All Things EOAA, Investigation, Suspension, Overturned Etc. Thread: UPDATED 1 Thread

Donate To GopherHole
Mr spoof you could also provide the quote where Kaler says the 10 are rapists. It's hard to do glib and google, but I am rooting for you. Did Kaler say rape?
 

Kaler continues to preface his remarks with an assertion that he cannot discuss any situation regarding students due to privacy laws and then he follows that with statements that flatly assert they are guilty of sexual assault or harassment. It's astounding but not surprising.

He and his defenders will claim he never named the ten directly but he continues to make defamatory statements about students that have never been convicted of a crime in conversations that are clearly regarding the ten students. He appears to have indpsider knowledge the rest of us are not aware of.

“I think clearly we need to do both more and different (training), because our student-athletes get an exceptional amount of training around sexual assault and harassment issues, and yet we didn’t seem to make the point,” he said.
 

Dean S said:
From the University's perspective, consent was not obtained by each of these students as defined by the consent rules of the University.
Click to expand...

They only have to believe there's a 50.1% chance it wasn't consensual. That's my biggest issue with the process.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
Google the definition of sexual assault. Forcible sexual intercourse and rape are still two different things.
Click to expand...

They are? What does rape mean if not forcible intercourse? I find definitions all over the map, so I don't think there is a universal definition.
Is someone arguing that the intercourse was consensual but that some other form of non rape assault occurred?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Dean S said:
The University's compliance with Title IX is not some private party, arbitrary process, with loose covenants and great ambiguity. There exists a very defined contract of what consent is viewed as by the University. It is published. It is accessible. And, it has been in the media. The issue is crystal clear. From the University's perspective, consent was not obtained by each of these students as defined by the consent rules of the University. If you consent to attend the U, with their rules, then not abiding with them is grounds to be expelled. The U does not have to use rape or sex as the reason to expel the players. Simply not following the consent rules is sufficient. And, right now, after all the investigation and by the players own words, figure it out.
Consent will be a central issue for the students.
Click to expand...

Curious. At the last place you were employed. Can you recite the management guidelines that governed employee conduct? Please be specific.
 


So, he sorta, kinda, said rape about sorta kinda people we like so sorta kinda we go strict standard, but allow loose innuendo on the other, because fake internet attorney.
 

Dean S said:
A thousand reported assaults on the U campus and zero prosecutions. Let's start with Bob and due process. Go ahead, Bob. Grace us with your wisdom as an attorney. Maybe start with police procedural failure. Maybe, follow up with how the EEOA is ill suited to be an investigative unit, when the police are so much better at investigating alleged sexual assault, given their track record of zero prosecutions! Maybe police reform is better than U procedures. If we were better at police investigation, then, just maybe, the U would not have to lean on the EEOA so much.

I have searched the web for Kaler speaking about rapists, and the only case I can find is of a completely separate case of a fraternal brother raping a student.
Click to expand...

A thousand police reports and no procecutions. And this leads to 10 football players being expelled/suspended and firing of the football coach? I think we're shooting a little low, Dean S.
 

Section2 said:
They are? What does rape mean if not forcible intercourse? I find definitions all over the map, so I don't think there is a universal definition.
Is someone arguing that the intercourse was consensual but that some other form of non rape assault occurred?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think rape can also mean penetration with a foreign object. For instance, there seems to be no evidence that Brock Turner, the Stanford swimmer, put his penis inside the victim. He was found guilty of penetration with a foreign object, but it seems that that does not qualify as rape in California state law. Only penetration with the penis counts as rape, so women are incapable of committing rape by that definition. So maybe forced penetration with a foreign object qualifies as rape but not as forcible intercourse, or perhaps the other way around? I'm not sure if there was anything in the EOAA report about penetration with a foreign object.
 

saintpaulguy said:
So, he sorta, kinda, said rape about sorta kinda people we like so sorta kinda we go strict standard, but allow loose innuendo on the other, because fake internet attorney.
Click to expand...

Kaler is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

He made a statement in the PiPress article that the results of the hearing aren't in yet, but yeah you know those players obviously need more training so they don't commit sexual assault.

In a nutshell, "I'm not saying they're rapists, but they're rapists. But I can't talk about them. I'm glad they are recognizing what victims of sexual assault go through. Did I mention I can't talk about it? We really need to provide even more training because they are clearly too dense to understand the current training and went out ans assaulted a girl. This in no way refers to the ten suspended players that we scheduled this interview to talk about. I cannot talk about the rapes that happened. I mean, I can't talk about any specific players. Except these ten. More training is needed."
 



Title IX panels should have no jurisdiction over any criminal conduct, except as a reaction to an indictment or conviction by civil authorities.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Are we really going to continue this inane conversation...does it really fvcking matter? No charges will be filed so it is none of those legal terms. It is whatever the U wants to call it regarding the student code of conduct but it isn't anything in legal terms other than over.
Click to expand...

You're right on the money, there. But that spoils the fun of all those that like to argue.

All we need to do is learn from history. Eight years ago in the Dom Jones case, three(?) football players were found not guilty of charges in court but kicked out of school anyway (Jones went to jail). Of course little could be explained publicly but it was pretty clear the sexual activity described in court was unacceptable per the Student Code of Conduct.

Similarly, several years prior to that there was a case where several football players were charged and it also went to court. The jury found all players to be not guilty as they found that the sex was consensual. In that case, everyone got expelled or suspended (including the girl). Apparent point being that group sex was not acceptable.

Simply put, the U does not decide legal issues. Rather, they decide behavior issues (right or wrong)/(acceptable or not acceptable) according to the moral code as written by the Board of Regents.
 

Cayman said:
I think rape can also mean penetration with a foreign object. For instance, there seems to be no evidence that Brock Turner, the Stanford swimmer, put his penis inside the victim. He was found guilty of penetration with a foreign object, but it seems that that does not qualify as rape in California state law. Only penetration with the penis counts as rape, so women are incapable of committing rape by that definition. So maybe forced penetration with a foreign object qualifies as rape but not as forcible intercourse, or perhaps the other way around? I'm not sure if there was anything in the EOAA report about penetration with a foreign object.
Click to expand...

Whenever I hear "foreign object", I am reminded of Macho Man's victory over Tito Santana to capture the Intercontinental belt. In a way, Tito got raped that day.
 

When these 10 have their hearings, can they provide evidence that was not originally reviewed by the EOAA? As an example, it's my understanding that the 90 seconds or so of video was not seen by the EOAA. If I recall that was from the accusers request. I don't know if this evidence would be helpful or hurtful, but could it be introduced at the hearing? For that matter, could any evidence that was not in the original EOAA report be used?
I'm just trying to understand the process.
 



One would hope they could introduce evidence. Unfortunately in the bungled police investigation the girl said "no" on the tape and the police officer interpreted that to mean "yes". There was also a slap heard and the police officer interpreted that to be playful. Perhaps this is why the police can't seem to prosecute sexual assault cases at the U.
 

CWCWCW said:
When these 10 have their hearings, can they provide evidence that was not originally reviewed by the EOAA? As an example, it's my understanding that the 90 seconds or so of video was not seen by the EOAA. If I recall that was from the accusers request. I don't know if this evidence would be helpful or hurtful, but could it be introduced at the hearing? For that matter, could any evidence that was not in the original EOAA report be used?
I'm just trying to understand the process.
Click to expand...

The accuser also did not allow the EOAA to view the results of the rape kit/medical exam that she sought out.
 


CoMn said:
One would hope they could introduce evidence. Unfortunately in the bungled police investigation the girl said "no" on the tape and the police officer interpreted that to mean "yes". There was also a slap heard and the police officer interpreted that to be playful. Perhaps this is why the police can't seem to prosecute sexual assault cases at the U.
Click to expand...

At lunch the other day I overheard one person tell her friend "I'm going to kill you!" I did not call the police because tone and inflection matters. we all hear statements like this every day. Not literal. The police are not stupid. If the video shows what you assert they would be guilty of a crime for covering up a crime. It does not show what you assert.
 

Hearing set for January 26-27th

Pompous Elitist said:
Kaler is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

He made a statement in the PiPress article that the results of the hearing aren't in yet, but yeah you know those players obviously need more training so they don't commit sexual assault.

In a nutshell, "I'm not saying they're rapists, but they're rapists. But I can't talk about them. I'm glad they are recognizing what victims of sexual assault go through. Did I mention I can't talk about it? We really need to provide even more training because they are clearly too dense to understand the current training and went out ans assaulted a girl. This in no way refers to the ten suspended players that we scheduled this interview to talk about. I cannot talk about the rapes that happened. I mean, I can't talk about any specific players. Except these ten. More training is needed."
Click to expand...

Again, putting words into people mouths and then criticizing them for what you say they said.

The investigation does not name any of the participants. The only thing we know is that the University suspended 10 players from the football team (the players names were released as routine football procedures). Some players were recommended for more severe punishment than others. Now, we have anonymous "legal experts" putting assumptions and rumors together to persecute the officials of things they haven't done. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Kaler or Coyle handled the situation correctly, but they were not as evil as portrayed.

Also, anyone who thinks Claeys was fired because of this incident is delusional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

alchemy2u said:
Again, putting words into people mouths and then criticizing them for what you say they said.

The investigation does not name any of the participants. The only thing we know is that the University suspended 10 players from the football team (the players names were released as routine football procedures). Some players were recommended for more severe punishment than others. Now, we have anonymous "legal experts" putting assumptions and rumors together to persecute the officials of things they haven't done. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Kaler or Coyle handled the situation correctly, but they were not as evil as portrayed.

Also, anyone who thinks Claeys was fired because of this incident is delusional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't think many people believe TC was fired because of the incedent. However, the administration completely mismanaged it allowing it to spiral out of control. It was then used as evidence that a change needed to be made. If TC was always a lame duck coach, which appears true, it blatantly calls into question whether EK and MC would have provided more aggressive leadership if the failing in this area did not support their agenda.
 

alchemy2u said:
Again, putting words into people mouths and then criticizing them for what you say they said.

The investigation does not name any of the participants. The only thing we know is that the University suspended 10 players from the football team (the players names were released as routine football procedures). Some players were recommended for more severe punishment than others. Now, we have anonymous "legal experts" putting assumptions and rumors together to persecute the officials of things they haven't done. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Kaler or Coyle handled the situation correctly, but they were not as evil as portrayed.

Also, anyone who thinks Claeys was fired because of this incident is delusional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What the EEOA investigator did. And, you take it as literal fact.

The "preponderance of evidence" is clear that Kaler is more likely than not defaming the players over sexual assault. That is the standard.
 

Cayman said:
I think rape can also mean penetration with a foreign object. For instance, there seems to be no evidence that Brock Turner, the Stanford swimmer, put his penis inside the victim. He was found guilty of penetration with a foreign object, but it seems that that does not qualify as rape in California state law. Only penetration with the penis counts as rape, so women are incapable of committing rape by that definition. So maybe forced penetration with a foreign object qualifies as rape but not as forcible intercourse, or perhaps the other way around? I'm not sure if there was anything in the EOAA report about penetration with a foreign object.
Click to expand...

Ok that makes sense. But what you are describing would not be sexual assault? Of course it would be.

The U is alleging that at least some of those players raped that girl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CWCWCW said:
When these 10 have their hearings, can they provide evidence that was not originally reviewed by the EOAA? As an example, it's my understanding that the 90 seconds or so of video was not seen by the EOAA. If I recall that was from the accusers request. I don't know if this evidence would be helpful or hurtful, but could it be introduced at the hearing? For that matter, could any evidence that was not in the original EOAA report be used?
I'm just trying to understand the process.
Click to expand...

I understand that video is a MAJOR reason why there was no charges


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cayman said:
I think rape can also mean penetration with a foreign object. For instance, there seems to be no evidence that Brock Turner, the Stanford swimmer, put his penis inside the victim. He was found guilty of penetration with a foreign object, but it seems that that does not qualify as rape in California state law. Only penetration with the penis counts as rape, so women are incapable of committing rape by that definition. So maybe forced penetration with a foreign object qualifies as rape but not as forcible intercourse, or perhaps the other way around? I'm not sure if there was anything in the EOAA report about penetration with a foreign object.
Click to expand...

Here's the Minnesota statutory reference for MS 609.341 which outlines the definitions for what constitutes criminal sexual conduct. It appears that use of an object is covered in Subd. 12 regarding sexual penetration.

Link: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.341#stat.609.341.11
 

alchemy2u said:
Again, putting words into people mouths and then criticizing them for what you say they said.

The investigation does not name any of the participants. The only thing we know is that the University suspended 10 players from the football team (the players names were released as routine football procedures). Some players were recommended for more severe punishment than others. Now, we have anonymous "legal experts" putting assumptions and rumors together to persecute the officials of things they haven't done. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Kaler or Coyle handled the situation correctly, but they were not as evil as portrayed.

Also, anyone who thinks Claeys was fired because of this incident is delusional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that it didn't help Kaler and Coyle accomplish something they had been planning since Claeys got the "fire me" contract in the first place is pretty delusional themselves.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
What the EEOA investigator did. And, you take it as literal fact.

The "preponderance of evidence" is clear that Kaler is more likely than not defaming the players over sexual assault. That is the standard.
Click to expand...

I get your logic. Just like I am asking people who claim Kaler said rape to find that link. If true, it could make some players very wealthy. I can't find it, and if the due process crowd wants to let facts rule, I think they need to be factual.

By the way, your moniker is really prescient. Congrats.
 

Iceland12 said:
Anyone who thinks that it didn't help Kaler and Coyle accomplish something they had been planning since Claeys got the "fire me" contract in the first place is pretty delusional themselves.
Click to expand...

This times infinity.
 

Iceland12 said:
Anyone who thinks that it didn't help Kaler and Coyle accomplish something they had been planning since Claeys got the "fire me" contract in the first place is pretty delusional themselves.
Click to expand...
There mere fact that they were suspended didn't. The fact that the team went on strike and turned this into a national story certainly did
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom