John Shipley: Tracy Claeys has to go; this isn’t about X’s and O’s

Donate To GopherHole
alchemy2u said:
The definition of rape is pretty clear and involves consent. What we have heard is that there was evidence of consent with the first two guys. But do you really believe that this girl freely consented to the third guy, how about the fourth or fifth guy? These last three guys where not involved with the first actions and appear to have taken advantage of the situation.

The problem that I see is that some "old style" guys assume that if you are able to have sex with a coed that it is by definition consensual. And if the lady later objects to what happen that it is only because they have an agenda and they are out to get the guy. Look at the situation from your daughters point of view.


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

The crime of rape as legally defined involves threat of violence or victim incapacitation. The affirmative consent rule at the U is a wholly made-up conduct code definition to enable easier convictions under the EOAA process. Many are troubled by this low bar of guilt including regent Dean Johnson.

You are in denial to the many reasons why an emotionally immature individual may indeed cry rape. People are complex and flawed. I'm not saying this is true in close to the majority of cases or the case here but it must be considered as possible.

As far as my daughter is concerned I hope she will make good decisions and have good friends. That will eliminate the vast majority of instances where this type of thing can happen. That doesn't excuse the pathetic and sick males we all know are out there.
 

kellyleeks said:
i don't believe that anyone on this board condones rape. However, I'm not sure everyone here agrees how we define rape. For example, let's say a 120 lb woman who doesn't drink frequently goes out and has four cocktails with friends and then approaches a guy at a bar who's had a few drinks and asks him to go home with her and she initiates sex and they guy goes along with it. Then the next day she claims that she wasn't in a position to consent. I don't think the guy raped her, but it seems as if the EOAA would.

I believe that there is a case at Indiana U that is similar to this.
Click to expand...

+1. The propriety to which I adhere is that if I determine I've had sex with a woman who weighs more than I, then yes, I've been raped.
 

alchemy2u said:
The definition of rape is pretty clear and involves consent. What we have heard is that there was evidence of consent with the first two guys. <b>But do you really believe that this girl freely consented to the third guy, how about the fourth or fifth guy? </b>These last three guys where not involved with the first actions and appear to have taken advantage of the situation.
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't there so I don't know. Perhaps you can explain how you so surely know she didn't? Taking the EOAA report as fact is like listening to a prosecutor's opening statement at a trial and then rendering a verdict.
 

Theodore Calvin said:
Your statement represents the scary revenge porn that so many feminists like yourself fantasize about. You do not care about the lives that are ruined due to public hanging. In your crazy mind, the reputations of innocent men being ruined is justified because so many guilty men have gotten away with it. The Duke lacrosse case is lost on people like you. Brian Banks losing years of his life is lost on you.

Let the process play out. If someone is guilty of any wrong doing, they should be held responsible. Stop using this to push your agenda.
Click to expand...

Wow, you just keep digging the hole deeper. We all know there have been instances of false accusations, but please don't try and use that to justify a "man can do nothing wrong" attitude. Just because the scale has tilted slightly towards a victims ability to bring charges does not mean that everyone is out to get men. "Oh whoa is me, us white males are being persecuted!" Lol!!!!! The point of the whole process is not just to prosecute offenders, it is to educate some men in the errors of how they have treated women. Your inability to understand how ridiculous your argument is very telling. Go ahead and call me more names and make totally ridiculous assumptions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

alchemy2u said:
Wow, you just keep digging the hole deeper. We all know there have been instances of false accusations, but please don't try and use that to justify a "man can do nothing wrong" attitude. Just because the scale has tilted slightly towards a victims ability to bring charges does not mean that everyone is out to get men. "Oh whoa is me, us white males are being persecuted!" Lol!!!!! The point of the whole process is not just to prosecute offenders, it is to educate some men in the errors of how they have treated women. Your inability to understand how ridiculous your argument is very telling. Go ahead and call me more names and make totally ridiculous assumptions.


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

The affirmative consent rule puts the burden entirely on the accused to prove their innocence. Im not sure you understand the implications of this type of rule. Your flippant attitude is very scary. Keep in mind this concept has only been around since 2014 and was pushed by activists. The pushback is difficult as one will be labeled pro-rape by wackos like you.
 


alchemy2u said:
The definition of rape is pretty clear and involves consent. What we have heard is that there was evidence of consent with the first two guys. But do you really believe that this girl freely consented to the third guy, how about the fourth or fifth guy? These last three guys where not involved with the first actions and appear to have taken advantage of the situation.

The problem that I see is that some "old style" guys assume that if you are able to have sex with a coed that it is by definition consensual. And if the lady later objects to what happen that it is only because they have an agenda and they are out to get the guy. Look at the situation from your daughters point of view.


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

I agree with your post. If I had to guess at what Halle ed with the players, I think it started off as consensual, but at some point it no longer was.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my example, but the point I was trying to make is that when it comes to consent it goes beyond the female just giving consent, as there's an obligation for the male to know whether she is able to give consent. If a woman is stumbling drunk then she obviously can't, but if she's had a few drinks and buzzed and the guy is not aware of this, then that seems like an unfair burden especially if she initiates and verbally gives consent.

If a guy has 8 drinks and sleeps with a sober female after he gives consent is that rape? If not, it's a double standard.
 

kellyleeks said:
I agree with your post. If I had to guess at what Halle ed with the players, I think it started off as consensual, but at some point it no longer was.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my example, but the point I was trying to make is that when it comes to consent it goes beyond the female just giving consent, as there's an obligation for the male to know whether she is able to give consent. If a woman is stumbling drunk then she obviously can't, but if she's had a few drinks and buzzed and the guy is not aware of this, then that seems like an unfair burden especially if she initiates and verbally gives consent.

If a guy has 8 drinks and sleeps with a sober female after he gives consent is that rape? If not, it's a double standard.
Click to expand...

Yep, gets pretty murky when you try to apply that standard. Guy with a few drinks in him has the burden and obligation of determining if the woman's consent is true and, heaven forbid, can be used in his defense? Is he obligated to reaffirm the consent throughout the encounter?

It can be a fairly challenging standard with two completely sober people.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Yep, gets pretty murky when you try to apply that standard. Guy with a few drinks in him has the burden and obligation of determining if the woman's consent is true and, heaven forbid, can be used in his defense? Is he obligated to reaffirm the consent throughout the encounter?

It can be a fairly challenging standard with two completely sober people.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a wise arse, but how does this work with gay males? In theory a sexual encounter between two drunk males could result in both being rapists and victims.....
 

PMWinSTP said:
Yep, gets pretty murky when you try to apply that standard. Guy with a few drinks in him has the burden and obligation of determining if the woman's consent is true and, heaven forbid, can be used in his defense? Is he obligated to reaffirm the consent throughout the encounter?

It can be a fairly challenging standard with two completely sober people.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, does each individual "move" need to be consented to? Might be to have an open line with legal counsel at all times during any sexual episode... I'm gonna suggest keeping Bob Loblaw on speakerphone.
 



alchemy2u said:
The definition of rape is pretty clear and involves consent. What we have heard is that there was evidence of consent with the first two guys. But do you really believe that this girl freely consented to the third guy, how about the fourth or fifth guy? These last three guys where not involved with the first actions and appear to have taken advantage of the situation.

The problem that I see is that some "old style" guys assume that if you are able to have sex with a coed that it is by definition consensual. And if the lady later objects to what happen that it is only because they have an agenda and they are out to get the guy. Look at the situation from your daughters point of view.


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

I really think you are treating adults like children. She is an adult. You need to think of her as an adult who is fully capable of making decisions. I don't want to think of her like my hypothetical daughter, because you're asking me to take a paternal interest in this case. That is demeaning to women. I wouldn't take a paternal interest in a case when I was analyzing it for a 22 year old man, I am not going to do it when I analyze a case for a 22 year old woman. She is an adult.

I think everyone agree that in your initially listed scenario that would be rape. If she gave consent to guys 1-5 but didn't for guys 6-10, I believe that is rape and if it can be proven, they should be charged with rape. We all agree with that analysis.

Where your analysis takes a difficult turn is when you assume rape. That's the problem. You are arguing that by the very nature of the sexual act (group sex involving multiple men and 1 woman), it had to be rape. I know it seems crazy, but people are into that kind of stuff. Seriously, go home and go on craigslist, it's out there. It happens.

I am not arguing that it was consensual. I do not know. I would have hoped for a fair and reasonable investigation into the facts. I am not outraged by the EoAA because I am pretending to know that it was consensual, I am outraged by the EoAA because they did not give a real investigation (IMO) to determine if it was consensual.

I don't think anyone on this board is making the claim "it was consensual". There are a ton of people on this board that seem to "know" that it was not. The argument is that the investigation to determine consensuality has been flawed and biased from the beginning. That does not do anyone any favors (alleged victim included).
 

Vandy said:
Hmmmm, does each individual "move" need to be consented to? Might be to have an open line with legal counsel at all times during any sexual episode... I'm gonna suggest keeping Bob Loblaw on speakerphone.
Click to expand...

Or Facetime. Whatever.
 

kellyleeks said:
Not trying to be a wise arse, but how does this work with gay males? In theory a sexual encounter between two drunk males could result in both being rapists and victims.....
Click to expand...

Or lesbians? Or transpeople? Or male and transwoman? Or Transman and woman?

This is SO confusing!
 

PMWinSTP said:
Yep, gets pretty murky when you try to apply that standard. Guy with a few drinks in him has the burden and obligation of determining if the woman's consent is true and, heaven forbid, can be used in his defense? Is he obligated to reaffirm the consent throughout the encounter?

It can be a fairly challenging standard with two completely sober people.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that a consenting woman wouldn't like you asking for consent for each advancement? Can I kiss your ear now? How about your neck? Shake on it.
 



Bob_Loblaw said:
Or lesbians? Or transpeople? Or male and transwoman? Or Transman and woman?

This is SO confusing!
Click to expand...

And at colleges and universities, guess what office is charged with investigating and protecting the rights of all those groups against discrimination and harassment...
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Are you saying that a consenting woman wouldn't like you asking for consent for each advancement? Can I kiss your ear now? How about your neck? Shake on it.
Click to expand...

Well, with the right timing and delivery, like the B-52s, maybe some women might...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DrYxPH1zH18" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

alchemy2u said:
Wow, you just keep digging the hole deeper. We all know there have been instances of false accusations, but please don't try and use that to justify a "man can do nothing wrong" attitude. Just because the scale has tilted slightly towards a victims ability to bring charges does not mean that everyone is out to get men. "Oh whoa is me, us white males are being persecuted!" Lol!!!!! The point of the whole process is not just to prosecute offenders, it is to educate some men in the errors of how they have treated women. Your inability to understand how ridiculous your argument is very telling. Go ahead and call me more names and make totally ridiculous assumptions.


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

Last I checked there wasn't a single white male involved in this incident. And many on this message board, I'm guessing both black and white, but could really care less about the color of their skin, have serious questions regarding how some of the young men are being treated. Do you think that's funny?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I really think you are treating adults like children. She is an adult. You need to think of her as an adult who is fully capable of making decisions. I don't want to think of her like my hypothetical daughter, because you're asking me to take a paternal interest in this case. That is demeaning to women. I wouldn't take a paternal interest in a case when I was analyzing it for a 22 year old man, I am not going to do it when I analyze a case for a 22 year old woman. She is an adult.

I think everyone agree that in your initially listed scenario that would be rape. If she gave consent to guys 1-5 but didn't for guys 6-10, I believe that is rape and if it can be proven, they should be charged with rape. We all agree with that analysis.

Where your analysis takes a difficult turn is when you assume rape. That's the problem. You are arguing that by the very nature of the sexual act (group sex involving multiple men and 1 woman), it had to be rape. I know it seems crazy, but people are into that kind of stuff. Seriously, go home and go on craigslist, it's out there. It happens.

I am not arguing that it was consensual. I do not know. I would have hoped for a fair and reasonable investigation into the facts. I am not outraged by the EoAA because I am pretending to know that it was consensual, I am outraged by the EoAA because they did not give a real investigation (IMO) to determine if it was consensual.

I don't think anyone on this board is making the claim "it was consensual". There are a ton of people on this board that seem to "know" that it was not. The argument is that the investigation to determine consensuality has been flawed and biased from the beginning. That does not do anyone any favors (alleged victim included).
Click to expand...

You are starting to sound a little more reasonable. I do not assume it was rape. I just stated that once the others guys started to line up that it was hard to believe that is what she had originally agreed to. I asked for people to to think about their daughter not to have them look at the situation from a paternal aspect, but to have a little more empathy in understanding the intimidation, fear, etc. that she may have felt. Adults can make mistakes and they can also be taken advantage of.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

alchemy2u said:
You are starting to sound a little more reasonable. I do not assume it was rape. I just stated that once the others guys started to line up that it was hard to believe that is what she had originally agreed to. I asked for people to to think about their daughter not to have them look at the situation from a paternal aspect, but to have a little more empathy in understanding the intimidation, fear, etc. that she may have felt. Adults can make mistakes and they can also be taken advantage of.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You continue to ascribe things like intimidation and fear to this situation. You act as if you were there.
 

alchemy2u said:
You are starting to sound a little more reasonable. I do not assume it was rape. I just stated that once the others guys started to line up that it was hard to believe that is what she had originally agreed to. I asked for people to to think about their daughter not to have them look at the situation from a paternal aspect, but to have a little more empathy in understanding the intimidation, fear, etc. that she may have felt. Adults can make mistakes and they can also be taken advantage of.


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

This has been my take the entire time. There is a portion of the board that reads what I have written as "pro-rape". I've had to dumb down every post and start it out with "if it wasn't consensual, they should be arrested, kicked off the team, etc.". That should be a given, but I know how these arguments are made. You ask for a fair process in the investigation of a serious incident - - pro-rape. I have been consistent with my opinion of the situation the entire time.

Why would it be hard for you to believe that she wanted more than 1 person? It seems like she agreed to 3 or 4 guys, at what point does it become hard for you to believe? I am not judging her and if she is a victim in all of this, I feel awful for her. There are people into this type of thing. As much as it is not part of your life, people do this. It is a thing.

By the way, you just said "I do not assume it was rape, but (I find it hard to believe it wasn't rape)".
 

GopherBulldog said:
Last I checked there wasn't a single white male involved in this incident. And many on this message board, I'm guessing both black and white, but could really care less about the color of their skin, have serious questions regarding how some of the young men are being treated. Do you think that's funny?
Click to expand...

Nope, there wasn't a single white male involved in anything here. The examples that the poster referred to were multi-racial (Duke Lacrosse - White, Brian Banks - black).

These types of reactions are an amazing example of the lunacy associated with the modern "progressive" movement.
A discussion based on a fair investigation surrounding a serious allegation between african american men and a white woman - - Bring up the whole white male privilege stuff. That makes sense.

Women are equals - Think of them like your daughter. You know, adults love being treated like children.

There was a time when the progressive movement demanded things like liberty, freedom, equality and all of those classic liberal values that are so important to our country. Now? Yikes.
 

Vandy said:
Hmmmm, does each individual "move" need to be consented to? Might be to have an open line with legal counsel at all times during any sexual episode... I'm gonna suggest keeping Bob Loblaw on speakerphone.
Click to expand...

I think so. I'd actually recommend flowcharting the encounter with fully annotated I/Os, process boxes and decision gates. Each of the important Go/NoGo flow lines should be initialized by both participants for future legal reference.
 

alchemy2u said:
You are starting to sound a little more reasonable. I do not assume it was rape. I just stated that once the others guys started to line up that it was hard to believe that is what she had originally agreed to. I asked for people to to think about their daughter not to have them look at the situation from a paternal aspect, but to have a little more empathy in understanding the intimidation, fear, etc. that she may have felt. Adults can make mistakes and they can also be taken advantage of.

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

Is it the guys fault that she felt too intimidated to verbalize her feelings (provided the guys didn't do anything to purposefully intimidate her)? Is that not her responsibility (to herself, and to the guy(s) ) to tell them "I'm done here, right now".
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Nope, there wasn't a single white male involved in anything here. The examples that the poster referred to were multi-racial (Duke Lacrosse - White, Brian Banks - black).

These types of reactions are an amazing example of the lunacy associated with the modern "progressive" movement.
A discussion based on a fair investigation surrounding a serious allegation between african american men and a white woman - - Bring up the whole white male privilege stuff. That makes sense.

Women are equals - Think of them like your daughter. You know, adults love being treated like children.

There was a time when the progressive movement demanded things like liberty, freedom, equality and all of those classic liberal values that are so important to our country. Now? Yikes.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more. And it is chilling to think that some of those statements, such as the one made by the poster I was quoting, completely destroy for me their credibility to have a logical discussion on this topic. Yet, somehow, those same words embolden and motivate those that believe justice is being served by rendering a guilty verdict and administering punishment without considering all sides of a very complex situation.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Nope, there wasn't a single white male involved in anything here. The examples that the poster referred to were multi-racial (Duke Lacrosse - White, Brian Banks - black).

These types of reactions are an amazing example of the lunacy associated with the modern "progressive" movement.
A discussion based on a fair investigation surrounding a serious allegation between african american men and a white woman - - Bring up the whole white male privilege stuff. That makes sense.

Women are equals - Think of them like your daughter. You know, adults love being treated like children.

There was a time when the progressive movement demanded things like liberty, freedom, equality and all of those classic liberal values that are so important to our country. Now? Yikes.
Click to expand...

It's the same trying to explain due process...even "dumb it down" doesn't seem to work with many here. Best basic analogy I can come up with is a criminal case where the judge rules based only on what information the prosecutor provides in the indictment, and then punishes the defendant. Comeback will be that this is not a court of law...
 

GoodasGold said:
I think so. I'd actually recommend flowcharting the encounter with fully annotated I/Os, process boxes and decision gates. Each of the important Go/NoGo flow lines should be initialized by both participants for future legal reference.
Click to expand...

Probably should go ahead and get it all notarized for good measure.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Probably should go ahead and get it all notarized for good measure.
Click to expand...

That's the absurdity of the rule. One is SOL if an accusation arises. There is literally no defense outside of videotape of the entire encounter with vocal affirmation from the accuser throughout. That video would get you thrown out if there wasn't recorded affirmation the woman was ok with the taping. This rule makes sense to people that truly believe there are no false accusations, faulty memories, or mentally unstable accusers. Scary.
 


alchemy2u said:
Wow, you just keep digging the hole deeper. We all know there have been instances of false accusations, but please don't try and use that to justify a "man can do nothing wrong" attitude. Just because the scale has tilted slightly towards a victims ability to bring charges does not mean that everyone is out to get men. "Oh whoa is me, us white males are being persecuted!" Lol!!!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The young men involved are not "white males".
 


PMWinSTP said:
It's the same trying to explain due process...even "dumb it down" doesn't seem to work with many here. <b>Best basic analogy I can come up with is a criminal case where the judge rules based only on what information the prosecutor provides in the indictment, </b>and then punishes the defendant. Comeback will be that this is not a court of law...
Click to expand...

This is spot on. I used the analogy the other day that using the EOAA report as fact at this point is like having a prosecutor give their opening statement and then rendering a verdict based on that. Could be exactly right, could be partially right, could be completely wrong. No matter which of those it is, it is biased and not impartial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom