New Mexico State defends signing of ex-Minnesota player accused of sexual assault

[alchemy2u]

Screw this guy. You don't have to be Minnesota nice and give your well wishes to every player that leaves the program.

I don't care if you believe he was guilty or not. His actions put a lot of people in horrible situations. When you blur the lines between consent and assault and cause the university to get dragged through the mud, you lose your privilege of playing football at the University of Minnesota.

He spent a year at a JUCO and now will continue to get a free education. He'll be okay. I certainly hope he gets his life in order, but I won't be cheering for him on the football field.

+1,000. Now can we move on and stop beating this dead horse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hungan1]

+1,000. Now can we move on and stop beating this dead horse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FIFY

 

[Pompous Elitist]

It is super easy to just reference something weird and awkward like the Aziz thing and paint every other situation distantly similar with it... doing that you could downplay just about anything.

The irony.

Look at the debate around Aziz: older liberal women/feminists don't think it was assault. Far more millennials do and the gulf is wide. It is absolutely fundamental to the issue and related to the MN situation. The fact you can't grasp or acknowledge it is a problem.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Screw this guy. You don't have to be Minnesota nice and give your well wishes to every player that leaves the program.

I don't care if you believe he was guilty or not. His actions put a lot of people in horrible situations. When you blur the lines between consent and assault and cause the university to get dragged through the mud, you lose your privilege of playing football at the University of Minnesota.

He spent a year at a JUCO and now will continue to get a free education. He'll be okay. I certainly hope he gets his life in order, but I won't be cheering for him on the football field.

This is one of the creepiest thing I've ever read.

You don't care if he is guilty or not? You think a rapist should be treated the someone who did something you think is icky? You have absolutely no moral conviction.

 

[Word]

This is one of the creepiest thing I've ever read.

You don't care if he is guilty or not? You think a rapist should be treated the someone who did something you think is icky? You have absolutely no moral conviction.

Scary stuff indeed.

 

[Halsey Hall]

Ray Jr. did nothing wrong. His father said so.

Trump said he's innocent as well

 

[dpodoll68]

This is one of the creepiest thing I've ever read.

You don't care if he is guilty or not? You think a rapist should be treated the someone who did something you think is icky? You have absolutely no moral conviction.

This has been his refrain over and over again. It doesn't matter what happens to a potentially innocent person. I guarantee his tune would be far different if he were the one facing likely baseless accusations. He has no response for that, of course.

 

[atsgopher]

I hope he learned that certain situations will always look bad, pulling a train, even if the woman was willing, is one of them. I know it's a lot to ask a young man, but he has to think things through, there are a lot of no win situations.

A lot of people get up arms about victim blaming. This is parallel. Why did you put yourself in a "no win situation," and "use your head," are on the outs in the main stream.

Not sure I would refrain from giving that advice, as this is certainly what was told to everyone when I was growing up (Although it always chapped my hide to hear).

 

[fraternity2017]

This is one of the creepiest thing I've ever read.

You don't care if he is guilty or not? You think a rapist should be treated the someone who did something you think is icky? You have absolutely no moral conviction.

You are ridiculous.

Let's go over some facts:

- He was one of the people that put the University of Minnesota in a horrible position.
- You don't need to be convicted of a crime to put the University of Minnesota in a horrible position.
- Playing football at the University of Minnesota is a privilege not a right.
- The rules at the University of Minnesota are different than the law.
- He broke the rules at the University of Minnesota.
- He voluntarily left the University of Minnesota.

- 2-10% of rapes are false reports, a rate that does not exceed the false reporting rates of other crimes.
- For every 100 rapes committed, approximately two rapists will ever serve a day in prison. (source)

I never even said he did anything illegal. I never even said he was a rapist. He got treated like someone who dragged the University of Minnesota through the mud. He was treated like someone who broke the rules. He was given due process through the University of Minnesota. The same due process found 5 people innocent and 5 people guilty. When you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

He probably committed an illegal act and certainly committed an act that was against the rules of the University of Minnesota. His punishment was some negative news coverage and a year in a junior college. Cry me a river. Stop defending a guy that hurt the entire University of Minnesota. If he was going to prison for 20 years, I'd have some sympathy, but he's going to be perfectly fine.

 

[dpodoll68]

He broke the rules at the University of Minnesota.

Link?

He voluntarily left the University of Minnesota.

Wrong. Having playing privileges taken away from you and subsequently leaving as a result is not voluntary. Your argument is akin to your employer saying that you're free to continue working, but they'll stop paying you. You're totally "voluntarily" leaving your job then, right?

He was given due process through the University of Minnesota

"Due process" given by a University is by definition not due process. Due process is granted through the courts and legal system. The University of Minnesota is not part of the legal system.

He probably committed an illegal act

"Probably" isn't good enough - and also not an accurate statement because he was never given due process in a court of law.

and certainly committed an act that was against the rules of the University of Minnesota

He did? "Certainly"? Link?

His punishment was some negative news coverage and a year in a junior college. Cry me a river. Stop defending a guy that hurt the entire University of Minnesota. If he was going to prison for 20 years, I'd have some sympathy, but he's going to be perfectly fine.

It's easy for you to say this because you weren't the one accused.

Your list of "facts" is nothing more than your messed-up take on the situation - heavily biased, of course, by your false belief than any male accused of anything is obviously guilty.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

This is one of the creepiest thing I've ever read.

You don't care if he is guilty or not? You think a rapist should be treated the someone who did something you think is icky? You have absolutely no moral conviction.

Or he's not willing to pass judgement without knowing more...

 

[Pompous Elitist]

He probably committed an illegal act and certainly committed an act that was against the rules of the University of Minnesota.

This is where so many conflate lack of affirmative consent with criminal sexual assault. There is mass confusion (IMO) out there which is part of this debate we’re having. Waking up and having regret or not being clear about consent is not criminal assault. They cannot prove they received consent throughout the night but don’t deserve to be labeled rapists without a criminal trial.

 

[Heracles]

I keep reading "he put the U in a terrible position."

How? Nobody suffered in this ordeal at "the U" (aka administration). The girl is the primary victim here. She's not an agent of the U, and should be the only one demanding retribution (but should have to prove something first). The kids uninvolved are also victims (players who were wrongly accused or players on the team uninvolved that suffered). Claeys got canned, but that was just the Trojan Horse needed to make that decision. There was about 5 minutes of bad press that took nothing away from the U in terms of its brand (it took PJ all of 5 minutes to have boosters lining up to kiss his feet, and he just signed a pretty solid recruiting class).

The EOAA got to flex it's political muscle. The AD got to handpick his coach without consequence, because they'll always have that situation to point at as basis for termination. Kaler got to parade around and disburse holier than thou proverbs to whoever would listen. The lady running the EOAA got a cushy promotion after it was done. This event was a freaking coup for the figureheads. The narrative that they should be punished for tugging too firmly on the hem of the University's garment is a bunch of hogwash.

This social-media driven crybaby society where being a victim is virtuous, and coveted, is careening off the rails. The constant virtue signaling and finger pointing is almost laughable. The kid was punished, even though nothing was solidly proven. What more do you want? Should be drawn and quartered based on "probably" and "maybe?"

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I keep reading "he put the U in a terrible position."

How? Nobody suffered in this ordeal at "the U" (aka administration). The girl is the primary victim here. She's not an agent of the U, and should be the only one demanding retribution (but should have to prove something first). The kids uninvolved are also victims (players who were wrongly accused or players on the team uninvolved that suffered). Claeys got canned, but that was just the Trojan Horse needed to make that decision. There was about 5 minutes of bad press that took nothing away from the U in terms of its brand (it took PJ all of 5 minutes to have boosters lining up to kiss his feet, and he just signed a pretty solid recruiting class).

The EOAA got to flex it's political muscle. The AD got to handpick his coach without consequence, because they'll always have that situation to point at as basis for termination. Kaler got to parade around and disburse holier than thou proverbs to whoever would listen. The lady running the EOAA got a cushy promotion after it was done. This event was a freaking coup for the figureheads. The narrative that they should be punished for tugging too firmly on the hem of the University's garment is a bunch of hogwash.

This social-media driven crybaby society where being a victim is virtuous, and coveted, is careening off the rails. The constant virtue signaling and finger pointing is almost laughable. The kid was punished, even though nothing was solidly proven. What more do you want? Should be drawn and quartered based on "probably" and "maybe?"

I think there was more than 5 min of bad press... and you can take "U in a terrible position" as meaning just about anything... including the other players, program, etc...

 

[Mulligan]

Link?

http://www.gophersports.com/sports/student-affairs/spec-rel/code-of-conduct.html

Sections C & D have some provisions that Buford violated. As for your denial of "due process," this might come as a shock to you. You don't get to define "due process" to fit your agenda. People a lot smarter than you and with more power have defined it for the University, and he got due process according to the rules of the game. When Buford agreed to be an athlete at the University, he agreed to be under their rules. People expressing outrage at how he was treated might reserve it for times when it's really warranted. Not when it screws with their favorite football team which is what this is basically about.

Amusing when you insist on precise definitions some times and then you put your own spin on definitions when it suits you. Best example, putting "scandal" in quotations as you have previously done, like this whole sordid affair wasn't really a scandal.

Merriam-Webster definition of scandal: “a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it.” Gosh, do you think the act of participating in group sex and all the headlines maybe offended a good portion of the public and brought disgrace on those involved as well as the University constitutes a “scandal.”

 

[Spoofin]

People expressing outrage at how he was treated might reserve it for times when it's really warranted. <b>Not when it screws with their favorite football team which is what this is basically about. </b>

This statement is extremely ignorant. Even for you. I am absolutely outraged by the EOAA's procedure and how it treated him & it has absolutely nothing to do with its effect on my favorite football team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mplsbadger]

You are ridiculous.

Let's go over some facts:

- He was one of the people that put the University of Minnesota in a horrible position.
- You don't need to be convicted of a crime to put the University of Minnesota in a horrible position.
- Playing football at the University of Minnesota is a privilege not a right.
- The rules at the University of Minnesota are different than the law.
- He broke the rules at the University of Minnesota.
- He voluntarily left the University of Minnesota.

- 2-10% of rapes are false reports, a rate that does not exceed the false reporting rates of other crimes.
- For every 100 rapes committed, approximately two rapists will ever serve a day in prison. (source)

I never even said he did anything illegal. I never even said he was a rapist. He got treated like someone who dragged the University of Minnesota through the mud. He was treated like someone who broke the rules. He was given due process through the University of Minnesota. The same due process found 5 people innocent and 5 people guilty. When you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

He probably committed an illegal act and certainly committed an act that was against the rules of the University of Minnesota. His punishment was some negative news coverage and a year in a junior college. Cry me a river. Stop defending a guy that hurt the entire University of Minnesota. If he was going to prison for 20 years, I'd have some sympathy, but he's going to be perfectly fine.

I agree 100%. Good riddance.

I wonder, do the well wishers think what he did fits within the bounds of the culture they'd like to see at the u of m and in particular in the football program? Do they think he did nothing wrong?

 

[dpodoll68]

http://www.gophersports.com/sports/student-affairs/spec-rel/code-of-conduct.html

Sections C & D have some provisions that Buford violated. As for your denial of "due process," this might come as a shock to you. You don't get to define "due process" to fit your agenda. People a lot smarter than you and with more power have defined it for the University, and he got due process according to the rules of the game. When Buford agreed to be an athlete at the University, he agreed to be under their rules. People expressing outrage at how he was treated might reserve it for times when it's really warranted. Not when it screws with their favorite football team which is what this is basically about.

Amusing when you insist on precise definitions some times and then you put your own spin on definitions when it suits you. Best example, putting "scandal" in quotations as you have previously done, like this whole sordid affair wasn't really a scandal.

Merriam-Webster definition of scandal: “a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it.” Gosh, do you think the act of participating in group sex and all the headlines maybe offended a good portion of the public and brought disgrace on those involved as well as the University constitutes a “scandal.”

You don't get it, and that's fine, but don't attempt to condescend to me. Due process is by definition a legal construct. Your "the University defined it" hogwash is complete nonsense - the very point is that they don't have an option to define it. The courts decide what is and what is not due process. Period. The University is free to kick out anyone at any time for any reason, but that's not due process. Your attempts to conflate the two are pretty hilarious, though.

And yes, I do define it as a "scandal" when nothing is proven and it's all based on conjecture and hearsay. A group of pearl-clutchers thinking that group sex is icky is not a scandal. Prove that something actually happened, in a court of law - that's a scandal.

 

[dpodoll68]

I agree 100%. Good riddance.

I wonder, do the well wishers think what he did fits within the bounds of the culture they'd like to see at the u of m and in particular in the football program? Do they think he did nothing wrong?

I couldn't care less what people do in the privacy of their bedroom - so long as it's consensual. We don't know whether any of them did anything wrong - that is indeed the point. For some of you, her word trumps everyone else's, and for many of us the very notion is complete nonsense. That opens up the entire world where anyone can get anyone fired, kicked off scholarship, etc., etc. because they don't like the person and proof is no longer required.

 

[Spoofin]

I agree 100%. Good riddance.

I wonder, do the well wishers think what he did fits within the bounds of the culture they'd like to see at the u of m and in particular in the football program? Do they think he did nothing wrong?

FTR - I don't think there is anything wrong with group sex if all parties are consensual. I actually think it is creepy if you care what others do in that department.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mplsbadger]

FTR - I don't think there is anything wrong with group sex if all parties are consensual. I actually think it is creepy if you care what others do in that department.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a proud libertine you are. So in this case - because we are referring to a very specific case here - you believe “all parties are consensual”. Got it.

 

[Spoofin]

What a proud libertine you are. So in this case - because we are referring to a very specific case here - you believe “all parties are consensual”. Got it.

Yes, in this case I believe all parties are consensual. Why wouldn't I? See, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Do you consider those acquitted still to be guilty because they were accused? How about those that were never even charged? Where do you draw the line?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rugger14]

Yes, in this case I believe all parties are consensual. Why wouldn't I? See, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Do you consider those acquitted still to be guilty because they were accused? How about those that were never even charged? Where do you draw the line?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once again you are confusing a possible crime that was deemed unable to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law with "consensual" and they are not even close to the same thing.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[Spoofin]

Once again you are confusing a possible crime that was deemed unable to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law with "consensual" and they are not even close to the same thing.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

No confusion here. I get the difference. I assume you know that the burden to charge a crime is far below that of beyond a reasonable doubt - and in fact, below the burden of the EOAA process. In any event, when was non-consensual proven? Believe what you want, but the EOAA sham should not be a basis for anything. Hell, it wanted to punish a kid that wasn't even there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

As far as I know, Ray Buford was never charged with a crime. He deserves the same opportunities as any other law abiding citizen. He has already paid the penalty of being tried in the kangaroo court at UMN. It's time he was given another chance. Good for New Mexico State, giving the kid a chance to start anew. I'm sure Aggievision will find a spot for him in a tire commercial. [emoji41]

 

[rugger14]

No confusion here. I get the difference. I assume you know that the burden to charge a crime is far below that of beyond a reasonable doubt - and in fact, below the burden of the EOAA process. In any event, when was non-consensual proven? Believe what you want, but the EOAA sham should not be a basis for anything. Hell, it wanted to punish a kid that wasn't even there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you really pretending to believe that they would charge this at PC? Not a chance...

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[mplsbadger]

Yes, in this case I believe all parties are consensual. Why wouldn't I? See, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Do you consider those acquitted still to be guilty because they were accused? How about those that were never even charged? Where do you draw the line?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What the hell does innocent until proven guilty have to do with your personal opinion. Can’t you read the reports and form your own point of view? Do you always defer to the courts? Would you let OJ Simpson take your sister out on a date?

 

[Spoofin]

What the hell does innocent until proven guilty have to do with your personal opinion. Can’t you read the reports and form your own point of view? Do you always defer to the courts? Would you let OJ Simpson take your sister out on a date?

I read what I consider an unbiased report (Police) and what I consider a biased report (EOAA). I gave the latter the consideration I felt it deserved and formed my own point of view. When in doubt, yes, I would defer to the laws that separate our society from N Korea as a guiding force.

OJ is a convicted felon. My sister is married. Both reasons I would rather they not date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rugger14]

I read what I consider an unbiased report (Police) and what I consider a biased report (EOAA). I gave the latter the consideration I felt it deserved and formed my own point of view. When in doubt, yes, I would defer to the laws that separate our society from N Korea as a guiding force.

OJ is a convicted felon. My sister is married. Both reasons I would rather they not date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tell me why when the police investigator looked at the video on the phone he didn't seize the phone, get a warrant and do a forensic examination? He could have easily obtained a warrant for that phone.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[Spoofin]

Tell me why when the police investigator looked at the video on the phone he didn't seize the phone, get a warrant and do a forensic examination? He could have easily obtained a warrant for that phone.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

OK. We disagree. I'm not going down this road again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk