That dude spends way too much time there. Have you seen Texas's record?
Players should be kicked off team for being at a gang bang with 17 yr old recruit
- Thread starter UpnorthGo4
- Start date
That dude spends way too much time there. Have you seen Texas's record?
Bob_Loblaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 21,793
- Reaction score
- 18,021
- Points
- 113
It probably wouldn't pass muster. It's also way too vague and leaves innocent people open to getting in trouble. Look at the Frat in Virginia, they got into trouble for an absolute lie.
I think it would be best for a public institution to refrain from passing any rules against consensual sex of any type.
bigticket1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,569
- Reaction score
- 331
- Points
- 83
The players had ample time to destroy the 3 videos and the communications between players through texts, and they did not. The accuser seems to be the one not allowing all evidence to be seen by denying the EOAA access to the longest video and the medical reports of her rape exam. Will she and her attorney be able to continue to deny access to this evidence in upcoming proceedings, or can the players attorney(s) demand that they be seen ?
The current Gopher football crisis is a matter of considerable pain for me. It had been my sense that we were making progress towards restoring the program to a relatively high competitive level. This crisis certainly won’t help in that regard, and could set the program back years. It’s a challenge that forces me to consider where my values lie. As much as I want to win, I want to do it the right way. In the end, respect and integrity are far more important to me than winning.
I think there are two aspects to the crisis that need to be considered separately. What the appropriate standards of conduct that the University should expect its student athletes to maintain are, and what standards of proof and procedures should be employed when students are accused of violating those standards.
There are those on this board who contend that the only issue here should be consent. I disagree. A student athlete represents the university in a very visible way and when he or she becomes a member of one of its teams, in my opinion, it should come with an obligation to conduct one’s affairs appropriately. We expect this of our military personnel. Under the General Article (134) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, such personnel are required to avoid “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces . . . .” Participating in group sex, with or without consent, in my opinion is conduct of a nature to bring discredit on the Gopher Football Program and the University. Moreover, in this case, a recruit was apparently a participant in the alleged incident which I’m sure would constitute a violation of NCCA rules and regulations.
The more difficult issue is the matter of appropriate proof standards and procedures. In the case of sexual assault allegations, this is an area where there have been attempts to accommodate competing policy considerations. The traditional “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard under criminal law is rooted in the notion that in the interests of freedom, it is better to acquit 10 guilty persons than to convict one who is innocent. Applying that kind of standard to sexual assault cases, however, where the evidence is typically “he said, she said”, coupled with the trauma an accuser must face where an accused is accorded his or her right to confront their adverse witnesses, sexual assault cases have been notoriously under-reported and under-prosecuted. To address this problem, The US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued guidelines for the handling such cases in what is known as it “Dear Colleague Letter” . It urged colleges, among other things, to use a “preponderance of evidence” standard in investigating sexual assault claims. It also threatened colleges with the loss of federal funds if they are lax in pursuing such claims.
In addition to adopting the lesser proof standard, it’s my understanding that the University’s Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (“EOAA”) organization, does not permit cross-examination of a complaining witness or the direct participation of a defense lawyer. Plus, the University has adopted the requirement that there must be evidence of affirmative consent where consent is in issue; more commonly known as “yes means yes”, which raises the level of proof required to establish a consent defense.
I’m concerned that in a laudable attempt to protect primarily women from rape and sexual assault that the pendulum may have swung too far. It has been argued that only 2% of all rape allegations are false, and it may be the assumption that in the interest of making campuses safe, occasionally disciplining an innocent accused is an acceptable risk. But there is evidence that the rate of false allegations may be more on the order of 8-10%, and perhaps, even higher. See http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ns_why_must_be_pretend_they_never_happen.html That’s a significant percentage and should not be dismissed out of hand. The consequences of being branded a sexual predator can be devastating. I think a better accommodation of interests might be achieved under an intermediate “clear and convincing evidence” standard with at least some ability to cross-examine the complaining witness.
What troubles me most about the instant case, though, is the enlargement of the number of players accused of wrongdoing and the disclosure of their names before they have had an opportunity to defend themselves.
I think there are two aspects to the crisis that need to be considered separately. What the appropriate standards of conduct that the University should expect its student athletes to maintain are, and what standards of proof and procedures should be employed when students are accused of violating those standards.
There are those on this board who contend that the only issue here should be consent. I disagree. A student athlete represents the university in a very visible way and when he or she becomes a member of one of its teams, in my opinion, it should come with an obligation to conduct one’s affairs appropriately. We expect this of our military personnel. Under the General Article (134) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, such personnel are required to avoid “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces . . . .” Participating in group sex, with or without consent, in my opinion is conduct of a nature to bring discredit on the Gopher Football Program and the University. Moreover, in this case, a recruit was apparently a participant in the alleged incident which I’m sure would constitute a violation of NCCA rules and regulations.
The more difficult issue is the matter of appropriate proof standards and procedures. In the case of sexual assault allegations, this is an area where there have been attempts to accommodate competing policy considerations. The traditional “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard under criminal law is rooted in the notion that in the interests of freedom, it is better to acquit 10 guilty persons than to convict one who is innocent. Applying that kind of standard to sexual assault cases, however, where the evidence is typically “he said, she said”, coupled with the trauma an accuser must face where an accused is accorded his or her right to confront their adverse witnesses, sexual assault cases have been notoriously under-reported and under-prosecuted. To address this problem, The US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued guidelines for the handling such cases in what is known as it “Dear Colleague Letter” . It urged colleges, among other things, to use a “preponderance of evidence” standard in investigating sexual assault claims. It also threatened colleges with the loss of federal funds if they are lax in pursuing such claims.
In addition to adopting the lesser proof standard, it’s my understanding that the University’s Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (“EOAA”) organization, does not permit cross-examination of a complaining witness or the direct participation of a defense lawyer. Plus, the University has adopted the requirement that there must be evidence of affirmative consent where consent is in issue; more commonly known as “yes means yes”, which raises the level of proof required to establish a consent defense.
I’m concerned that in a laudable attempt to protect primarily women from rape and sexual assault that the pendulum may have swung too far. It has been argued that only 2% of all rape allegations are false, and it may be the assumption that in the interest of making campuses safe, occasionally disciplining an innocent accused is an acceptable risk. But there is evidence that the rate of false allegations may be more on the order of 8-10%, and perhaps, even higher. See http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ns_why_must_be_pretend_they_never_happen.html That’s a significant percentage and should not be dismissed out of hand. The consequences of being branded a sexual predator can be devastating. I think a better accommodation of interests might be achieved under an intermediate “clear and convincing evidence” standard with at least some ability to cross-examine the complaining witness.
What troubles me most about the instant case, though, is the enlargement of the number of players accused of wrongdoing and the disclosure of their names before they have had an opportunity to defend themselves.
gopherveteran
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 18
People should have the right to defend themselves.
I was on a jury in Dakota County for a rape case.
After hearing testimony for a week from both sides, we found the young black defended
not guilty after deliberating for less than an hour.
Thank goodness he was not at the University. His attorney was able represent him.
I was on a jury in Dakota County for a rape case.
After hearing testimony for a week from both sides, we found the young black defended
not guilty after deliberating for less than an hour.
Thank goodness he was not at the University. His attorney was able represent him.
Spoofin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2013
- Messages
- 45,356
- Reaction score
- 23,197
- Points
- 113
Say what? If true, how would you locate such a thing? Asking for a friend.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
gopherveteran
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 18
She drank too much. Therefore, she is not responsible for her actions.
Is that a defense?
Is that a defense?
Probably closer to the truth than anyone is willing to acknowledge.
zman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,778
- Reaction score
- 682
- Points
- 113
I almost spit out my drink.
corcorangopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2015
- Messages
- 274
- Reaction score
- 392
- Points
- 63
When do the reporters ask Claeys, Coyle, and Kaler the tough questions? I put Glasscock on the list, too, given his role.
When do each of these men learn that a recruit was involved in a player arranged sexual encounter?
What discussions and discipline considerations took place?
The police report comes out - explain why no action was taken - other than reinstating players(!).
The event itself occurs partly as a lack of clearly setting boundaries as well as being clear that there will be consequences. The participants themselves though still hold the bulk of the responsibility.
But, the failure to discipline falls all on the leadership. Their failure to act when they had sufficient evidence makes them complicit in the behavior, seemingly willing to overlook it if it just goes away.
When do each of these men learn that a recruit was involved in a player arranged sexual encounter?
What discussions and discipline considerations took place?
The police report comes out - explain why no action was taken - other than reinstating players(!).
The event itself occurs partly as a lack of clearly setting boundaries as well as being clear that there will be consequences. The participants themselves though still hold the bulk of the responsibility.
But, the failure to discipline falls all on the leadership. Their failure to act when they had sufficient evidence makes them complicit in the behavior, seemingly willing to overlook it if it just goes away.
You really think they didn't destroy videos? Djams wasn't destroyed because he got interviewed first before the others. Also you didn't answer my question...when the woman says "noooooo" why does the male cop say that it is sarcastic...so that no means yes. And the slap was playful. Unbelievable. Still haven't had that question answered by all the people on the board who have continued to say the EOAA is the problem...not the male, biased, cops who did nothing but help the players.
Class_of_99
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2016
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 6
Ever run across the concept of intonation? Like an extended "riiiight" to show sarcastic disagreement to a point?
They don't call them 'Gator Getters' for nothing...
Bob_Loblaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 21,793
- Reaction score
- 18,021
- Points
- 113
No offense, it's because it's a silly question.
Have you ever watched a movie and been able to pick up on sarcasm in a movie? I'm guessing the cop picked up on the sarcasm the same way. I haven't seen the video, but your question is bizarre. It's really not a difficult concept that people can pick up sarcasm on a video. Are you really pretending to be unable to pick up context clues from a situation?
I am shocked that someone who can't find a thing wrong with the EoAA would have an unfounded sexism tirade about the cop. Shocked. (Hint-Hint-that was sarcasm-HINT-HINT--it's even more difficult to pick up in text).
Bob_Loblaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 21,793
- Reaction score
- 18,021
- Points
- 113
He's pretending to act like he doesn't understand sarcasm or how anyone could ever pick up on it.
Defending groups like the EoAA eventually force people down Orwellian paths. Down is up, up is down. CoMN can't pick up on sarcasm.
rugger14
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,499
- Reaction score
- 344
- Points
- 83
It is absolutely a child porn situation. If he texted the video to someone it is distribution of child porn. They actually charge HS boys who get pics of HS girls and send them to their buddies as child porn violators in this state. Djam absolutely made child porn and probably distributed it.
When checking the box on sexual preference (more accurately orientation), I'm pretty sure "group" is not listed. That would be hetero, homo, or bi . . . Or some of newer terms, none of which are group.
dpodoll68
Elite Poster
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 19,348
- Reaction score
- 1,041
- Points
- 113
Why would the players want to destroy videos that in all likelihood bolster their side of the issue?
ethomasp31
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,399
- Reaction score
- 789
- Points
- 113
The part that is icky is the girl wrapping herself up in a blanket, telling the guys to stop, to get off her and for one of the players to admit that it didn't seem like she was into it and that she wanted it to stop. You're right....there is no way for her to prove that it went to far and it wasn't consensual. She put herself into a real bad situation. Put me into the group on their moral high horse that thinks it's icky sex when the girl says "N0!" and the guys don't stop.
I know that none of these guys are going to be proven guilty in a court of law that what they did is illegal. But I've been around kids enough and have been to parties where people have had too much to drink to know what probably happened. I don't think the EOCC was out to get the football team. I think any half way decent lawyer can show there is no "proof" to what the players did was illegal. But I still believe what these guys did was wrong....and for me and the others that think what they did is wrong....it has nothing to do with group sex.
WHB Brewer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 879
- Reaction score
- 277
- Points
- 63
Getting back to original premise of this thread, I have several questions regarding potential violations of team rules.
1. This incident supposedly occurred around 3am. Is there not a curfew for having the recruits out and about?
2. The victim is a member of "GameDay operation " but we don't know what specifically. Does this job/role require they not sex with players?
Seems we have a gap in putting controls around these situations which have some level of oversight by the coaches and administration. Nobody looks good and all should be accountable.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
1. This incident supposedly occurred around 3am. Is there not a curfew for having the recruits out and about?
2. The victim is a member of "GameDay operation " but we don't know what specifically. Does this job/role require they not sex with players?
Seems we have a gap in putting controls around these situations which have some level of oversight by the coaches and administration. Nobody looks good and all should be accountable.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
The players did destroy texts...the problem was there were a bunch of group texts and not ALL of them destroyed them so the EOAA could see that players did indeed receive them. More than likely this is the part of the "cover up" that has a bunch of players suspended for a year...not sure but that would be my guess.
If she felt threatened in any way she could do these things. The code says they need consent...they got a no. If no sounds like consent to you I am concerned.
If you are going to call all your buddies and encourage them to screw a drunk woman who just said nooooo don't you think it behooves you to clarify whether by no she meant yes or by no did she mean no?
gopherdudepart2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 5,630
- Reaction score
- 2,626
- Points
- 113
You get a strange invitation
The invitation comes in the form of a blow pop sucker so I guess that should be somewhat an indication what type of party this is about. The female or Coed(could be a dude to I guess, at least at the U if your on that side of the fence) gives you the blow pop and invites you to the blow and suck party and gives you the address and the time and place. The one that invited me to the party and handed me the blow pop sucker, took it out of my hand, took the wrapper off, and started bobbing on it when I didn't realize what the heck she was talking about what a blow and suck party is. She had a large belly laugh with the look on my face, and yes I feel like a total ****** for even relaying this much about it.
There is a lot of weird sh!t going on(saw some stuff involving a butthole and then said object being sucked on), not my thing, but if you ever get invited or a friend get's invited at least you get the gist of what it is about and what the blow pop means when it is given to you. Yes very naive and from a small town I was, and this was when the internet was just getting started. I blame the internet for a lot of this porn and strange behavior, but stuff like that was happening even in the 1990's.
The invitation comes in the form of a blow pop sucker so I guess that should be somewhat an indication what type of party this is about. The female or Coed(could be a dude to I guess, at least at the U if your on that side of the fence) gives you the blow pop and invites you to the blow and suck party and gives you the address and the time and place. The one that invited me to the party and handed me the blow pop sucker, took it out of my hand, took the wrapper off, and started bobbing on it when I didn't realize what the heck she was talking about what a blow and suck party is. She had a large belly laugh with the look on my face, and yes I feel like a total ****** for even relaying this much about it.
There is a lot of weird sh!t going on(saw some stuff involving a butthole and then said object being sucked on), not my thing, but if you ever get invited or a friend get's invited at least you get the gist of what it is about and what the blow pop means when it is given to you. Yes very naive and from a small town I was, and this was when the internet was just getting started. I blame the internet for a lot of this porn and strange behavior, but stuff like that was happening even in the 1990's.
Spoofin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2013
- Messages
- 45,356
- Reaction score
- 23,197
- Points
- 113
Don't feel bad. My friend appreciates you relaying this info.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
according to the report the guys all had their phones out and were laughing, encouraging and jockeying for position in the line. While Djam took a video which showed the woman saying nooooo the others have no videos of their alleged conversations asking about consent prior to screwing a very drunk woman. While there is no way to know, considering they all had their phones out do you really think none of them took pictures or videos? They had a week and the same lawyer representing all the players...and each and every one of them claimed to have a consent conversation with the alleged victim...Except the one who videoed his threesome. The video doesn't show her giving consent...it shows her saying nooooo. It is odd that all the players except for Djam and the recruit asked for consent? Or is it more likely that they deleted their videos, never asked for consent and got their stories all straight in the week the cops gave them before investigating? This kind of stuff just doesn't ring very true to me and is probably why the EOAA found the players stories to have less credibility than the victims.
Zeppelin Gopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,424
- Reaction score
- 2,820
- Points
- 113
You are venturing down a truly loony pathway. Any credibility you are striving to obtain gets flushed down the toilet after that silly phrase about the "male, biased cops".
Because they wouldn't support their stories? Because they raped a woman and wanted to cover it up? Just a guess....
Vandy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
- Messages
- 3,673
- Reaction score
- 2,015
- Points
- 113
Have you not reflected your opinion ad nauseum in multiple threads over the last several days? Or do you just like clutter?
GoGophersUMN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,151
- Reaction score
- 466
- Points
- 83
1. I don't think anyone that isn't on the team knows exactly what the team rules are. That being said, there should be some major changes to how they deal with recruits. Players who are in a group chat that encourages group sex with drunk girls, even if it is consensual, should probably not be put in charge of supervising recruits. There should probably be a curfew for recruits, and that curfew would have probably made this less likely to happen. If the rules weren't in place before they can't punish the team for not following them, but with what happened, there should be much stricter rules dealing with recruits from now on.
2. I think a few people, me included, know what part of "gameday operations" the accuser is a part of. I won't say it because I don't see any good coming out of it and it could potentially cause problems, but I will say that the woman is NOT a staff member of the U, TCF bank stadium, gopher sports, etc. It's possible that her part of gameday operations has internal rules about having sex with players or that the team has rules about not having sex with people who work in gameday operations but I doubt it. I also think it is likely that football players in the past have had sex with members of the part of gameday operations she's from.