You are so right.
Actually Cruze, much of your post is wrong.
First, you have neglected to mention the EOAA is a sham. The process it follows is being exposed and sued across the Country because it is a sham. They conduct what is essentially a criminal investigation without proper training on how to do it and in many cases outside the lines of what we as American’s accept as fair - because they can and it supports their agenda. It is the very definition of a good idea gone terribly bad.
Next, you have based all your reasoning on the EOAA report. It too is a sham. You have neglected that many of the things in that report have been disputed and accept them as fact. You have neglected to mention that the students were denied being allowed to have others (lawyers, parents, etc.) in these interviews, that these interviews were never recorded, and some of the most critical evidence the EOAA said was told to them - the players have denied saying. Additionally, the report itself in areas flat out says the EOAA is making assumptions on some things based on the fact they found the accuser more credible. Yeah, that seems like a good approach.
Also, your first point is false. These other players were charged by the EOAA. See point one. It was the review boards that started unraveling much of this sham and removing charges from many players.
In the end, you are in the same boat as SON (and all of us) of not knowing exactly what happened. The difference is SON (and many of us) acknowledge that and choose not to participate in a lynch mob. By using the EOAA (sham) report as your guide, all you have done is assume the accuser is telling the truth and the players have lied.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The EOAA is not a sham. It is an institutional response to the code of conduct of the University. It has every right to make an investigation, interview witnesses and to make a decision as to the penalty to be imposed on the students involved.
I am not making a judgement. I was not there either. But, I call into question your dismissal when there are other questions to be answered. Like why most of these accusations by women get put off and never FULLY investigated. I gave you some things to think about the police investigation and you dismissed it like it was unnecessary. That is the problem. The police failed to conduct a complete investigation and dropped it before completion. And, when they forwarded their report to the county attorney, the CA is only able to question the existing evidence before deciding to bring it to court or to drop it. Well, they dropped it not because their was guilt or innocence, but a lack of evidence presented to it.
I am saying the police failed to examine the situation competently. They failed in their duty and you then think it was perfectly acceptable to think that the evidence was insufficient. In that regard, we are in agreement. Beyond that, I think the police failed in their duty to actually investigate. They clearly swept it under the rug and let it go.
At least the U did a good enough job to collect testimony and make a decision on the facts they gathered. The county attorney would have done the public a stand up action if he condemned the U and Minneapolis police for effing up the works and failing to follow through.
The breath alcohol test is a simple test that takes about 30 seconds to accomplish. Important piece of evidence never gathered. And, very cheap to do.
Apparently the lack of evidence can be traced directly back to the police not properly investigating basic evidence.
Minnesota law states clearly that a woman cannot give consent properly while intoxicated. There are many other states with the same language, like Ohio, for example. But, who cares about the law. Certainly not the accused. Not you. Not the County Attorney. And, definitely not the police in this case. But, who counts on methodology these days? Nobody in power. Not the public.
Failed woman. Failed system. Failed society. Failed message board.
