01:17:12 AM
This is getting absurd, people are arguing both sides of the coin based on a short article that used only a couple of damming quotes from the prosecuting attorney.
Without access to the full court transcripts nobody here knows exactly what went down. Presuming the defense team did their job correctly, every aspect to prove Scott didn't willfully rape the lady in question would have been discussed and scrutinized thoroughly during the trial and the jury still reached the verdict that he did.

Exactly


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Cam Mott on May 12, 2016, 04:19:33 AM
Presuming the defense team did their job correctly, every aspect to prove Scott didn't willfully rape the lady in question would have been discussed and scrutinized thoroughly during the trial and the jury still reached the verdict that he did.

And if that presumption is wrong, there is an appeals system.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 12, 2016, 07:07:30 AM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.
Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand. 

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision. 

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty. 
You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Forrest Gump on May 12, 2016, 07:37:26 AM
And this past page is why it was moved to the Sandbox.

'cause one person just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
in every thread.

nobody should be commenting anyway. none of our blankety-blank business.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 12, 2016, 08:01:50 AM
And this past page is why it was moved to the Sandbox.

'cause one person just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
in every thread.

nobody should be commenting anyway. none of our blankety-blank business.
:) not every thread.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 12, 2016, 10:10:51 AM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.
Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand.  

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision.  

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty.  
You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: KDS on May 12, 2016, 10:13:25 AM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.
Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand.  

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision.  

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty.  
You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time, the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?  

It's all a very gray area. 

One strong lesson though - drink at home or in the hotel.  If you're going to go out and drink, keep yourself in check.  Know your limits. 


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 12, 2016, 10:16:41 AM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.
Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand.  

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision.  

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty.  
You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time, the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?  

It's all a very gray area. 

One strong lesson though - drink at home or in the hotel.  If you're going to go out and drink, keep yourself in check.  Know your limits. 

That much is absolutely certain. So tragic that incredibly poor decisions made under the influence of alcohol have so detrimentally affected members of this group.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: joe_blow on May 12, 2016, 10:20:34 AM
I'm so amazed that people know what happened so clearly by an article slanted by the prosecutor. If Bennett's appeal fails...?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: KDS on May 12, 2016, 10:23:08 AM


One strong lesson though - drink at home or in the hotel.  If you're going to go out and drink, keep yourself in check.  Know your limits. 

That much is absolutely certain. So tragic that incredibly poor decisions made under the influence of alcohol have so detrimentally affected members of this group.

I love to unwind with a drink.  But, I've also made some mistakes, namely gotten  behind the wheel of a car once too often when I shouldn't have.  Luckily, I did no harm to anyone else or myself.  

As years went by, I learned my limits with alcohol.  On the rare occasion I go to a bar, I have a ride, I use a cab/Uber, or I walk.  Most of my drinking is done at home these days.  I'm in my mid 30s and married, so I prefer to spend a fraction of the cost on drinks and not have to scream over the (usually) awful music that's played on the jukebox these days.  

I've seen alcohol destroy lives.  It's really all about knowing your limits, so you don't get drunk enough to make such terrible decisions.  


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: bachelorofbullets on May 12, 2016, 10:39:01 AM
Two Three rules to live by.

1.  Don't drink so much so fast that you have a black out.  This is bad.
2.  Don't try to have sex in a public hallway.  This is dumb.
3.  Don't try to have sex with someone 30 years your junior.  Fun, but also dumb.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 12, 2016, 10:42:17 AM

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?
Despite the fact that I'm posting too much, I'm happy to answer regarding the law. Yes, in your first hypothetical, by law, that would be sexual assault. In your second, yes, by law, that would too too would be sexual assault. The actual charges would vary depending on the specific actions.
Keep in mind, in most cases the victim needs to press charges for anything legal to proceed. So if the person you're with is fine with it, no harm, no foul.
"More" drunk is not really relevant (yet). I don't know of any cases in which both parties pressed sexual assault charges against each other, but theoretically it could happen. I don't know of any bodies who have formally laid out processes for how the law would address such an instance.
So, basically, if the person you are with is not very well known to you and you don't know for certain their wants, or you don't trust them, remember that if she or he is plastered, no matter what they say, stop.

* edited for a palinism.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: KDS on May 12, 2016, 10:51:34 AM
Two Three rules to live by.

1.  Don't drink so much so fast that you have a black out.  This is bad.
2.  Don't try to have sex in a public hallway.  This is dumb.
3.  Don't try to have sex with someone 30 years your junior.  Fun, but also dumb.

Just so we're all sure, you say that having sex with someone 30 years your junior is "fun, but also dumb."  That means you're at least 48, right? 


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Angua on May 12, 2016, 10:52:27 AM
He's the one that took the action. Had she taken the action, she would be the perpetrator.
And your question about rape within marriage is, of course, off-topic and irrelevant.
Rather funny to continue a discussion and in the throes of that announce that you aren't continuing a discussion.

I have again and again said that I think there is absolutely no point to all of you arguing about this. I'm not trying to discuss this Emily, I'm saying why don't you all stop.

Your law says that when drunk you are not competent to make a decision.  That is essentially the case against him and why he was found guilty - because she was drunk.  I have heard that he was also drunk and yet he is deemed competent to reasonably assess her drunkenness and the situation and make an appropriate decision.  (That sounds like double standards to me and I dislike that.) The rest of the information is biased and unclear so you cannot tell if this was a case of a man forcing himself on a woman, a man seducing a vulnerable woman or of 2 consensual adults in a drunken sex act.  None of my business whatever it was - the court decided, there will or won't be an appeal or a re-trial and it will run on and on as will this thread probably - but without me.  I'm sure that you'll all carry on dissecting it and going over the juicy details for a long time yet.  Whatever happened it was a bad, sorry business.  Scott was obviously morally wrong and stupid.  The woman was stupidly irresponsible of her own safety and they and Scott's wife all got hurt.
Once again, in the process of discussing it, you're telling other people to stop, and saying you're not discussing it.
You seem to be having trouble with the idea that he was the one that acted. He is responsible not to impose on someone else as she is also responsible not to impose on someone else. If I leave my keys in my car and someone steals it, the law won't hold me liable for the theft, even though I may have been foolish to leave the keys in it. Rape is the only crime where people repeatedly say that the perp should let off easy because the victim was foolish. If I walk down a crime-ridden street alone at night and get attacked, I'll have to live with the consequences of my stupid choice, but no one will say, "well, you can't blame the attacker, can you? She was there and she should have known better." They will perhaps have less pity for me, but they won't think my stupidity is an excuse for the attacker.
It's not a double standard. It's applying the law as it's always applied for other crimes. The one who took the action is guilty. Not the one who stupidly made herself vulnerable to the action.
I'd kind of thought that, as a society, educated people had moved beyond mitigating the guilt of rape because of the foolishness or flirtatiousness of the victim, but I guess not.
Incidentally, Mr. Bennett didn't even put forth in his statement that she verbally consented. You seem content to read things that aren't there in that direction.
I'm really astounded people are pretzeling so much to say a convicted rapist, caught on tape, shouldn't be considered a rapist. It's bewildering. Do you usually consider a convicted felon, caught on tape, innocent until they confess? Because maybe there's something you don't know?As I said at the beginning of the thread when people were questioning Brian Wilson continuing to work with him after the arrest, I believe it would have been wrong, legally and morally, to terminate him for an accusation. But now it's a conviction. The police arrested him; the DA thought the evidence was enough to go with the case; the jury thought there was enough to convict, and it sounds to me like they were right.
 
In any case, for all of you who find it mind boggling and offensive that you shouldn't perform sex acts on the body of someone you just met who's passing out drunk, even if you don't get why some people may think that's wrong, it is, in many states and countries, illegal. You might not get why people don't think you should do that, but if you do do it, you may find yourself in Mr. Bennett's shoes.
Sorry if it's going to be a crimp in your weekend activities.

I'm going to make this really simple for you to understand.  

The law found him guilty because she wasn't competent to make a decision.  

She could have been ripping his shirt off yelling 'f*** me'  and he still would still have been guilty.  
You're exactly right. Ironically, that's what I've been trying to explain to you. I'm glad we agree.

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?  

I don't know the answer to that for sure but I think that you are right and it makes no sense to me which is what I've been trying to get across but you have expressed it more clearly and succinctly than me.  But also, you either are or are not in sound mind - or is there some sliding scale I don't know about :-)?  As a woman I resent the idea that a man can be of sound mind when drunk and a woman can't.  Also, I think it it very important for everyone to take responsibility for their own personal safety - after all prevention is better than the cure and would have save a whole lot of upset.

I'd be interested to know if, hypothetically, a drunken woman had fondled a man and he had not reciprocated or taken it further, if he would have been able to pursue a claim of sexual assault or would she deemed to be not of sound mind?  If a woman had been fondled by a drunken man would the same be true? Seems like a whole lot of double standards going on here and just because they are in favour of females doesn't make it right.  Positive discrimination is still discrimination. A woman ought to be able to go out without getting raped and a man ought to be able to go out without getting assaulted.

Finally, I shan't be going out on a Viking raid this weekend whatever Emily suggests.   ;D


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 12, 2016, 10:59:46 AM
I don't know the answer to that for sure but I think that you are right and it makes no sense to me which is what I've been trying to get across but you have expressed it more clearly and succinctly than me.  But also, you either are or are not in sound mind - or is there some sliding scale I don't know about :-)?  As a woman I resent the idea that a man can be of sound mind when drunk and a woman can't.  Also, I think it it very important for everyone to take responsibility for their own personal safety - after all prevention is better than the cure and would have save a whole lot of upset.

I'd be interested to know if, hypothetically, a drunken woman had fondled a man and he had not reciprocated or taken it further, if he would have been able to pursue a claim of sexual assault or would she deemed to be not of sound mind?  If a woman had been fondled by a drunken man would the same be true? Seems like a whole lot of double standards going on here and just because they are in favour of females doesn't make it right.  Positive discrimination is still discrimination. A woman ought to be able to go out without getting raped and a man ought to be able to go out without getting assaulted.

Finally, I shan't be going out on a Viking raid this weekend whatever Emily suggests.   ;D
The law is the same without regard to the sex of the perpetrator or victim. Of course men get raped and the law is meant to be applied equally.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: bachelorofbullets on May 12, 2016, 11:07:05 AM
Two Three rules to live by.

1.  Don't drink so much so fast that you have a black out.  This is bad.
2.  Don't try to have sex in a public hallway.  This is dumb.
3.  Don't try to have sex with someone 30 years your junior.  Fun, but also dumb.

Just so we're all sure, you say that having sex with someone 30 years your junior is "fun, but also dumb."  That means you're at least 48, right? 

Rather then answer your question directly, lets just say I don't believe it's socially (and possibly morally) acceptable for a 50 year old man to pursue a 20 year old girl for sex.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 12, 2016, 11:26:17 AM

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?
Despite the fact that I'm posting too much, I'm happy to answer regarding the law. Yes, in your first hypothetical, by law, that would be sexual assault. In your second, yes, by law, that would too too would be sexual assault. The actual charges would vary depending on the specific actions.
Keep in mind, in most cases the victim needs to press charges for anything legal to proceed. So if the person you're with is fine with it, no harm, no foul.
"More" drunk is not really relevant (yet). I don't know of any cases in which both parties pressed sexual assault charges against each other, but theoretically it could happen. I don't know of any bodies who have formally laid out processes for how the law would address such an instance.
So, basically, if the person you are with is not very well known to you and you don't know for certain their wants, or you don't trust them, remember that if she or he is plastered, no matter what they say, stop.

* edited for a palinism.

I recall reading that apps have apparently been created (especially for college students to use) where one person has to consent to having sex with another person, and agree that it's something they've consented to in what amounts to a legal record of this agreement. If the person is plastered and still goes the additional step of consenting via this method (which itself was surely invented to prevent anybody from backing away from their decision after the fact, and to cut down on the unfortunately very common issue of this happening among college kids)... is the consent still negated if that person is drunk, even if it's basically on a legal form? I just don't have any idea of how the grey area of drunkenness is calculated, and I'm also very ignorant of how any grey area of how drunk one person is vs. how drunk the other drunk person factors in... and how this all can be fairly measured by a court after the fact, absent one person having a memory of the event. Basically, can two drunk people ever do it without fear that an accusation against either of them could happen later? Obviously a video is going to help people draw a conclusion in this case. I'm guessing that a conviction would be a lot harder in this case absent video footage.

It's ironic, because the weekend that the news broke, I happened to watch two films on Netflix: The Money Pit (w/Tom Hanks and Shelley Long), and Sixteen Candles. In both of those films, there are characters who get drunk, have sex, and don't remember what happened the night before. Of course in both cases, the scenes are played for laughs (one film has with a woman, Shelley Long, with no memory... the other film has a guy, Anthony Michael Hall, with no memory), and the scenes have absolutely no commentary about anything being construed as assault. It's amazing how pervasive that line of thinking was back in media from the '80s.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 12, 2016, 11:48:26 AM

I'm truthfully quite ignorant of the law, and trying to understand the intricacies of how that could legally play out. Just a hypothetical scenario, mind you, as we know absolutely none of the intricate facts beyond the article. Hypothetically speaking, if she actually requested a sex act be performed on her and he obliged, he'd be guilty of rape because she was too drunk to be of sound mind when she made the request? I'm trying to understand if, hypothetically, she was also ripping his clothes off and if she was possibly touching his own privates (him being severely drunk too, but apparently less so than her - to what precise degree is unknown absent him being tested for drunkenness at the time... and thus the video - which surely must appear very incriminating - being the sole determining factor), would a person in her shoes not potentially be guilty of some kind of assault against a drunk person herself? Or is the idea that this entire scenario is negated because she is *more* drunk than he is, relatively speaking, and that means that any reciprocated touching that she might have done to him is of no legal consequence?
Despite the fact that I'm posting too much, I'm happy to answer regarding the law. Yes, in your first hypothetical, by law, that would be sexual assault. In your second, yes, by law, that would too too would be sexual assault. The actual charges would vary depending on the specific actions.
Keep in mind, in most cases the victim needs to press charges for anything legal to proceed. So if the person you're with is fine with it, no harm, no foul.
"More" drunk is not really relevant (yet). I don't know of any cases in which both parties pressed sexual assault charges against each other, but theoretically it could happen. I don't know of any bodies who have formally laid out processes for how the law would address such an instance.
So, basically, if the person you are with is not very well known to you and you don't know for certain their wants, or you don't trust them, remember that if she or he is plastered, no matter what they say, stop.

* edited for a palinism.

I recall reading that apps have apparently been created (especially for college students to use) where one person has to consent to having sex with another person, and agree that it's something they've consented to in what amounts to a legal record of this agreement. If the person is plastered and still goes the additional step of consenting via this method (which itself was surely invented to prevent anybody from backing away from their decision after the fact, and to cut down on the unfortunately very common issue of this happening among college kids)... is the consent still negated if that person is drunk, even if it's basically on a legal form? I just don't have any idea of how the grey area of drunkenness is calculated, and I'm also very ignorant of how any grey area of how drunk one person is vs. how drunk the other drunk person factors in... and how this all can be fairly measured by a court after the fact, absent one person having a memory of the event. Basically, can two drunk people ever do it without fear that an accusation against either of them could happen later? Obviously a video is going to help people draw a conclusion in this case. I'm guessing that a conviction would be a lot harder in this case absent video footage.

It's ironic, because the weekend that the news broke, I happened to watch two films on Netflix: The Money Pit (w/Tom Hanks and Shelley Long), and Sixteen Candles. In both of those films, there are characters who get drunk, have sex, and don't remember what happened the night before. Of course in both cases, the scenes are played for laughs (one film has with a woman, Shelley Long, with no memory... the other film has a guy, Anthony Michael Hall, with no memory), and the scenes have absolutely no commentary about anything being construed as assault. It's amazing how pervasive that line of thinking was back in media from the '80s.
Drunken sex was the thing in the '80s for sure! And there's nothing wrong with drunken sex.  
Umm, Good2Go, the app. It's problematic because, of course, if you click yes, are you contractually obliged, even if for whatever reason you change your mind? That's a little off. The app, after you click 'yes' asks you if you're drunk and if you say you are, it will nullify the 'yes'. But it's relying solely on your word, and lots of drunk people don't know they're drunk.
But, most jurisdictions will nullify any contract if you can prove you signed while drunk, including a Good2Go contract. The 'sound mind' standard doesn't only apply to sex. It's long-standing contract law that's only recently been applied to sex.
Regarding how to measure drunkenness, it's the same as in any area where drunkenness is a factor - witnesses, a breathalyzer... And the difficulty of measurement and evidence is one of the reasons, along with the fact that usually there are no witnesses other than the two involved, that rape cases rarely get convictions, or even go to trial in the first place. Which is rightly so - no proof, no case.

>>Basically, can two drunk people ever do it without fear that an accusation against either of them could happen later?<< Sure. Someone upthread mentioned that one's wife could falsely accuse them of rape. She can anyway. She doesn't need to be drunk or for you to be drunk for her to make a false accusation. Assuming you live together, she could also pretty easily kill you and make it look like an accident, or set you up so it looks like you were trying to kill her. If you handle your finances like most marrieds, she can steal everything you have really easily, and legally, so I guess it's not 'stealing'. If you have kids and she turns out to be satan, well, hopefully your kids are the most precious things to you and you've trusted her with them. So, yeah, we make ourselves vulnerable to people we love and trust. But hopefully they've given us good reason to do so and we will be rewarded by having a sound, loving relationship.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: KDS on May 12, 2016, 12:08:39 PM
And in case you thought being a little drunk and quickly fumbling for a condom was difficult, now there's a Good2Go app to get your partner for the evening to sign. 

What if you do the deed, then you and your partner lie in the afterglow and have another cocktail or two.  If you get back in the mood, do you have to bring the app up again? 

Life sure is funny in this 2016.  Thank goodness I'm married. 


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Michael Edward Osbourne on May 12, 2016, 12:39:48 PM
I met Scott in Woonsocket Rhode Island during a Dean Torrence concert at the city's annual Autumnfest. He seemed like a real nice guy. Damn. Goes to show how wrong a person can be....


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: HeyJude on May 12, 2016, 12:40:25 PM
Yes, the discussion eventually did fall off the rails into "Sandbox" territory, but I'd like to point out to those who felt there was no value in leaving this in the main discussion forum that it only took a few days for someone to stumble into the 2016 tour thread asking why Scott Bennett was missing some gigs, apparently completely unfamiliar with what has occured. In other words, a ton of regulars on this board probably never venture into the "Sandbox" section. Granted, they were quickly steered here. Just something to keep in mind in the future when something happens that is, at least as its core, a real Brian/BB-related story.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: 37!ws on May 12, 2016, 01:12:54 PM
Look, here's how I see it. We have possible scenarios:

- He may have made an unwanted advance. If the article is true about the video footage and he was indeed forcing himself on her, it's rape. Period. That would make him a douche.

- She was about eighty-five sheets to the wind. She may or may not have been the one who did the kissing and fondling. And as a previous poster said, in a theoretical situation, she could have stripped down in front of him and said "DO ME!" As said earlier, in many locales this is still considered rape because the person who was on the receiving end was in no condition to make a rational decision. (Can't say I disagree with that logic.) But regardless of the locale, Scott is still a douche because it's just plain wrong to take advantage, consent or no consent, of a person when said person isn't thinking clearly.

- Yes, being under the influence of alcohol or any other drug can certainly ***explain*** why somebody did something wrong and possibly something that person would never have dreamed of doing under a clear head (but from what I'm hearing from a *lot* of people who know more than I know, sadly this isn't the case), it's certainly no excuse. You still need to be responsible for your actions and know your limits. That said, whether Scott was under the influence or not, if it's true that he told investigators/police what the article said he told, then he knew exactly what he was doing. He was clear-headed enough to want to feel up [victim], he was clear-headed enough to take [victim] to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

- And lest we forget...he's married and yet still something happened with the woman. Why? Does Scott have an open marriage and therefore he and Mrs. Bennett are cool with each other fooling around?? Were they about to get divorced anyway??? Judging from his Facebook posts, I'm ruling out the possibility that they were about to get divorced. So unless it's the "open marriage" situation, Scott is a douche, Period. Cheating makes you a douche.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 12, 2016, 01:24:37 PM
Look, here's how I see it. We have possible scenarios:

- He may have made an unwanted advance. If the article is true about the video footage and he was indeed forcing himself on her, it's rape. Period. That would make him a douche.

- She was about eighty-five sheets to the wind. She may or may not have been the one who did the kissing and fondling. And as a previous poster said, in a theoretical situation, she could have stripped down in front of him and said "DO ME!" As said earlier, in many locales this is still considered rape because the person who was on the receiving end was in no condition to make a rational decision. (Can't say I disagree with that logic.) But regardless of the locale, Scott is still a douche because it's just plain wrong to take advantage, consent or no consent, of a person when said person isn't thinking clearly.

- Yes, being under the influence of alcohol or any other drug can certainly ***explain*** why somebody did something wrong and possibly something that person would never have dreamed of doing under a clear head (but from what I'm hearing from a *lot* of people who know more than I know, sadly this isn't the case), it's certainly no excuse. You still need to be responsible for your actions and know your limits. That said, whether Scott was under the influence or not, if it's true that he told investigators/police what the article said he told, then he knew exactly what he was doing. He was clear-headed enough to want to feel up Ellen, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

- And lest we forget...he's married and yet still something happened with the woman. Why? Does Scott have an open marriage and therefore he and Mrs. Bennett are cool with each other fooling around?? Were they about to get divorced anyway??? Judging from his Facebook posts, I'm ruling out the possibility that they were about to get divorced. So unless it's the "open marriage" situation, Scott is a douche, Period. Cheating makes you a douche.

Regarding the last point - I'm not saying you are wrong... and I certainly don't in any way condone cheating, yet I certainly know nothing about their marriage, nor is it any of our business whatsoever... so I don't think it's right to get too presumptive about the intricacies regarding this subject by using derogatory names, because to be consistent, you'd have to lump in more than one band member from The BBs into this category of name calling, if one wants to be that judgmental about it without knowing details (that again, are none of our business). And I for one don't want to do that.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: HeyJude on May 12, 2016, 01:57:41 PM
To get a bit back onto Brian's band, another extraneous problem these things create is a tense and accusatory atmosphere "on the road", which I hope Brian's band, friends and family, and crew are able to avoid.

Read Jeff Foskett's much-appreciated frank mid-late 90s interview about his 1990 exit from the touring BBs. He points out that when one person is having an affair or cheats out on the road, it (arguably justifiably) creates paranoia among other spouses/significant others in the big touring family.

Courtesy of the "Internet Wayback Machine":

http://web.archive.org/web/19990221115314/http://www.new-surf.com/interv.html

The pertinent part about leaving in 1990:

AMP: One last Beach Boys question…why did you leave in 1990?

FOSKETT: I was asked to leave by Michael and Carl. I know that during the past several months there has been some discussion over the internet on my departure, and I will set the record straight now. I was having an affair outside my marriage that was causing a great deal of turmoil in the closely-knit BB organization. All the wives traveled on the road at one time or another, and seeing me with someone other than my wife made them suspicious of their husbands. Not a good scene. My ego was way out of control. I think Michael thought that I was holding back money from the side gigs that he and I did with the Endless Summer Beach Band, and so he was unhappy about that, and Carl was unhappy with my ego and my affair. They did the right thing by letting me go; right for them and definitely right for me. I needed to straighten up and get back into "the real world." I did, and my wife and I will soon be celebrating our 11th anniversary.

AMP: Jeff, I appreciate your honesty…

FOSKETT: John, there have been so many contrived stories regarding me using Platinum American Express cards and other false statements that I am happy to tell the truth. There are so many "authorities" on the internet that really know absolutely nothing!


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: The Shift on May 12, 2016, 02:05:02 PM
Look, here's how I see it. We have possible scenarios:

- He may have made an unwanted advance. If the article is true about the video footage and he was indeed forcing himself on her, it's rape. Period. That would make him a douche.

- She was about eighty-five sheets to the wind. She may or may not have been the one who did the kissing and fondling. And as a previous poster said, in a theoretical situation, she could have stripped down in front of him and said "DO ME!" As said earlier, in many locales this is still considered rape because the person who was on the receiving end was in no condition to make a rational decision. (Can't say I disagree with that logic.) But regardless of the locale, Scott is still a douche because it's just plain wrong to take advantage, consent or no consent, of a person when said person isn't thinking clearly.

- Yes, being under the influence of alcohol or any other drug can certainly ***explain*** why somebody did something wrong and possibly something that person would never have dreamed of doing under a clear head (but from what I'm hearing from a *lot* of people who know more than I know, sadly this isn't the case), it's certainly no excuse. You still need to be responsible for your actions and know your limits. That said, whether Scott was under the influence or not, if it's true that he told investigators/police what the article said he told, then he knew exactly what he was doing. He was clear-headed enough to want to feel up Ellen, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

- And lest we forget...he's married and yet still something happened with the woman. Why? Does Scott have an open marriage and therefore he and Mrs. Bennett are cool with each other fooling around?? Were they about to get divorced anyway??? Judging from his Facebook posts, I'm ruling out the possibility that they were about to get divorced. So unless it's the "open marriage" situation, Scott is a douche, Period. Cheating makes you a douche.

"Victim"? ;)


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: 37!ws on May 12, 2016, 02:46:08 PM
Read Jeff Foskett's much-appreciated frank mid-late 90s interview about his 1990 exit from the touring BBs. He points out that when one person is having an affair or cheats out on the road, it (arguably justifiably) creates paranoia among other spouses/significant others in the big touring family.

FOSKETT: I was asked to leave by Michael and Carl. I know that during the past several months there has been some discussion over the internet on my departure, and I will set the record straight now. I was having an affair outside my marriage that was causing a great deal of turmoil in the closely-knit BB organization. All the wives traveled on the road at one time or another, and seeing me with someone other than my wife made them suspicious of their husbands. Not a good scene. My ego was way out of control. I think Michael thought that I was holding back money from the side gigs that he and I did with the Endless Summer Beach Band, and so he was unhappy about that, and Carl was unhappy with my ego and my affair. They did the right thing by letting me go; right for them and definitely right for me. I needed to straighten up and get back into "the real world." I did, and my wife and I will soon be celebrating our 11th anniversary.

Lotta good that did, huh?  :)

[that is...that marriage fell apart. Jeff got re-married in 2003.]


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: 37!ws on May 12, 2016, 03:01:23 PM
...clear-headed enough to want to feel up Ellen, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, he was clear-headed enough to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

"Ellen"?

Ah. George Carlin reference. Not necessarily the victim's name; no idea what her name is. (Doubtful that a 22-year-old these days would be named Ellen anyway.) Anyway, edited my comment and replaced name with "[victim]" just to be safe.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Susan on May 12, 2016, 03:47:09 PM
... He was clear-headed enough to want to feel up [victim], he was clear-headed enough to take [victim] to the place to feel her up, and he was clear-headed enough to feel her up. He knew what he was doing, and...that makes him a douche.

Nice Carlin reference.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Lonely Summer on May 12, 2016, 06:46:19 PM
Two Three rules to live by.

1.  Don't drink so much so fast that you have a black out.  This is bad.
2.  Don't try to have sex in a public hallway.  This is dumb.
3.  Don't try to have sex with someone 30 years your junior.  Fun, but also dumb.

Just so we're all sure, you say that having sex with someone 30 years your junior is "fun, but also dumb."  That means you're at least 48, right? 

Rather then answer your question directly, lets just say I don't believe it's socially (and possibly morally) acceptable for a 50 year old man to pursue a 20 year old girl for sex.
Actually, it's in the Rock Star Etiquette book that if you are an aging rock star (particularly if you are an UGLY, aging rock star), you are supposed to date or marry someone young enough to be your daughter - preferably a supermodel.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Paul J B on May 13, 2016, 10:58:04 AM
What legitimate reason was there to change the title of this thread? I feel a rant concerning censorship coming on that may end up in myself getting banned from this forum. This mind you is coming from someone that usually stays away from stirring the ----


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 13, 2016, 11:03:20 AM
What legitimate reason was there to change the title of this thread? I feel a rant concerning censorship coming on that may end up in myself getting banned from this forum. This mind you is coming from someone that usually stays away from stirring the ----
Don't rant and get banned! I think it was just due to two separate threads being combined. I think it was apolitical.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Paul J B on May 13, 2016, 11:57:54 AM
What legitimate reason was there to change the title of this thread? I feel a rant concerning censorship coming on that may end up in myself getting banned from this forum. This mind you is coming from someone that usually stays away from stirring the ----
Don't rant and get banned! I think it was just due to two separate threads being combined. I think it was apolitical.
Really? You think or know? i don't see where that was stated. I was done commenting on this subject itself but I'm seeing a bigger picture that seems amiss.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 13, 2016, 12:06:36 PM
What legitimate reason was there to change the title of this thread? I feel a rant concerning censorship coming on that may end up in myself getting banned from this forum. This mind you is coming from someone that usually stays away from stirring the ----
Don't rant and get banned! I think it was just due to two separate threads being combined. I think it was apolitical.
Really? You think or know? i don't see where that was stated. I was done commenting on this subject itself but I'm seeing a bigger picture that seems amiss.
I know two threads were merged. Halfway through the original thread someone posted a new thread with a link to an article and the mods merged the two threads. I assumed, but don't know, that that's why the name changed. I've noticed that if you respond to comments from the original thread the comment contains that title. I was really confused for a while seeing posts listed with different thread titles but when I clicked on the posts they all brought me to the same thread. I'll look and see if I can find the original post of the second thread.

Actually, this is the new thread that was merged that I was thinking of. It was later that some posts were titled with the third title. Don't know how:
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/crime/keyboardist-brian-wilson-raped-woman-oklahoma-concert-article-1.2628569

How gross and irresponsible, he should be ashamed of himself.

EDIT: I missed the existing thread.  Feel free to merge.
So originally it was "horribly disappointing..." then "sad and disappointing..." then "discussion".
I'm always baffled by titles. Some just become "/" or something. I don't really understand how it works.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 13, 2016, 12:09:09 PM
I merged the threads and changed the title of it at that time to make it obvious that this was the thread to discuss the issue.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 13, 2016, 12:11:01 PM
I merged the threads and changed the title of it at that time to make it obvious that this was the thread to discuss the issue.
gotcha.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Paul J B on May 13, 2016, 01:52:26 PM
I merged the threads and changed the title of it at that time to make it obvious that this was the thread to discuss the issue.
 

Fair enough. A few days ago when a couple of members here that are connected to music media expressed concerns that this remain in "on topic" I was totally in their camp.  I give you credit for moving several foolish threads off of that page in response.

However, and this this is just a however....I also read here that Guitarfool is a moderator at Brian's site as well. If so that seems like a conflict of interest. I don't even know if that's fact or fiction, but if true, in light of some other recent drama around here, it seems not quite right. And before I get a lecture from Guitarfool that's not my intent nor to imply conspiracies. It's just that negativity regarding Brian in any form is not tolerated on Brian's site and I hope that is not being factored into this forum for any reason. I have read outright insulting horrible stuff about Al  looking like death and have to endure OSD and his derangement syndrome concerning Mike on a daily basis.

Myself...I have little negative to say about Brian, but I sincerely hope an open forum will remain an open forum even if an unpleasant black eye comes from Brian's camp. Had someone in Mikes band, messed up, I'm pretty darn sure we would be up to 60 pages by the usual suspects on how once again Mike tarnished the brand. And I'm sure it would not be in the sandbox.

For the record I agree with and respect MANY of Guitarfools posts. Same way I felt about Andrew.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 13, 2016, 01:56:27 PM
Quote
Had someone in Mikes band, messed up, I'm pretty darn sure we would be up to 60 pages by the usual suspects on how once again Mike tarnished the brand. And I'm sure it would not be in the sandbox.

You're probably right on the former, but as far as the latter...it would've been moved here too.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Juice Brohnston on May 13, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
I merged the threads and changed the title of it at that time to make it obvious that this was the thread to discuss the issue.
 

However, and this this is just a however....I also read here that Guitarfool is a moderator at Brian's site as well. If so that seems like a conflict of interest. I don't even know if that's fact or fiction, but if true, in light of some other recent drama around here, it seems not quite right. And before I get a lecture from Guitarfool that's not my intent nor to imply conspiracies. It's just that negativity regarding Brian in any form is not tolerated on Brian's site and I hope that is not being factored into this forum for any reason. I have read outright insulting horrible stuff about Al  looking like death and have to endure OSD and his derangement syndrome concerning Mike on a daily basis.

Is this accurate?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Marty Castillo on May 14, 2016, 12:41:42 PM
I merged the threads and changed the title of it at that time to make it obvious that this was the thread to discuss the issue.
 

However, and this this is just a however....I also read here that Guitarfool is a moderator at Brian's site as well. If so that seems like a conflict of interest. I don't even know if that's fact or fiction, but if true, in light of some other recent drama around here, it seems not quite right. And before I get a lecture from Guitarfool that's not my intent nor to imply conspiracies. It's just that negativity regarding Brian in any form is not tolerated on Brian's site and I hope that is not being factored into this forum for any reason. I have read outright insulting horrible stuff about Al  looking like death and have to endure OSD and his derangement syndrome concerning Mike on a daily basis.

Is this accurate?

The Stamos DUI thread comes to mind...


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: alf wiedersehen on May 14, 2016, 12:46:39 PM
I merged the threads and changed the title of it at that time to make it obvious that this was the thread to discuss the issue.
 

However, and this this is just a however....I also read here that Guitarfool is a moderator at Brian's site as well. If so that seems like a conflict of interest. I don't even know if that's fact or fiction, but if true, in light of some other recent drama around here, it seems not quite right. And before I get a lecture from Guitarfool that's not my intent nor to imply conspiracies. It's just that negativity regarding Brian in any form is not tolerated on Brian's site and I hope that is not being factored into this forum for any reason. I have read outright insulting horrible stuff about Al  looking like death and have to endure OSD and his derangement syndrome concerning Mike on a daily basis.

Is this accurate?

http://brianwilson.websitetoolbox.com/profile/3984181


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Mr. Verlander on May 14, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
Then Billy needs to become moderator at "Mike Love's Feel The Love" board, and that'll bring balance to the board.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 01:10:48 PM
I'd rather mainline bleach. Barely have enough free time as it is.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Mr. Verlander on May 14, 2016, 01:15:18 PM
I'd rather mainline bleach. Barely have enough free time as it is.

Talk about killing 2 birds with 1 stone!


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 01:15:33 PM
Quote
However, and this this is just a however....I also read here that Guitarfool is a moderator at Brian's site as well. If so that seems like a conflict of interest. I don't even know if that's fact or fiction, but if true, in light of some other recent drama around here, it seems not quite right. And before I get a lecture from Guitarfool that's not my intent nor to imply conspiracies. It's just that negativity regarding Brian in any form is not tolerated on Brian's site and I hope that is not being factored into this forum for any reason. I have read outright insulting horrible stuff about Al  looking like death and have to endure OSD and his derangement syndrome concerning Mike on a daily basis.

Not sure how it's a conflict of interest.

I actually missed the Al post...where is it?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 01:16:16 PM
I'd rather mainline bleach. Barely have enough free time as it is.

Talk about killing 2 birds with 1 stone!

I know, right? Then I'd have all the free time in the world...eternal, in fact.

Sadly, it'd still be preferable to how this year is turning out.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: drbeachboy on May 14, 2016, 01:18:09 PM
I merged the threads and changed the title of it at that time to make it obvious that this was the thread to discuss the issue.
 

However, and this this is just a however....I also read here that Guitarfool is a moderator at Brian's site as well. If so that seems like a conflict of interest. I don't even know if that's fact or fiction, but if true, in light of some other recent drama around here, it seems not quite right. And before I get a lecture from Guitarfool that's not my intent nor to imply conspiracies. It's just that negativity regarding Brian in any form is not tolerated on Brian's site and I hope that is not being factored into this forum for any reason. I have read outright insulting horrible stuff about Al  looking like death and have to endure OSD and his derangement syndrome concerning Mike on a daily basis.

Is this accurate?

http://brianwilson.websitetoolbox.com/profile/3984181
That is why last night, I stated that he might be confused with which board that he was moderating. Brian is always off-limits to any criticism, while all other Beach Boys are fair game, especially Mike.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Mr. Verlander on May 14, 2016, 01:19:27 PM
I'd rather mainline bleach. Barely have enough free time as it is.

Talk about killing 2 birds with 1 stone!

I know, right? Then I'd have all the free time in the world...eternal, in fact.

Sadly, it'd still be preferable to how this year is turning out.

To quote The Beach Boys, "The Year Is So Young"...er, or something like that  :)
 It'll turn around for you.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 02:13:28 PM
I merged the threads and changed the title of it at that time to make it obvious that this was the thread to discuss the issue.
 

However, and this this is just a however....I also read here that Guitarfool is a moderator at Brian's site as well. If so that seems like a conflict of interest. I don't even know if that's fact or fiction, but if true, in light of some other recent drama around here, it seems not quite right. And before I get a lecture from Guitarfool that's not my intent nor to imply conspiracies. It's just that negativity regarding Brian in any form is not tolerated on Brian's site and I hope that is not being factored into this forum for any reason. I have read outright insulting horrible stuff about Al  looking like death and have to endure OSD and his derangement syndrome concerning Mike on a daily basis.

Is this accurate?

http://brianwilson.websitetoolbox.com/profile/3984181
That is why last night, I stated that he might be confused with which board that he was moderating. Brian is always off-limits to any criticism, while all other Beach Boys are fair game, especially Mike.

Bullshit. NOBODY is immune to any criticism. I call it like I see it, always have and always will.  If it was off limits to criticize Brian, don't you think the Bubs/Dudd thread would've been shut down? I mean, there's a difference between being supportive of someone and banning people just because they don't agree with someone. The second has never happened on this board, and won't as long I still draw breath.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: drbeachboy on May 14, 2016, 02:36:33 PM
I merged the threads and changed the title of it at that time to make it obvious that this was the thread to discuss the issue.
 

However, and this this is just a however....I also read here that Guitarfool is a moderator at Brian's site as well. If so that seems like a conflict of interest. I don't even know if that's fact or fiction, but if true, in light of some other recent drama around here, it seems not quite right. And before I get a lecture from Guitarfool that's not my intent nor to imply conspiracies. It's just that negativity regarding Brian in any form is not tolerated on Brian's site and I hope that is not being factored into this forum for any reason. I have read outright insulting horrible stuff about Al  looking like death and have to endure OSD and his derangement syndrome concerning Mike on a daily basis.

Is this accurate?

http://brianwilson.websitetoolbox.com/profile/3984181
That is why last night, I stated that he might be confused with which board that he was moderating. Brian is always off-limits to any criticism, while all other Beach Boys are fair game, especially Mike.

Bullshit. NOBODY is immune to any criticism. I call it like I see it, always have and always will.  If it was off limits to criticize Brian, don't you think the Bubs/Dudd thread would've been shut down? I mean, there's a difference between being supportive of someone and banning people just because they don't agree with someone. The second has never happened on this board, and won't as long I still draw breath.
Well then Billy, please read what went down last night. Craig has never to my knowledge treated the anti-Mike threads like he does with what he perceives to be anti-Brian threads. You are fair with that stuff, and I wouldn't get on Craig if he treated all the threads with the same vigor that he treats the Brian-centric threads.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 02:42:24 PM
I did read it. At the end of the day, what difference does it make? It's not like power is being abused and people are getting banned for disgreeing.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Juice Brohnston on May 14, 2016, 02:47:48 PM
I merged the threads and changed the title of it at that time to make it obvious that this was the thread to discuss the issue.
 

However, and this this is just a however....I also read here that Guitarfool is a moderator at Brian's site as well. If so that seems like a conflict of interest. I don't even know if that's fact or fiction, but if true, in light of some other recent drama around here, it seems not quite right. And before I get a lecture from Guitarfool that's not my intent nor to imply conspiracies. It's just that negativity regarding Brian in any form is not tolerated on Brian's site and I hope that is not being factored into this forum for any reason. I have read outright insulting horrible stuff about Al  looking like death and have to endure OSD and his derangement syndrome concerning Mike on a daily basis.

Is this accurate?

http://brianwilson.websitetoolbox.com/profile/3984181
Wow, that's a bit of an eye opener for me. Not saying there IS a conflict of interest, but it opens the door for people to theorize about potential bias. It would be better if moderators on this board had no ties to 'official' message boards. I guess on the other side, maybe Brian doesn't do a Q&A here if those connections don't exist.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 02:55:02 PM
Again, what difference does it make if either of us moderate at another site? The rules aren't suddenly going to change.  If either of us were out of line and abusing power, don't you think Chuck would've stepped in? And again, if either of us were as bad as accused, wouldn't those dissenting posts and posters have been 'silenced'? 


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: drbeachboy on May 14, 2016, 02:56:19 PM
I did read it. At the end of the day, what difference does it make? It's not like power is being abused and people are getting banned for disgreeing.
It does make a difference and if you don't see it then you don't understand why there is turmoil in here. I don't care if the place is strick or totally lassez faire, just be consistent about it.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 03:00:34 PM
I did read it. At the end of the day, what difference does it make? It's not like power is being abused and people are getting banned for disgreeing.
It does make a difference and if you don't see it then you don't understand why there is turmoil in here. I don't care if the place is strick or totally lassez faire, just be consistent about it.

Oh, I know good and well why there's turmoil here.

My question is this...once we become moderators, do we suddenly lose our rights as human beings to have an opinion?  


Question for anybody feeling 'this way'...name ONE person who was banned for being anti-Brian. If you can name one person and can prove it's true, then I will step down as moderator and you can have this place to yourselves.

Here's the rub...it won't happen because it has NEVER been like that


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Juice Brohnston on May 14, 2016, 03:31:16 PM
The difference is in the perception people may have. Mine changes, knowing a mod here is a moderator of an Official board. Especially when this board has a very Mike vs Brian population. Again, moderating is a thankless task, and a necessary one. I certainly am not saying this creates a pro Brian bias, but it could. I dunno, it would be interesting to hear how most people feel about it.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Robbie Mac on May 14, 2016, 04:08:03 PM
The accusation being levied is that since GF is a mod on the Bloo, then he must be on Brian's payroll. A reverse twist on the "Mike's payrool"  claims levied against AGD.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 04:20:49 PM
Man, if it was only that easy...I am barely on my job's payroll these days.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Robbie Mac on May 14, 2016, 05:06:05 PM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.







Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: drbeachboy on May 14, 2016, 05:09:36 PM
The accusation being levied is that since GF is a mod on the Bloo, then he must be on Brian's payroll. A reverse twist on the "Mike's payrool"  claims levied against AGD.
Come on, just not true. It's more about how the moderator behaves there versus here. It's Brian's board there, so less is tolerated, especially of the negative variety. I think the big issue here is that Craig forces his pro-Brian stance on us, but doesn't carry that over to Mike or the rest of the guys. Mods need to be consistent. The other issue is he takes sides in arguments. For us, we are never really sure when he is being a mod Craig or a regular member Craig. If you take on the mod role, then every time you are in here you are on mod duty, hence mods shouldn't take sides.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Robbie Mac on May 14, 2016, 05:17:54 PM
The accusation being levied is that since GF is a mod on the Bloo, then he must be on Brian's payroll. A reverse twist on the "Mike's payrool"  claims levied against AGD.
Come on, just not true. It's more about how the moderator behaves there versus here. It's Brian's board there, so less is tolerated, especially of the negative variety. I think the big issue here is that Craig forces his pro-Brian stance on us, but doesn't carry that over to Mike or the rest of the guys. Mods need to be consistent. The other issue is he takes sides in arguments. For us, we are never really sure when he is being a mod Craig or a regular member Craig. If you take on the mod role, then every time you are in here you are on mod duty, hence mods shouldn't take sides.

Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 05:21:14 PM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.




Thanks for that... so he was drinking on stage, AND took Vicodin. Certainly hope he wasn't driving or anything either.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 05:25:26 PM
The accusation being levied is that since GF is a mod on the Bloo, then he must be on Brian's payroll. A reverse twist on the "Mike's payrool"  claims levied against AGD.
Come on, just not true. It's more about how the moderator behaves there versus here. It's Brian's board there, so less is tolerated, especially of the negative variety. I think the big issue here is that Craig forces his pro-Brian stance on us, but doesn't carry that over to Mike or the rest of the guys. Mods need to be consistent. The other issue is he takes sides in arguments. For us, we are never really sure when he is being a mod Craig or a regular member Craig. If you take on the mod role, then every time you are in here you are on mod duty, hence mods shouldn't take sides.

Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?

Good point.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: drbeachboy on May 14, 2016, 05:27:15 PM
The accusation being levied is that since GF is a mod on the Bloo, then he must be on Brian's payroll. A reverse twist on the "Mike's payrool"  claims levied against AGD.
Come on, just not true. It's more about how the moderator behaves there versus here. It's Brian's board there, so less is tolerated, especially of the negative variety. I think the big issue here is that Craig forces his pro-Brian stance on us, but doesn't carry that over to Mike or the rest of the guys. Mods need to be consistent. The other issue is he takes sides in arguments. For us, we are never really sure when he is being a mod Craig or a regular member Craig. If you take on the mod role, then every time you are in here you are on mod duty, hence mods shouldn't take sides.

Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?
The accusation being levied is that since GF is a mod on the Bloo, then he must be on Brian's payroll. A reverse twist on the "Mike's payrool"  claims levied against AGD.
Come on, just not true. It's more about how the moderator behaves there versus here. It's Brian's board there, so less is tolerated, especially of the negative variety. I think the big issue here is that Craig forces his pro-Brian stance on us, but doesn't carry that over to Mike or the rest of the guys. Mods need to be consistent. The other issue is he takes sides in arguments. For us, we are never really sure when he is being a mod Craig or a regular member Craig. If you take on the mod role, then every time you are in here you are on mod duty, hence mods shouldn't take sides.

Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?
And Jason resigned when he knew people weren't happy with him. Look, we all have our biases. All I am asking for is to be consistent. If you are gonna be strick about Brian, then be strick about the same things with Mike, Al, etc.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 05:32:28 PM
The accusation being levied is that since GF is a mod on the Bloo, then he must be on Brian's payroll. A reverse twist on the "Mike's payrool"  claims levied against AGD.
Come on, just not true. It's more about how the moderator behaves there versus here. It's Brian's board there, so less is tolerated, especially of the negative variety. I think the big issue here is that Craig forces his pro-Brian stance on us, but doesn't carry that over to Mike or the rest of the guys. Mods need to be consistent. The other issue is he takes sides in arguments. For us, we are never really sure when he is being a mod Craig or a regular member Craig. If you take on the mod role, then every time you are in here you are on mod duty, hence mods shouldn't take sides.

Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?
The accusation being levied is that since GF is a mod on the Bloo, then he must be on Brian's payroll. A reverse twist on the "Mike's payrool"  claims levied against AGD.
Come on, just not true. It's more about how the moderator behaves there versus here. It's Brian's board there, so less is tolerated, especially of the negative variety. I think the big issue here is that Craig forces his pro-Brian stance on us, but doesn't carry that over to Mike or the rest of the guys. Mods need to be consistent. The other issue is he takes sides in arguments. For us, we are never really sure when he is being a mod Craig or a regular member Craig. If you take on the mod role, then every time you are in here you are on mod duty, hence mods shouldn't take sides.

Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?
And Jason resigned when he knew people weren't happy with him. Look, we all have our biases. All I am asking for is to be consistent. If you are gonna be strick about Brian, then be strick about the same things with Mike, Al, etc.

Well, sh*t, Jason called pro-Brian people sociopaths. I haven't seen GF call pro-Mike people that (nor should he)


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 14, 2016, 05:34:26 PM
Guitarfool is a great guy and even better moderator.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on May 14, 2016, 06:00:48 PM
Are we really sharing conspiracy theories about the moderators of this forum?  Don't we have anything better to do?  :lol


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 06:06:44 PM
Apparently not :lol


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 14, 2016, 06:07:29 PM
Well Billy is secretly batman. :hat


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 06:19:10 PM
(http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Batman-Memes-1.png)


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: SMiLE Brian on May 14, 2016, 06:27:26 PM
LOL


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Douchepool on May 14, 2016, 07:52:42 PM
You guys need to loosen the tinfoil hats a bit...it's going to cut off whatever blood still flows to your brains.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Tab Lloyd on May 14, 2016, 08:52:39 PM
Bullshit. NOBODY is immune to any criticism. I call it like I see it, always have and always will.  If it was off limits to criticize Brian, don't you think the Bubs/Dudd thread would've been shut down?

To stoke the conspiratorial fires, I believe the Bubs/Dudd thread was indeed locked a few days ago.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on May 14, 2016, 08:59:56 PM
Bullshit. NOBODY is immune to any criticism. I call it like I see it, always have and always will.  If it was off limits to criticize Brian, don't you think the Bubs/Dudd thread would've been shut down?

To stoke the conspiratorial fires, I believe the Bubs/Dudd thread was indeed locked a few days ago.

Just checked and you're right.  I didn't realize it was locked.  That's very disappointing. 


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 09:09:59 PM
Bullshit. NOBODY is immune to any criticism. I call it like I see it, always have and always will.  If it was off limits to criticize Brian, don't you think the Bubs/Dudd thread would've been shut down?

To stoke the conspiratorial fires, I believe the Bubs/Dudd thread was indeed locked a few days ago.


I didn't lock it, and neither did GF.  I actually didn't know that it was locked until earlier. Gonna reopen it.


edit...


 I just reopened it, and went to check the mod log to see who locked it. Sure enough...there was no indication it was locked...until 11:10 PM central time. Which is the time I re-opened it. What the actual f***?!


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Douchepool on May 14, 2016, 09:12:06 PM
Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?

Yup, without apology. Of course, it was part and parcel of being a FAN first and a moderator of a message board a very distant second. Last time I checked I also didn't ban or censure members for insulting or disagreeing with me (gotta take whatcha dish out, y'know). Your argument, I dare say, has negligible merit.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 14, 2016, 09:20:57 PM
Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?

Yup, without apology. Of course, it was part and parcel of being a FAN first and a moderator of a message board a very distant second. Last time I checked I also didn't ban or censure members for insulting or disagreeing with me (gotta take whatcha dish out, y'know). Your argument, I dare say, has negligible merit.

Actually it has considerable merit, because GF is the same way (fan first, and also hasn't banned or censured members for insulting or disagreeing), and is catching sh*t for it when he really shouldn't be. Just because someone is a mod doesn't mean they all of a sudden stop being passionate. That was Andy's point!


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Douchepool on May 14, 2016, 09:22:09 PM
I misread him. My mistake.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: alf wiedersehen on May 14, 2016, 10:39:38 PM
I locked my thread, and I would ask that it stay that way.
Additionally, is it possible to get rid of Ognir Rrat's post? I ended my thread the way I wanted it to end.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 15, 2016, 01:06:00 AM
Ok..mystery solved


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: drbeachboy on May 15, 2016, 06:52:03 AM
Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?

Yup, without apology. Of course, it was part and parcel of being a FAN first and a moderator of a message board a very distant second. Last time I checked I also didn't ban or censure members for insulting or disagreeing with me (gotta take whatcha dish out, y'know). Your argument, I dare say, has negligible merit.

Actually it has considerable merit, because GF is the same way (fan first, and also hasn't banned or censured members for insulting or disagreeing), and is catching sh*t for it when he really shouldn't be. Just because someone is a mod doesn't mean they all of a sudden stop being passionate. That was Andy's point!
Well some folks who were banned feel that their banning came as a result of disagreeing and/or arguing with Craig. Folks feel they have to tread lightly with him. They feel if he hasn't done the banning directly, then he influenced the mod(s) who did so. A question for you Billy, do the folks who are banned get a full explanation of why and by who they were banned? If Craig is getting a bad rap, is it due to a lack of communication?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 15, 2016, 08:53:23 AM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.



Thanks for posting that. The more facts that come to light just further highlight this is a real tragedy all around. I hope Scott is ok there, but I'm sure it's awful. Looking at the roster of inmates that are regularly arrested in Rogers County, it looks like a not-insignificant amount of the arrests there are for meth-related charges. Scott is gonna have some rough company.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster.php?grp=80


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Amy B. on May 15, 2016, 09:39:26 AM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.



Thanks for posting that. The more facts that come to light just further highlight this is a real tragedy all around. I hope Scott is ok there, but I'm sure it's awful. Looking at the roster of inmates that are regularly arrested in Rogers County, it looks like a not-insignificant amount of the arrests there are for meth-related charges. Scott is gonna have some rough company.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster.php?grp=80


This is sad. Apparently Scott is an alcoholic and had also taken a Vicodin. Perhaps he was too drunk to know what he was doing. That doesn't excuse his behavior, though. If I hear that a man beat his wife, I'm horrified. If I hear he was drunk when he did it, I'm still horrified. It's too bad Scott wasn't able to get help before this terrible thing happened. Alcohol abuse doesn't negate his guilt, and I say that as the child of an alcoholic.



Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: 37!ws on May 15, 2016, 09:42:52 AM
That he even remembers doing it tells me he wasn't too drunk to know what he was doing.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 15, 2016, 09:56:21 AM
Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?

Yup, without apology. Of course, it was part and parcel of being a FAN first and a moderator of a message board a very distant second. Last time I checked I also didn't ban or censure members for insulting or disagreeing with me (gotta take whatcha dish out, y'know). Your argument, I dare say, has negligible merit.

Actually it has considerable merit, because GF is the same way (fan first, and also hasn't banned or censured members for insulting or disagreeing), and is catching sh*t for it when he really shouldn't be. Just because someone is a mod doesn't mean they all of a sudden stop being passionate. That was Andy's point!
Well some folks who were banned feel that their banning came as a result of disagreeing and/or arguing with Craig. Folks feel they have to tread lightly with him. They feel if he hasn't done the banning directly, then he influenced the mod(s) who did so. A question for you Billy, do the folks who are banned get a full explanation of why and by who they were banned? If Craig is getting a bad rap, is it due to a lack of communication?


Nobody has been banned for disagreeing with Craig, nor has he EVER  influenced me to do so. I take EXTREME exception to that...I am not a freaking puppet.  If anybody here does think that way, I strongly suggest they get that image out of their head, because it is as wrong as it gets. Whenever someone is banned, there is a spot for the moderator who has performed the ban to leave a comment as to why the member is banned, which is displayed to the member when they attempt to log in or post.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 15, 2016, 10:06:29 AM
That he even remembers doing it tells me he wasn't too drunk to know what he was doing.

Scientifically, you are correct.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 15, 2016, 10:18:11 AM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.



Thanks for posting that. The more facts that come to light just further highlight this is a real tragedy all around. I hope Scott is ok there, but I'm sure it's awful. Looking at the roster of inmates that are regularly arrested in Rogers County, it looks like a not-insignificant amount of the arrests there are for meth-related charges. Scott is gonna have some rough company.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster.php?grp=80


This is sad. Apparently Scott is an alcoholic and had also taken a Vicodin. Perhaps he was too drunk to know what he was doing. That doesn't excuse his behavior, though. If I hear that a man beat his wife, I'm horrified. If I hear he was drunk when he did it, I'm still horrified. It's too bad Scott wasn't able to get help before this terrible thing happened. Alcohol abuse doesn't negate his guilt, and I say that as the child of an alcoholic.



It's also unfortunate when one imagines that Scott might possibly have thought, at the time, in his drunken state, that he was not doing anything that was against what the woman had actually wanted.  I'm willing to consider that may possibly have been what was going through his head at the time. If he had mutually drunken encounters in the past with others, where the end result was the partner not feeling in any way like a victim of assault, I could imagine this could possibly have come as a big shock to him. Not in any way an excuse for poor judgment or inappropriate behavior, but it's more of a tragedy to me if the perpetrator doesn't necessarily realize they are doing something that will affect another in such a negative manner. That would of course be the best-case scenario. The actual truth of the matter may be worse. Obviously the video must be pretty damning.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Shady on May 15, 2016, 10:19:03 AM
I've been away for a month using very little Internet, came home and find this story on rolling stone  :o

I met Scott at a hotel in Glasgow, was such a nice guy.

So shocked, you never really know somebody.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: drbeachboy on May 15, 2016, 10:22:13 AM
Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?

Yup, without apology. Of course, it was part and parcel of being a FAN first and a moderator of a message board a very distant second. Last time I checked I also didn't ban or censure members for insulting or disagreeing with me (gotta take whatcha dish out, y'know). Your argument, I dare say, has negligible merit.

Actually it has considerable merit, because GF is the same way (fan first, and also hasn't banned or censured members for insulting or disagreeing), and is catching sh*t for it when he really shouldn't be. Just because someone is a mod doesn't mean they all of a sudden stop being passionate. That was Andy's point!
Well some folks who were banned feel that their banning came as a result of disagreeing and/or arguing with Craig. Folks feel they have to tread lightly with him. They feel if he hasn't done the banning directly, then he influenced the mod(s) who did so. A question for you Billy, do the folks who are banned get a full explanation of why and by who they were banned? If Craig is getting a bad rap, is it due to a lack of communication?


Nobody has been banned for disagreeing with Craig, nor has he EVER  influenced me to do so. I take EXTREME exception to that...I am not a freaking puppet.  If anybody here does think that way, I strongly suggest they get that image out of their head, because it is as wrong as it gets. Whenever someone is banned, there is a spot for the moderator who has performed the ban to leave a comment as to why the member is banned, which is displayed to the member when they attempt to log in or post.
Why on Earth would you take exception to that? You always say that it is never one person making the decision, that you make it as a team. You all must write to each other, compare notes, get each other's take on what went down, evidence, etc.. The folks I have spoke with say they did not receive a full explanation and in at least one case did not receive a response to multiple emails sent giving their side of the situation. So for those that no longer have a voice in here and just for general knowledge about how things work in here, is why I posed the question.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 15, 2016, 10:22:55 AM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.



Thanks for posting that. The more facts that come to light just further highlight this is a real tragedy all around. I hope Scott is ok there, but I'm sure it's awful. Looking at the roster of inmates that are regularly arrested in Rogers County, it looks like a not-insignificant amount of the arrests there are for meth-related charges. Scott is gonna have some rough company.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster.php?grp=80


This is sad. Apparently Scott is an alcoholic and had also taken a Vicodin. Perhaps he was too drunk to know what he was doing. That doesn't excuse his behavior, though. If I hear that a man beat his wife, I'm horrified. If I hear he was drunk when he did it, I'm still horrified. It's too bad Scott wasn't able to get help before this terrible thing happened. Alcohol abuse doesn't negate his guilt, and I say that as the child of an alcoholic.



It's also sad when one imagines that Scott may well have thought, at the time, in his drunken state, that he was not doing anything that was against what the woman had actually wanted.  I'm willing to consider that may possibly have been what was going through his head at the time. If he had mutually drunken encounters in the past with others, where the end result was the partner not feeling in any way like a victim of assault, I could imagine this could possibly have come as a huge shock to him. Not an excuse for poor judgment or inappropriate behavior, but it's more of a tragedy to me if the perpetrator doesn't necessarily realize they are doing something that will affect another in such a negative manner.

I just don't understand it..I mean, I haven't touched hard drugs in almost a decade, haven't taken a drink in almost 3 years, but even when I did, I *never* could have or would have even considered doing anything like Scott did.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 15, 2016, 10:31:12 AM
Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?

Yup, without apology. Of course, it was part and parcel of being a FAN first and a moderator of a message board a very distant second. Last time I checked I also didn't ban or censure members for insulting or disagreeing with me (gotta take whatcha dish out, y'know). Your argument, I dare say, has negligible merit.

Actually it has considerable merit, because GF is the same way (fan first, and also hasn't banned or censured members for insulting or disagreeing), and is catching sh*t for it when he really shouldn't be. Just because someone is a mod doesn't mean they all of a sudden stop being passionate. That was Andy's point!
Well some folks who were banned feel that their banning came as a result of disagreeing and/or arguing with Craig. Folks feel they have to tread lightly with him. They feel if he hasn't done the banning directly, then he influenced the mod(s) who did so. A question for you Billy, do the folks who are banned get a full explanation of why and by who they were banned? If Craig is getting a bad rap, is it due to a lack of communication?


Nobody has been banned for disagreeing with Craig, nor has he EVER  influenced me to do so. I take EXTREME exception to that...I am not a freaking puppet.  If anybody here does think that way, I strongly suggest they get that image out of their head, because it is as wrong as it gets. Whenever someone is banned, there is a spot for the moderator who has performed the ban to leave a comment as to why the member is banned, which is displayed to the member when they attempt to log in or post.
Why on Earth would you take exception to that? You always say that it is never one person making the decision, that you make it as a team. You all must write to each other, compare notes, get each other's take on what went down, evidence, etc.. The folks I have spoke with say they did not receive a full explanation and in at least one case did not receive a response to multiple emails sent giving their side of the situation. So for those that no longer have a voice in here and just for general knowledge about how things work in here, is why I posed the question.


Well, because
Quote
Well some folks who were banned feel that their banning came as a result of disagreeing and/or arguing with Craig
is not true (not the people feeling that way part, the actual inference here is what I'm referring to). And yes, we discuss it as a team (duo, now) but the way it was worded made it sound like I was having my arm twisted, or that he was calling the shots and I was just here for sh*t/grins.

As far as not responding to emails... if you are referring to Nicko, it is because at first I did respond to emails to him, until it was uncovered that he was a previously banned member posting under a different name, and the email address belonged to a Facebook page that was...um...extremely fake, and he had been banned for similar issues at bw.com as he was here.  If you are referring to Mikie, I did respond to emails, although after a while I quit.  If you are referring to runnersdialzero, I never got an email but I did get a PM from another member asking me to reconsider. At the time we still had 3 mods; it was decided to let the ban stand.  If it is anybody else, I never got the emails.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on May 15, 2016, 01:31:17 PM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.



Thanks for posting that. The more facts that come to light just further highlight this is a real tragedy all around. I hope Scott is ok there, but I'm sure it's awful. Looking at the roster of inmates that are regularly arrested in Rogers County, it looks like a not-insignificant amount of the arrests there are for meth-related charges. Scott is gonna have some rough company.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster.php?grp=80


This is sad. Apparently Scott is an alcoholic and had also taken a Vicodin. Perhaps he was too drunk to know what he was doing. That doesn't excuse his behavior, though. If I hear that a man beat his wife, I'm horrified. If I hear he was drunk when he did it, I'm still horrified. It's too bad Scott wasn't able to get help before this terrible thing happened. Alcohol abuse doesn't negate his guilt, and I say that as the child of an alcoholic.



It's also sad when one imagines that Scott may well have thought, at the time, in his drunken state, that he was not doing anything that was against what the woman had actually wanted.  I'm willing to consider that may possibly have been what was going through his head at the time. If he had mutually drunken encounters in the past with others, where the end result was the partner not feeling in any way like a victim of assault, I could imagine this could possibly have come as a huge shock to him. Not an excuse for poor judgment or inappropriate behavior, but it's more of a tragedy to me if the perpetrator doesn't necessarily realize they are doing something that will affect another in such a negative manner.

I just don't understand it..I mean, I haven't touched hard drugs in almost a decade, haven't taken a drink in almost 3 years, but even when I did, I *never* could have or would have even considered doing anything like Scott did.

Agreed. I don't and can't understand how someone could make the leap that apparently was taken here. It baffles.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: drbeachboy on May 15, 2016, 02:40:21 PM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.



Thanks for posting that. The more facts that come to light just further highlight this is a real tragedy all around. I hope Scott is ok there, but I'm sure it's awful. Looking at the roster of inmates that are regularly arrested in Rogers County, it looks like a not-insignificant amount of the arrests there are for meth-related charges. Scott is gonna have some rough company.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster.php?grp=80


This is sad. Apparently Scott is an alcoholic and had also taken a Vicodin. Perhaps he was too drunk to know what he was doing. That doesn't excuse his behavior, though. If I hear that a man beat his wife, I'm horrified. If I hear he was drunk when he did it, I'm still horrified. It's too bad Scott wasn't able to get help before this terrible thing happened. Alcohol abuse doesn't negate his guilt, and I say that as the child of an alcoholic.



It's also sad when one imagines that Scott may well have thought, at the time, in his drunken state, that he was not doing anything that was against what the woman had actually wanted.  I'm willing to consider that may possibly have been what was going through his head at the time. If he had mutually drunken encounters in the past with others, where the end result was the partner not feeling in any way like a victim of assault, I could imagine this could possibly have come as a huge shock to him. Not an excuse for poor judgment or inappropriate behavior, but it's more of a tragedy to me if the perpetrator doesn't necessarily realize they are doing something that will affect another in such a negative manner.

I just don't understand it..I mean, I haven't touched hard drugs in almost a decade, haven't taken a drink in almost 3 years, but even when I did, I *never* could have or would have even considered doing anything like Scott did.

Agreed. I don't and can't understand how someone could make the leap that apparently was taken here. It baffles.
Even if the woman had said yes and don't remember, you just don't take advantage of someone in that situation. It sounds like she was just too mind altered through drinking, drugs or both to make a rational decision. Very bad decision by Scott to take advantage of her disadvantage.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: The Shift on May 15, 2016, 10:42:03 PM
Jason took sides all the time. Where was the outrage from your quarters there?

Yup, without apology. Of course, it was part and parcel of being a FAN first and a moderator of a message board a very distant second. Last time I checked I also didn't ban or censure members for insulting or disagreeing with me (gotta take whatcha dish out, y'know). Your argument, I dare say, has negligible merit.

Actually it has considerable merit, because GF is the same way (fan first, and also hasn't banned or censured members for insulting or disagreeing), and is catching sh*t for it when he really shouldn't be. Just because someone is a mod doesn't mean they all of a sudden stop being passionate. That was Andy's point!
Well some folks who were banned feel that their banning came as a result of disagreeing and/or arguing with Craig. Folks feel they have to tread lightly with him. They feel if he hasn't done the banning directly, then he influenced the mod(s) who did so. A question for you Billy, do the folks who are banned get a full explanation of why and by who they were banned? If Craig is getting a bad rap, is it due to a lack of communication?


Nobody has been banned for disagreeing with Craig, nor has he EVER  influenced me to do so. I take EXTREME exception to that...I am not a freaking puppet.  If anybody here does think that way, I strongly suggest they get that image out of their head, because it is as wrong as it gets. Whenever someone is banned, there is a spot for the moderator who has performed the ban to leave a comment as to why the member is banned, which is displayed to the member when they attempt to log in or post.
Why on Earth would you take exception to that? You always say that it is never one person making the decision, that you make it as a team. You all must write to each other, compare notes, get each other's take on what went down, evidence, etc.. The folks I have spoke with say they did not receive a full explanation and in at least one case did not receive a response to multiple emails sent giving their side of the situation. So for those that no longer have a voice in here and just for general knowledge about how things work in here, is why I posed the question.


Well, because
Quote
Well some folks who were banned feel that their banning came as a result of disagreeing and/or arguing with Craig
is not true (not the people feeling that way part, the actual inference here is what I'm referring to). And yes, we discuss it as a team (duo, now) but the way it was worded made it sound like I was having my arm twisted, or that he was calling the shots and I was just here for sh*t/grins.

As far as not responding to emails... if you are referring to Nicko, it is because at first I did respond to emails to him, until it was uncovered that he was a previously banned member posting under a different name, and the email address belonged to a Facebook page that was...um...extremely fake, and he had been banned for similar issues at bw.com as he was here.  If you are referring to Mikie, I did respond to emails, although after a while I quit.  If you are referring to runnersdialzero, I never got an email but I did get a PM from another member asking me to reconsider. At the time we still had 3 mods; it was decided to let the ban stand.  If it is anybody else, I never got the emails.


Sorry this is all being raked over again. Billy, strikes me that you have enough on your plate without having to defend the mods' actions.

I don't think we ever got an answer to this, an answer which would surely make everything clear and clear a lot of issues up:


... every word of every mod discussion is archived and available. ...


Glad to hear that the mod discussions of bans are archived and available, as I'm still quite confused about the specifics of what led to AGD's ban.

Where do I find the archived mod discussion info?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 15, 2016, 11:52:35 PM
It's in the mod forum which is only visible to mods, but it is archived. If it had come to it, we'd could have posted the screenshots of the discussions,  but it's past that point now


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: bachelorofbullets on May 16, 2016, 07:45:12 AM
Wow he was taking Vicodin and drinking alcohol at the same time, a deadly combo.  Any doctor prescribing Vicodin would explain the dangers of mixing the two (it even says so in big letters on the bottle).  Next question is was it prescribed or not.     



Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 16, 2016, 08:58:58 AM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.



Thanks for posting that. The more facts that come to light just further highlight this is a real tragedy all around. I hope Scott is ok there, but I'm sure it's awful. Looking at the roster of inmates that are regularly arrested in Rogers County, it looks like a not-insignificant amount of the arrests there are for meth-related charges. Scott is gonna have some rough company.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster.php?grp=80


This is sad. Apparently Scott is an alcoholic and had also taken a Vicodin. Perhaps he was too drunk to know what he was doing. That doesn't excuse his behavior, though. If I hear that a man beat his wife, I'm horrified. If I hear he was drunk when he did it, I'm still horrified. It's too bad Scott wasn't able to get help before this terrible thing happened. Alcohol abuse doesn't negate his guilt, and I say that as the child of an alcoholic.


Agreed and me too. I wonder if being the child of an alcoholic makes one more likely to not consider alcohol an excuse for one's actions. In my experience a drunk person's actions are in character, just more stupidly done. 


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Amy B. on May 16, 2016, 10:18:55 AM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.



Thanks for posting that. The more facts that come to light just further highlight this is a real tragedy all around. I hope Scott is ok there, but I'm sure it's awful. Looking at the roster of inmates that are regularly arrested in Rogers County, it looks like a not-insignificant amount of the arrests there are for meth-related charges. Scott is gonna have some rough company.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster.php?grp=80


This is sad. Apparently Scott is an alcoholic and had also taken a Vicodin. Perhaps he was too drunk to know what he was doing. That doesn't excuse his behavior, though. If I hear that a man beat his wife, I'm horrified. If I hear he was drunk when he did it, I'm still horrified. It's too bad Scott wasn't able to get help before this terrible thing happened. Alcohol abuse doesn't negate his guilt, and I say that as the child of an alcoholic.


Agreed and me too. I wonder if being the child of an alcoholic makes one more likely to not consider alcohol an excuse for one's actions. In my experience a drunk person's actions are in character, just more stupidly done. 

Yup. It doesn't change a person's character. It takes away inhibitions.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 16, 2016, 11:53:34 AM
http://www.claremoreprogress.com/news/former-member-of-brian-wilson-s-band-convicted-of-rape/article_2a4a2438-1898-11e6-9b81-abf58b6671f9.html?platform=hootsuite

Back on topic, from the Claremore (OK)  Daily Progress, here is an article written by someone who attended the trial.



Thanks for posting that. The more facts that come to light just further highlight this is a real tragedy all around. I hope Scott is ok there, but I'm sure it's awful. Looking at the roster of inmates that are regularly arrested in Rogers County, it looks like a not-insignificant amount of the arrests there are for meth-related charges. Scott is gonna have some rough company.

http://www.rcsheriff.org/roster.php?grp=80


This is sad. Apparently Scott is an alcoholic and had also taken a Vicodin. Perhaps he was too drunk to know what he was doing. That doesn't excuse his behavior, though. If I hear that a man beat his wife, I'm horrified. If I hear he was drunk when he did it, I'm still horrified. It's too bad Scott wasn't able to get help before this terrible thing happened. Alcohol abuse doesn't negate his guilt, and I say that as the child of an alcoholic.


Agreed and me too. I wonder if being the child of an alcoholic makes one more likely to not consider alcohol an excuse for one's actions. In my experience a drunk person's actions are in character, just more stupidly done. 

Can't speak for anyone else, but personally speaking it certainly contributed to me feeling like that.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: MarcellaHasDirtyFeet on May 16, 2016, 01:11:36 PM
While I have never raped anyone, this discussion has led me to believe that I am terrible person, based on my actions while intoxicated. This is disheartening news, but I probably should have figured it out earlier, anyway.

My name is Evan and I am a douchebag.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on May 16, 2016, 02:41:01 PM
While I have never raped anyone, this discussion has led me to believe that I am terrible person, based on my actions while intoxicated. This is disheartening news, but I probably should have figured it out earlier, anyway.

My name is Evan and I am a douchebag.
Yeah, me too. A lot of people have been douchebags while drunk. Or not drunk.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on June 02, 2016, 09:42:11 AM
Some new updates on the court docket case page. The public official (?) who updates the page apparently doesn't have the best spelling.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=264240&db=Rogers

Not sure I know what all the legal terms mean, perhaps someone here with more legal knowledge can elaborate:


 05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097956    May 27 2016 8:13:36:570AM    -    $ 0.00
   DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MERGER/MOTION TO DISMISS FOR DOUBLE JEAPORDY PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    TEXT    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097958    May 27 2016 8:12:57:270AM    -    $ 0.00
   SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097960    May 27 2016 8:09:29:330AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

06-01-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7103669    Jun 2 2016 10:06:02:407AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: filledeplage on June 02, 2016, 12:06:53 PM
Some new updates on the court docket case page. The public official (?) who updates the page apparently doesn't have the best spelling.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=264240&db=Rogers

Not sure I know what all the legal terms mean, perhaps someone here with more legal knowledge can elaborate:


 05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097956    May 27 2016 8:13:36:570AM    -    $ 0.00
   DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MERGER/MOTION TO DISMISS FOR DOUBLE JEAPORDY PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    TEXT    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097958    May 27 2016 8:12:57:270AM    -    $ 0.00
   SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097960    May 27 2016 8:09:29:330AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

06-01-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7103669    Jun 2 2016 10:06:02:407AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

Which terms were mis-spelled?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on June 02, 2016, 12:31:45 PM
Some new updates on the court docket case page. The public official (?) who updates the page apparently doesn't have the best spelling.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=264240&db=Rogers

Not sure I know what all the legal terms mean, perhaps someone here with more legal knowledge can elaborate:


 05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097956    May 27 2016 8:13:36:570AM    -    $ 0.00
   DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MERGER/MOTION TO DISMISS FOR DOUBLE JEAPORDY PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    TEXT    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097958    May 27 2016 8:12:57:270AM    -    $ 0.00
   SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097960    May 27 2016 8:09:29:330AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

06-01-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7103669    Jun 2 2016 10:06:02:407AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

Which terms were mis-spelled?

"JEAPORDY," plus if you go through the rest of that page (looking at items which I didn't copy/paste into my post), there are many more examples.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: filledeplage on June 02, 2016, 12:41:14 PM
Some new updates on the court docket case page. The public official (?) who updates the page apparently doesn't have the best spelling.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=264240&db=Rogers

Not sure I know what all the legal terms mean, perhaps someone here with more legal knowledge can elaborate:


 05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097956    May 27 2016 8:13:36:570AM    -    $ 0.00
   DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MERGER/MOTION TO DISMISS FOR DOUBLE JEAPORDY PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    TEXT    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097958    May 27 2016 8:12:57:270AM    -    $ 0.00
   SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097960    May 27 2016 8:09:29:330AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

06-01-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7103669    Jun 2 2016 10:06:02:407AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

Which terms were mis-spelled?

"JEAPORDY," plus if you go through the rest of that page (looking at items which I didn't copy/paste into my post), there are many more examples.
CD - I didn't notice that word.  Guess they don't have spell-check.  I was looking at "quash" which most people think is "squash." It gave me a chuckle.  Thanks.  :lol


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on June 02, 2016, 01:35:30 PM
Some new updates on the court docket case page. The public official (?) who updates the page apparently doesn't have the best spelling.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=264240&db=Rogers

Not sure I know what all the legal terms mean, perhaps someone here with more legal knowledge can elaborate:


 05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097956    May 27 2016 8:13:36:570AM    -    $ 0.00
   DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MERGER/MOTION TO DISMISS FOR DOUBLE JEAPORDY PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    TEXT    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097958    May 27 2016 8:12:57:270AM    -    $ 0.00
   SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097960    May 27 2016 8:09:29:330AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

06-01-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7103669    Jun 2 2016 10:06:02:407AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

I have no more information than you and have no idea what the specifics of these are, but I can explain the general idea of what's happening. You've heard where someone is prosecuted for "one count of this thing and two counts of that thing." For instance, In Bennett's case, he was found guilty or rape by instrumentation and for sexual battery. In some cases, one can argue that those are two different charges for the same action (I don't know how the charges were broken down in this case, so I have no idea if that's the case here). In that case, it would be "double jeopardy" - even though it was one trial, it would be two "guilties" for one action, with two sentences for that action. So, the defendant's motion for merger/motion to dismiss for double jeopardy would likely arguing that that applies in this case and they want the two charges to be merged or one dismissed.
The sentencing memorandum and motion for new trial are very usual post-trial filings to argue for light sentencing or to have a new trial, which I suppose you could have guessed.
The final thing - apparently there was a subpoena for Bennett to produce some evidence (subpoena duces tecum) and they filed a motion to cancel that subpoena and a brief explaining why they think it should be cancelled.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Douchepool on June 02, 2016, 01:52:50 PM
Whomever is doing the record keeping in OK must have gone to public school. :lol


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: CenturyDeprived on June 02, 2016, 02:25:41 PM
Some new updates on the court docket case page. The public official (?) who updates the page apparently doesn't have the best spelling.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=264240&db=Rogers

Not sure I know what all the legal terms mean, perhaps someone here with more legal knowledge can elaborate:


 05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097956    May 27 2016 8:13:36:570AM    -    $ 0.00
   DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MERGER/MOTION TO DISMISS FOR DOUBLE JEAPORDY PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    TEXT    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097958    May 27 2016 8:12:57:270AM    -    $ 0.00
   SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

05-26-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7097960    May 27 2016 8:09:29:330AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

06-01-2016    MO    -    Bennett, Scott Montgomery    7103669    Jun 2 2016 10:06:02:407AM    -    $ 0.00
   MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Pursuant to 12 O.S. § 39, Document Available at Court Clerk's Office

I have no more information than you and have no idea what the specifics of these are, but I can explain the general idea of what's happening. You've heard where someone is prosecuted for "one count of this thing and two counts of that thing." For instance, In Bennett's case, he was found guilty or rape by instrumentation and for sexual battery. In some cases, one can argue that those are two different charges for the same action (I don't know how the charges were broken down in this case, so I have no idea if that's the case here). In that case, it would be "double jeopardy" - even though it was one trial, it would be two "guilties" for one action, with two sentences for that action. So, the defendant's motion for merger/motion to dismiss for double jeopardy would likely arguing that that applies in this case and they want the two charges to be merged or one dismissed.
The sentencing memorandum and motion for new trial are very usual post-trial filings to argue for light sentencing or to have a new trial, which I suppose you could have guessed.
The final thing - apparently there was a subpoena for Bennett to produce some evidence (subpoena duces tecum) and they filed a motion to cancel that subpoena and a brief explaining why they think it should be cancelled.


Thanks Emily. I had kinda guessed some bits of that, but you helped fill in some blanks for me.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: petsoundsnola on June 03, 2016, 07:27:56 AM
I found an interesting article from a 2013 interview with Scott.  I had no idea he got his start by writing commercial jingles.

http://scottholleran.com/writings/music/music-scott-bennett/


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Juice Brohnston on June 07, 2016, 07:36:35 AM
A question for anyone with some legal knowledge. In the wake of the Stanford Rape that was in the media yesterday. I read something about the potential for victims of sexual assault to sue their attackers? The actual facts of this remained murky to me, something about a Federal ruling that would have to be administered via the individual State?

My question is could the victim in the Bennett case, sue him, and would his employer be potentially liable, as he was on the premises because he was working?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: HeyJude on June 07, 2016, 08:02:04 AM
I'm far from an expert on all of that, but I do know that typically playing in Brian's band (or any band of that sort) on tour is not a typical "clock in, clock out" employment situation, with strict "hours" on the job, nor a singular "job site", and so on.

I'm guessing the guys in Brian's band are more like contractors essentially, paid per gig or per tour.

Anybody can sue anybody as they always say, but I would guess the *type* of employment involved here (again, they may well not be employees but rather contractors), coupled with the incident occurring well after the "contracted" job was done, would mean Brian (or the production company running the tour) wouldn't at least easily or obviously be liable.

Perhaps you could try to sue Bennett's employer if you felt the employer knew or had knowledge prior that the employee (or contractor) would be dangerous. I dunno. If someone runs a business, and they hire their buddy as a contractor to fix a plumbing issue, and they know their buddy is potentially dangerous, and then their buddy actually *does* attack someone, maybe there are some liability issues there.

Don't know how analogous any of these scenarios are, and I would hope and assume Brian and the production company and promoters had no inkling that something like that was possible. I would guess this isn't the first time some traveling musician has dome something that they could be sued civilly for, and I don't often hear of a band or artist or production company running a tour being sued for the actions of one member in the organization. Who knows, maybe there are a bunch of insurance policies that cover that sort of stuff even if there are potential liability issues. There are probably a bunch of other insurance policies in place for other possibilities, like if something from the stage falls over and crashes into the audience, etc.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: filledeplage on June 07, 2016, 08:38:31 AM
A question for anyone with some legal knowledge. In the wake of the Stanford Rape that was in the media yesterday. I read something about the potential for victims of sexual assault to sue their attackers? The actual facts of this remained murky to me, something about a Federal ruling that would have to be administered via the individual State?

My question is could the victim in the Bennett case, sue him, and would his employer be potentially liable, as he was on the premises because he was working?
There is always a possibility of a civl suit for emotional distress or other kinds of damages. 

The example that most people think of is the civil suit filed against OJ Simpson for wrongful death, after he was acquitted of the criminal charges.  And they gave the families a $33 million dollar judgment.  Since OJ moved from CA to Florida, they were not able to seize the home to enforce the judgement, then the Goldman's father went after Simpson's "right to publicity" where Simpson could not make book (If I Did It) or TV deals.  There was an auction that netted $500,000 that went to the Goldman family.     

It still remains a high interest case. 

Since the file notes on the docket page, that the document is available the County Clerk's Office, it is not available online.   


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Micha on June 13, 2016, 03:32:45 PM
The other day I was thinking, is it possible the woman was not knocked out by the amount of alcohol she drank but because someone put something in her drink? That would be an explanation for the total memory loss and Scott thinking he was "just" dealing with a drunk woman that may be interested in having sex, and misjudging things when the effect of that other chemical kicked in so she couldn't defend herself any more.

Which would still be appallingly cheating on his wife, anyway.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: SBGIRL on June 14, 2016, 10:04:40 AM
 This morning

http://www.fox23.com/news/convicted-rapist-to-receive-sentence/342580993



Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: MarcellaHasDirtyFeet on June 14, 2016, 10:42:41 AM
I didn't see anything about Brian in that news story. Thank goodness!


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on June 14, 2016, 11:22:38 AM
I didn't see anything about Brian in that news story. Thank goodness!
+1
Hope it stays that way.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: SBGIRL on June 14, 2016, 11:35:24 AM
Unfortunately since he was sentenced this morning the latest articles do mention "former keyboardist for Brian Wilson"


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on June 14, 2016, 11:40:49 AM
That's a shame.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Douchepool on June 15, 2016, 10:07:26 AM
Justice was served, although five years is a slap on the wrist for such a heinous act.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Robbie Mac on June 15, 2016, 10:25:45 AM
Justice was served, although five years is a slap on the wrist for such a heinous act.

Six months is a slap on the wrist.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Robbie Mac on June 15, 2016, 10:28:46 AM
https://m.facebook.com/groups/155818774481744?view=permalink&id=1110902838973328

It gets worse. The victim's family has hired Gloria Allred to pursue a civil suit.






Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: HeyJude on June 15, 2016, 10:40:49 AM
https://m.facebook.com/groups/155818774481744?view=permalink&id=1110902838973328

It gets worse. The victim's family has hired Gloria Allred to pursue a civil suit.


And *that* would be how Brian's name might potentially be dragged back out into the media in relation to this case.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Douchepool on June 15, 2016, 12:54:09 PM
Justice was served, although five years is a slap on the wrist for such a heinous act.

Six months is a slap on the wrist.

No doubt, Mr. McCabe.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: bachelorofbullets on June 15, 2016, 12:55:40 PM
The other day I was thinking, is it possible the woman was not knocked out by the amount of alcohol she drank but because someone put something in her drink? That would be an explanation for the total memory loss and Scott thinking he was "just" dealing with a drunk woman that may be interested in having sex, and misjudging things when the effect of that other chemical kicked in so she couldn't defend herself any more.

Which would still be appallingly cheating on his wife, anyway.

You don't need anything special to have a black out, you just need to drink too much too fast and you can lose your memory for hours.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Juice Brohnston on June 15, 2016, 01:55:21 PM
https://m.facebook.com/groups/155818774481744?view=permalink&id=1110902838973328

It gets worse. The victim's family has hired Gloria Allred to pursue a civil suit.


And *that* would be how Brian's name might potentially be dragged back out into the media in relation to this case.

I was wondering about this a few weeks ago. Allred tends to be drawn towards high profile cases, and Brian certainly raises the profile. Brian's official response to the incident was very terse. I imagine management realized this might have broader legal implications as time passed.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Cool Cool Water on June 15, 2016, 03:40:26 PM
I met him various times via VIP in the past via The Ladykillers. Such a silly, stupid and gross man after this event.

5 years seems nothing.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: petsoundsnola on June 16, 2016, 10:51:33 AM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9ZyIAnyCD77a29rRV9NSHJOU1E/view?pref=2&pli=1


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on June 16, 2016, 11:11:11 AM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9ZyIAnyCD77a29rRV9NSHJOU1E/view?pref=2&pli=1


I think something really good might come out of that Stanford case after all.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Marty Castillo on June 16, 2016, 12:28:35 PM
Wow, incredible strength shown by the victim:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAHlT-_b-u0


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Emily on June 16, 2016, 12:58:27 PM
Wow is right. Impressive young woman. Good for her.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Shady on June 16, 2016, 02:02:29 PM
Very strange press conference.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: bachelorofbullets on June 17, 2016, 06:00:08 AM
All I can think of while watching that is how incredibly grating Allred's voice is.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Terry on July 06, 2016, 12:09:13 PM
Anyone see this and who contributed to it?

http://www.plumfund.com/fundraising/appeal


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Mr. Verlander on July 06, 2016, 02:09:01 PM
Anyone see this and who contributed to it?

http://www.plumfund.com/fundraising/appeal

That's pretty weak; "Beat this thing", Probyn Gregory says. Stay Classy!


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: bringahorseinhere? on July 06, 2016, 08:41:57 PM
he dug this grave, he should dig himself out of this himself.  I don't agree with giving money to someone
who f***ed up like this.  Time to grow up and be and man and take responsibility.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: elnombre on July 19, 2016, 04:19:08 PM
The idea that anyone would throw money at a rapist to cover his legal fees is fucking abhorrent.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: jiggy22 on July 28, 2016, 11:42:07 PM
"We love you both, stay strong!" - David & Carrie Marks

I don't know how I feel about this...


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: bachelorofbullets on July 29, 2016, 07:01:48 AM
I'm amazed that he can't come up with the money for the lawyer himself.  You would think that he has plenty of it as a result of his association with Brian.  He must have some investment or retirement account he can tap into, unless he doesn't save anything.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: halblaineisgood on August 29, 2016, 04:30:10 PM
.




Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: pixletwin on August 30, 2016, 02:17:07 PM
.




I love clicking on a topic only to find a dot.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 30, 2016, 02:18:58 PM
Hey now, that dot contains the secret of life, man!


It's all about that dot, 'bout that dot...


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: NOLA BB Fan on August 30, 2016, 03:18:01 PM
Just read that Brock Turner, the guy from Stanford (California) convicted for 3 counts of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman, will be released on Friday, only having to serve 3 months of an original 6 month sentence.  >:(


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on August 30, 2016, 11:08:00 PM
I may get hate for this, but I don't think pushing Scott aside for what he did is very... I can't even find the words.

He made a *HUGE* mistake. Sure. But he was drinking heavily (a sign of alcohol abuse...duh...) and I can't really say
firmly that I understand what was going through his head before the night began.

Imagine Brian... mentally unstable and fragile... I have no doubt he must've done SOMETHING similar to this in his life.

When you don't value your life quite as much as some may hope, you really f*** up.

I just... I would never donate, but I don't think he should be hated for this. Love and support, while hard, may help save a man that has made us happy for many years.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: 18thofMay on August 30, 2016, 11:20:26 PM
I may get hate for this, but I don't think pushing Scott aside for what he did is very... I can't even find the words.

He made a *HUGE* mistake. Sure. But he was drinking heavily (a sign of alcohol abuse...duh...) and I can't really say
firmly that I understand what was going through his head before the night began.

Imagine Brian... mentally unstable and fragile... I have no doubt he must've done SOMETHING similar to this in his life.

When you don't value your life quite as much as some may hope, you really f*** up.

I just... I would never donate, but I don't think he should be hated for this. Love and support, while hard, may help save a man that has made us happy for many years.
Hang on..What?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 30, 2016, 11:25:30 PM


Imagine Brian... mentally unstable and fragile... I have no doubt he must've done SOMETHING similar to this in his life.

When you don't value your life quite as much as some may hope, you really f*** up.



Even at his worst, I cannot imagine Brian EVER sexually assaulting anyone.

I cannot believe what I just read.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Jay on August 30, 2016, 11:30:57 PM
If there was ever anything that called for a ban...


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 31, 2016, 12:00:57 AM
I wouldn't say that, but that was a bit much. I can't believe someone would say that about Brian...it really upsets me

And for those who have either been the victim of rape, or have someone close to them be a victim,  well, it's understandable why some of us aren't so forgiving


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: JK on August 31, 2016, 01:51:29 AM
Imagine Brian... mentally unstable and fragile... I have no doubt he must've done SOMETHING similar to this in his life.

Mike, tell us you were drunk. Or at least apologize for this cruel remark...


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Debbie KL on August 31, 2016, 05:49:44 PM


Imagine Brian... mentally unstable and fragile... I have no doubt he must've done SOMETHING similar to this in his life.

When you don't value your life quite as much as some may hope, you really f*** up.



Even at his worst, I cannot imagine Brian EVER sexually assaulting anyone.

I cannot believe what I just read.

As someone who knew Brian from age 17 until...whatever...

...There was a terrible miscalculation in this post.  You may want to re-think your remark and correct it?

Brian's illness wasn't in this realm.  He was always a gentleman, never aggressive and was respectful.  Brian is no rapist.  I know from personal experience.

As a female who was molested as a child by a distant relative, I'm pretty sure I would recognize that kind of behavior.

I am terribly sad for the tragedy that has befallen Scott's family.  I think for a man whose timing was always perfect in the BW band, he picked the absolute worst time and place to get stupid.  It genuinely breaks my heart for everyone involved - and I mean everyone (please understand that I also mean the victim), but to drag Brian into this?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 31, 2016, 06:47:21 PM
Well said Debbie.


It hurt me too , the whole thing. I actually used to chat with Scott quite a bit online, in person a couple of times. And it hit home for...uh...other reasons too. And to see Brian dragged into it bothered me for reasons that should be readily apparent.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: bachelorofbullets on September 01, 2016, 08:25:04 AM
It's just an analogy.  The poster was trying to associate Scott's actions with psychological problems.  I don't see it as an attack on Brian.



Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on September 01, 2016, 05:46:27 PM
He said Brian must've done something similar.

How else could that be taken?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: halblaineisgood on September 01, 2016, 06:05:59 PM
When Brian says he "wasn't a real cocksman" I take him at his word.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Jay on September 01, 2016, 06:27:53 PM
The fact that he hasn't come back after making that comment speaks volumes.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: pixletwin on September 02, 2016, 06:49:11 AM
I dunno. Issues like this tend to make people react like sharks smelling blood on the water. He probably knows that no matter what he says some people are just going to want to go for the jugular.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: Magic Transistor Radio on September 14, 2016, 10:54:54 AM


Imagine Brian... mentally unstable and fragile... I have no doubt he must've done SOMETHING similar to this in his life.

When you don't value your life quite as much as some may hope, you really f*** up.



Even at his worst, I cannot imagine Brian EVER sexually assaulting anyone.

I cannot believe what I just read.

I know this isn't the same thing, but the worst thing I heard Brian was offer drugs to his daughters which is the last straw for Marylin.

But back to the case. Scott is apparently claiming it was mutual as far as he knew. I have heard of many other cases, such as Kobe Bryant, where a woman accused him of rape, but he thought it was mutual. On the other hand, there is apparently video footage of Scott that is very condemning which I haven't seen. But the way it was explained would be strong evidence for his guilt. But I do know there are women who will falsely accuse celebrities or wealthy men of rape for money. Not saying that's the case here, especially if the video footage was described accurately. Just saying that is always in the back of my head with some of these high profile cases. At the same time, I don't want to take these things lightly and know that  just because we respected someone for years doesn't mean they don't have demons in their closet.


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on December 01, 2016, 12:04:09 PM
My point with Brian is that when you don't care about your life you tend to do things that could destroy it. Anyone on this forum with a mental illness can tell you that it's really easy to give up caring about what the consequences of your decisions are. I'm not claiming Brian raped anymore. I said something similar as in something destructive to his life and possibly illegal. Mental illness is very hard to talk about for this very reason


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on December 01, 2016, 12:07:14 PM
It's just an analogy.  The poster was trying to associate Scott's actions with psychological problems.  I don't see it as an attack on Brian.



Nail on the head


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: thorgil on December 02, 2016, 10:15:29 AM
Billy and Craig, can you please lock this thread so it doesn't get bumped up for no reason at all?


Title: Re: Scott Bennett discussion thread
Post by: JK on December 02, 2016, 10:41:01 AM
Billy and Craig, can you please lock this thread so it doesn't get bumped up for no reason at all?

There was a reason. But it wouldn't be a bad thing to lock it now.