Federal judge tosses former football players' lawsuit against University of Minnesota

Donate To GopherHole
ComoGopher said:
Not strange at all. I have no idea if they were guilty of any criminal activity but the school found them in violation of the school code of conduct. No criminal charges does not make the EOAA a kangaroo court although I think there are a lot of improvements that can be made with that process. The bottom line is that there are folks on this board who seem to think that no charges completely exonerates the players. That is not true and stating that it is not true does not make me someone who presumes guilt. We simply don't know what happened and based on their investigation, the police and the county attorney did not charge anyone because they could not prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The leap to "assumption of guilt" by some posters is a huge stretch. I think what many of them did was definitely against school code of conduct and deserving of their punishment based on a lot of what was revealed during the EOAA. I do not know if anything that happened could be classified as CSC. Stating that I do not know does not mean that I assume guilt. You don't know what happened but you presume innocence? Just because it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? There is a lot of gray here... None of them are convicted criminals because they were not convicted of a crime. Good for them. Several of them were disciplined at varying levels by the U. I happen to believe that the U did a decent job with a flawed system. We can argue that all day. I do not presume guilt of any crime. I simply don't know and leave the door open that there could have been CSC that could not be proven.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone would dispute that. The disconnect is you are in fact assuming guilt if all you have is a he said she said scenario. It’s very possible that 4 of the players were guilty of either actual assault which is a crime and/or not having “affirmative consent” throughout the act which is not sexual assault per the letter of the law but is a violation of the U of MN student code of conduct since 2015.

Since affirmative consent can never be proven without video of the entire encounter (even a signed letter is only valid for consent for the moment it was signed) the boys were doomed by a “preponderance of the evidence” or more accurately preponderance of the missing evidence. The system is set up to favor accusers over defendants and does in fact presume guilt by design.

As stated earlier a colleague was recently accused of sexual harassment but in this case management knew the eccentricities and character of both parties and made an appropriate decision to let her go (this was not her first rodeo with issues).
 

rugger14 said:
No charges but you have very good reason to get a warrant and have the phone analyzed which is not a huge undertaking like you tried to make it sound.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They did forensically analyze Djams phone and found her story about him and the recruit wanting. Now, if she stated the other players were filming the episode and they (the investigative team) did not examine those phones then I agree they ought to have. Hey, we agree.
 

dpodoll68 said:
So threesomes aren't against the student code of conduct, but foursomes-plus are? I find it difficult to believe that they address how many sexual partners are acceptable in the student code of conduct. I've attended the U twice (undergrad and grad) and I don't remember reading anything about the requisite number of sexual partners that were acceptable by the student code of conduct. None of the orientation group leaders mentioned it either.



Well, that, along with anyone searching for you finding your name linked to sexual assault forever.
Click to expand...

I also think it's a pretty safe bet that a vast majority of students violate the code numerous times over the course of their time at the U. Based on the broad and vague scope of a few as written, probably all students would be in violation, given the guilt threshold used.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
They did forensically analyze Djams phone and found her story about him and the recruit wanting. Now, if she stated the other players were filming the episode and they (the investigative team) did not examine those phones then I agree they ought to have. Hey, we agree.
Click to expand...
Ok. I am interested in that. I don't think that is true but you might be right. I would just like to applaud everyone for being more civil in this whole discussion recently. I think they looked at his phone and he let them. Not the same as a forensic examination. I have read MPD police reports and they painstaikingly dociment everything. They are a really thorough department. There would be pages of details of the forensic examination if they did it.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 

rugger14 said:
Ok. I am interested in that. I don't think that is true but you might be right. I would just like to applaud everyone for being more civil in this whole discussion recently. I think they looked at his phone and he let them. Not the same as a forensic examination. I have read MPD police reports and they painstaikingly dociment everything. They are a really thorough department. There would be pages of details of the forensic examination if they did it.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It was all in the police reports. They did sent it to forensics.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
It was all in the police reports. They did sent it to forensics.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to the report because I would like to read that. You might completely change my opinion.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 

dpodoll68 said:
So threesomes aren't against the student code of conduct, but foursomes-plus are? I find it difficult to believe that they address how many sexual partners are acceptable in the student code of conduct. I've attended the U twice (undergrad and grad) and I don't remember reading anything about the requisite number of sexual partners that were acceptable by the student code of conduct. None of the orientation group leaders mentioned it either.



Well, that, along with anyone searching for you finding your name linked to sexual assault forever.
Click to expand...

She does the threesome willingly and all of a sudden there are other guys wanting a turn. She wants to stop but is pressured. Plus, now there is an audience, if I remember the tawdry facts, and now she realizes the situation is out of hand. We also have the restraining order later on when it seems that the players were going out of their way to verbally harass her.

This isn't some unfair policy concocted by feminists and anti-jocks. I just read it and it's laid out logically and in language making sure that it's understood. It's not some trap concocted by feminists to seek revenge. It's meant to navigate that vast grey area where there is an attempt to protect students and employees when criminal law falls short of doing that.

Sorry if your orientation leader group leader didn't meet your needs, but, then again, maybe they figured a university student didn't have to have every possible situation explained to him.
 

rugger14 said:
Do you have a link to the report because I would like to read that. You might completely change my opinion.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There's this thing called Google...
 




Mulligan said:
She does the threesome willingly and all of a sudden there are other guys wanting a turn. She wants to stop but is pressured. Plus, now there is an audience, if I remember the tawdry facts, and now she realizes the situation is out of hand. We also have the restraining order later on when it seems that the players were going out of their way to verbally harass her.

This isn't some unfair policy concocted by feminists and anti-jocks. I just read it and it's laid out logically and in language making sure that it's understood. It's not some trap concocted by feminists to seek revenge. It's meant to navigate that vast grey area where there is an attempt to protect students and employees when criminal law falls short of doing that.

Sorry if your orientation leader group leader didn't meet your needs, but, then again, maybe they figured a university student didn't have to have every possible situation explained to him.
Click to expand...

Uh, it’s exactly that.
 



Mulligan said:
She does the threesome willingly and all of a sudden there are other guys wanting a turn. She wants to stop but is pressured. Plus, now there is an audience, if I remember the tawdry <b>facts,</b> and now she realizes the situation is out of hand. We also have the restraining order later on when it seems that the players were going out of their way to verbally harass her.

This isn't some unfair policy concocted by feminists and anti-jocks. I just read it and it's laid out logically and in language making sure that it's understood. It's not some trap concocted by feminists to seek revenge. It's meant to navigate that vast grey area where there is an attempt to protect students and employees when criminal law falls short of doing that.

Sorry if your orientation leader group leader didn't meet your needs, but, then again, maybe they figured a university student didn't have to have every possible situation explained to him.
Click to expand...

You read it in the EOAA report and therefore it is fact? Wow. Like leading sheep to the slaughter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 




rugger14 said:
Looks like they got a consent search for specific items from the phone. No search warrant that I can see.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It seems clear they had access to the videos and texts and he willingly gave consent rather than requiring a warrant. Isn’t that better? What more did you have in mind in terms of examining the phone?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It seems clear they had access to the videos and texts and he willingly gave consent rather than requiring a warrant. Isn’t that better? What more did you have in mind in terms of examining the phone?
Click to expand...
The consent to search form referenced is not part of the report so I can't read what it says and how limited the scope of the consent is. Based on the narrative in the report I think the scope was quite limited. If you have enough to get a warrant I would always get a warrant because then you get everything on the phone and don't have to worry about scope.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 

Well, not sure that would have mattered here but I do agree would have made sense to search the phones off the others known to be in the room. It may have shed some light either way if there were videos. Like I said if they assaulted and held her down etc then they got off way too easy. If she went along with everything and feigned consent verbal or otherwise then it’s not a crime but could still be a violation of the affirmative consent. We just don’t have enough information to know and the accuser herself admits her memory of events was poor.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom