Hutton to the Minnesota Daily: There are plans to sue ‘everyone.’

Donate To GopherHole
1385md said:
It's all shades of grey. What you're arguing against is exactly what you're accusing the "other side" of doing. Everyone is on the same spectra, it's the people on the exteme ends of both sides that cause the poeople in the middle to get pissy.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're not in the middle. You're on the extreme.
 

Hey GinIowa, you wanted a specific example of a poster that fits my description.... well there you go.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

1385md said:
Hey GinIowa, you wanted a specific example of a poster that fits my description.... well there you go.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The fact you're assigning guilt based on the EEOA process is terrifying. We are not isolated voices. Virtually every legal scholar and expert that looks at this says the same thing.

Let us be clear, you are stating that the EEOA report is not biased, is comprehensive, and establishes guilt? And you're calling me a nut?

These guys may in fact be guilty but they deserve a fair hearing. Your attitude is terrible and frightening.
 

I am wrong in this debate. What each of these men need is some other type of due process, which by any measure is a nebulous legal term, rooted in the Constitution, which is largely disregarded by everybody, so say the Republicans and Democrats. So, we need not concern ourselves any longer about due process. That is for sissies, anyway. What we need is good old fashioned Sharia law. The woman gets stoned to death. The men get exonerated for being lured by her uncovered beauty. Everybody wins. Allah gets a martyr. The men get long, fruitful careers being phy-ed instructors or recreational sports center supervisors, and everyone wins. We all get to see their physical prowess on the field of football combat, in lazy boys with hard liquor drinks in hand. That is gooood. really goooood. Sooooo goooooood. Yes, the point of this is just all wrong, in so many ways. I am converted. Why didn't we come to this type of thinking long ago. It is just such an easy solution for everybody.
 

It's really not nebulous.

You're mentally ill. Time to go on some meds. I'm serious.
 




Dean S said:
I am wrong in this debate. What each of these men need is some other type of due process, which by any measure is a nebulous legal term, rooted in the Constitution, which is largely disregarded by everybody, so say the Republicans and Democrats. So, we need not concern ourselves any longer about due process. That is for sissies, anyway. What we need is good old fashioned Sharia law. The woman gets stoned to death. The men get exonerated for being lured by her uncovered beauty. Everybody wins. Allah gets a martyr. The men get long, fruitful careers being phy-ed instructors or recreational sports center supervisors, and everyone wins. We all get to see their physical prowess on the field of football combat, in lazy boys with hard liquor drinks in hand. That is gooood. really goooood. Sooooo goooooood. Yes, the point of this is just all wrong, in so many ways. I am converted. Why didn't we come to this type of thinking long ago. It is just such an easy solution for everybody.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm shocked that YOU are spending Christmas Eve standing at and pounding the pulpit in some low budget non denominational church 1/5 full of simpleton lemmings and their narrow minded home schooled children focused on your illogical rants.
 

Dean S said:
I am wrong in this debate. What each of these men need is some other type of due process, which by any measure is a nebulous legal term, rooted in the Constitution, which is largely disregarded by everybody, so say the Republicans and Democrats. So, we need not concern ourselves any longer about due process. That is for sissies, anyway. What we need is good old fashioned Sharia law. The woman gets stoned to death. The men get exonerated for being lured by her uncovered beauty. Everybody wins. Allah gets a martyr. The men get long, fruitful careers being phy-ed instructors or recreational sports center supervisors, and everyone wins. We all get to see their physical prowess on the field of football combat, in lazy boys with hard liquor drinks in hand. That is gooood. really goooood. Sooooo goooooood. Yes, the point of this is just all wrong, in so many ways. I am converted. Why didn't we come to this type of thinking long ago. It is just such an easy solution for everybody.
Click to expand...

With due respect, that's said by the guy who comes off as wanting all 5, 10, 20, 100 players treated like ISIS captives...
 



They had their fair hearing, twice. The legal system chose not to charge. The university said, though not criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, your actions don't meet our code of conduct and you can no longer represent us as a scholarship athelete.
I'm not sure what more you think should done - other than eliminate the EOAA.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 


Pompous Elitist said:
You're not in the middle. You're on the extreme.
Click to expand...

I know you are but what am I? I am joking, I think the middle in this debate says an assault happened that night, but the process is faulty. The middle is not, the report was flawed thus we can't say there was an assault.
 

1385md said:
Dean is right. The U and EEOC look like beacons of impartiality compared to the GH tone that's being driven by a few high volume posters. The outside world is generally praising the U for there response, yet a vocal few seem to wish we'd have had a Baylor type response. Due process doesn't mean you get to reject an outcome of an investigation just cuz you dont like the findings.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How many accounts are you going to create...I keep blocking you but you keep creating new accounts to agree with yourself. Please stop.
 



1385md said:
They had their fair hearing, twice. The legal system chose not to charge. The university said, though not criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, your actions don't meet our code of conduct and you can no longer represent us as a scholarship athelete.
I'm not sure what more you think should done - other than eliminate the EOAA.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

1 - Allow all evidence to be admitted. 2 - Make sure both parties have legal representation present. 3 - Allow cross examinations.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
How many accounts are you going to create...I keep blocking you but you keep creating new accounts to agree with yourself. Please stop.
Click to expand...
I'm not a multi account person. Just a reader/non-poster that got sick off the tone on here and felt to need to finally say something.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Gogogopher said:
I know you are but what am I? I am joking, I think the middle in this debate says an assault happened that night, but the process is faulty. The middle is not, the report was flawed thus we can't say there was an assault.
Click to expand...

I think the middle is saying we don't know what happened that night. The extreme is assigning guilt based on simple allegations (as you are). The other extreme would be exonerating the players of all guilt based on their testimony.
 

1385md said:
Hey GinIowa, you wanted a specific example of a poster that fits my description.... well there you go.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It appears to me you just don't like anyone that has a different view point than you.
 

Gogogopher said:
Yup, its about the process and with the context of the quotes about the specific investigation at the U it's clear they think the victim is credible.
Click to expand...
Just so we're clear, the committee need not find sexual assault in order to recommend punishment. There were other sufficient violations of the conduct code to warrant the recommendations. Sexual assault is actually a moot point in this case.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

DoubleAlum said:
Just so we're clear, the committee need not find sexual assault in order to recommend punishment. There were other sufficient violations of the conduct code to warrant the recommendations. Sexual assault is actually a moot point in this case.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And that still doesn't change the fact the proceedings were specifically specifically designed to spit out a guilty verdict.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
And that still doesn't change the fact the proceedings were specifically specifically designed to spit out a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...
I cant agree or disagree. I dont know the mens re a (state of mind) of the committee. If i had to guess, id agree the committee was on a mission. Are you suggesting that because the committee was biased, no punishment is acceptable? Doesnt that ignore the violations other than assault?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I think the middle is saying we don't know what happened that night. The extreme is assigning guilt based on simple allegations (as you are). The other extreme would be exonerating the players of all guilt based on their testimony.
Click to expand...

Well, thats where we are just gonna disagree. Surprise, surprise. Outside of the gopherhole, I haven't heard one person suggest that an assault didn't happen. And apparently we never will know what happened that night. Cause, you know the report was so biased as to render it worthless.

Will there be a proceeding that will clear up the questions for you?
 

DoubleAlum said:
Just so we're clear, the committee need not find sexual assault in order to recommend punishment. There were other sufficient violations of the conduct code to warrant the recommendations. Sexual assault is actually a moot point in this case.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agree in part.

The sexual assault comes first, it isn't moot.

However, it is wholly possible that the Harassment portion is where the entire episode comes from. I think it would not be "walking in the room," and talking to her, as the report makes it, but instead the business with the lights.

It very well could be, that she was into it, but not after the/or excluding the portion where they are standing in the door, lights flicking. I can see this scenario as the ****ty, even given some desire for the other portions. She is stripped of her dignity, not sure what fully went down, or in process of realizing what did, thus framing everything negatively.

.
 

Gogogopher said:
Well, thats where we are just gonna disagree. Surprise, surprise. Outside of the gopherhole, I haven't heard one person suggest that an assault didn't happen. And apparently we never will know what happened that night. Cause, you know the report was so biased as to render it worthless.

Will there be a proceeding that will clear up the questions for you?
Click to expand...

Self Selecting though. Saying the assault didn't happen is more difficult face to face. Too politically charged; one not need say the wrong thing, but the wrong way in person and your a pariah.

Really, the anonymity of the internet allows for some freedom here (yes, I recognize it also allows for cowardly bashing too).
 

atsgopher said:
Agree in part.

The sexual assault comes first, it isn't moot.

However, it is wholly possible that the Harassment portion is where the entire episode comes from. I think it would not be "walking in the room," and talking to her, as the report makes it, but instead the business with the lights.

It very well could be, that she was into it, but not after the/or excluding the portion where they are standing in the door, lights flicking. I can see this scenario as the ****ty, even given some desire for the other portions. She is stripped of her dignity, not sure what fully went down, or in process of realizing what did, thus framing everything negatively.

.
Click to expand...
I think the question of assault is moot. I will concede it was all consensual. That leaves the coverup, the crude texts and the negligent hosting of recruit. Thats enough for me.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

DoubleAlum said:
I think the question of assault is moot. I will concede it was all consensual. That leaves the coverup, the crude texts and the negligent hosting of recruit. Thats enough for me.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The crude texts are a red herring to me.

The cover up is too... or at least one that more info would be necessary to judge poorly. I probably say could be. One would need more info as there are legitimate reasons for what is alleged that are completely ignored.

Negligent hosting of recruit....hmm. Not sure, don't love it, but whose to blame. The host looking for him? He asked a friend to watch, should hbe able to trust your teammate here. Possibly Djam? Adding Djam gets too close to judging what could very well be what free adults want to do. Moreover, you get into bashing her behavior too.

I think you were on track a bit better with that harassment angle, IMHO.
 

It will be interesting to see if Hutton has made public record data requests for the electronic communications (emails and instant messaging records, if they are employed by the University, if they are not he would likely have to subpoena them) of the members of the EEOA board, as either a part of the appeals or pending lawsuits. All it takes is one board member making a flippant comment about the players or program to someone as evidence of bias.
 

1385md said:
I'm not a multi account person. Just a reader/non-poster that got sick off the tone on here and felt to need to finally say something.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Uh, huh... A reader-non poster since..... December 2016. Nice try.
 

CurveballJesus said:
It will be interesting to see if Hutton has made public record data requests for the electronic communications (emails and instant messaging records, if they are employed by the University, if they are not he would likely have to subpoena them) of the members of the EEOA board, as either a part of the appeals or pending lawsuits. All it takes is one board member making a flippant comment about the players or program to someone as evidence of bias.
Click to expand...

I am sure they all refer to the players as bitches and hoes. They like railing and training bitches. One text tells all, doesn't it?
 

OMG, you people are sooo lost in the debate and you missed the irony and the joke. This just proves that I am not the only one who has been entrenched emotionally about this case. At least 4 posters took my previous post in this thread seriously. It was a pure troll for a break in the rhetoric and a move to distract from the ongoing debate.

Just to clarify:

1) I want due process for all involved.
2) I would reform the U process and the requirements of Title IX for all universities if I had the magical power to do it.
3) I don't want anybody expelled from the school who hasn't demonstrated any wrong doing.
4) I don't care about people "running the train".
5) I want the U to be a successful institution.
6) Merry Christmas to you all.
7) I want women to be safe on campus.
 

Might be the first Christmas greeting including reference to a gang bang
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom