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

Donate To GopherHole
Spoofin said:
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
Click to expand...
North Korea? I wasn't seeking to imprison the guy in a work camp, I was saying that I think he engaged in dishonorable conduct and I'm glad he's not associated with the program. Relax, it's an opinion.
 

badgergopher said:
North Korea? I wasn't seeking to imprison the guy in a work camp, I was saying that I think he engaged in dishonorable conduct and I'm glad he's not associated with the program. Relax, it's an opinion.
Click to expand...

You tried to set my sister up with OJ and you want me to relax? [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rugger14 said:
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
Click to expand...

And you are confusing possible forcible rape with possible lack of affirmative consent and they are not even close to the same thing. Words matter and there is a difference.
 

badgergopher said:
North Korea? I wasn't seeking to imprison the guy in a work camp, I was saying that I think he engaged in dishonorable conduct and I'm glad he's not associated with the program. Relax, it's an opinion.
Click to expand...

eVEwxRf.jpg
 



Pompous Elitist said:
And you are confusing possible forcible rape with possible lack of affirmative consent and they are not even close to the same thing. Words matter and there is a difference.
Click to expand...
I am not confusing anything. I completely understand the difference.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 

dpodoll68 said:
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.

Since college athletes all over America have challenged their school's student disciplinary process in court most reasonable people can only assume the lawyers representing the Gopher athletes believed their clients received legal due process from the U.

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.

You know the U is absolutely NOT free to kick out anyone at any time for any reason. Why are you resorting to lies to try and make your point?

And yes, I do define it as a "scandal" when nothing is proven and it's all based on conjecture and hearsay.

You refuse to acknowledge that proof is defined differently depending on whether the case is in criminal court, civil court, or it is merely an administrative proceeding. If the evidence against the players was all based on conjecture and hearsay their lawyers would have sued the U for damages in federal court and likely obtained significant settlements for their clients. Similar suits and settlements are happening all over the country. How come the U hasn't been sued?
Click to expand...
.
 


Cruze said:
.
Click to expand...

When Pacyga gave his press conference regarding his representation of Lynch he alluded to the fact the prior lawyer had faced some significant professional/managerial pushback from his firm and/or clients (going off memory) due to the current political climate. I’d imagine that’s part of it. Another aspect is these guys very likely don’t have a pot to piss in as far as paying representation and it’s not as simple as an ambulance chaser case. Another aspect is they very likely are hopeful to move on and find success elsewhere, and/or don’t fully grasp what the consequences of the ruling entail at this time. Things can always change.
 




Has anyone ever actually beaten a dead horse? I could maybe see someone beating a horse if they didn't know it was dead, but I see no reason - other than being nuts - where someone would deliberately beat a dead horse.

And now, from wikipedia:

Flogging a dead horse (alternatively beating a dead horse, or beating a dead dog in some parts of the Anglophone world) is an idiom that means to continue a particular endeavour is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary,[1] the first recorded use of the expression in its modern sense was by the English politician and orator John Bright, referring to the Reform Act of 1867, which called for more democratic representation in Parliament. Trying to rouse Parliament from its apathy on the issue, he said in a speech, would be like trying to flog a dead horse to make it pull a load. The Oxford English Dictionary cites The Globe, 1872, as the earliest verifiable use of flogging a dead horse, where someone is said to have "rehearsed that [. . .] lively operation known as flogging a dead horse".[2]

However Jay Dillon[3] has discovered an earlier instance attributed to the same John Bright thirteen years earlier: speaking in Commons 28 March 1859, Lord Elcho (Francis Charteris, 10th Earl of Wemyss) remarked that Bright had not been "satisfied with the results of his winter campaign" and that "a saying was attributed to him [Bright] that he [had] found he was 'flogging a dead horse.'"[4]



and in closing, the wikipedia entry included a lovely picture of a man, sitting on a dead horse, in Sheboygan, Wisconsin.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Has anyone ever actually beaten a dead horse? I could maybe see someone beating a horse if they didn't know it was dead, but I see no reason - other than being nuts - where someone would deliberately beat a dead horse.

And now, from wikipedia:

Flogging a dead horse (alternatively beating a dead horse, or beating a dead dog in some parts of the Anglophone world) is an idiom that means to continue a particular endeavour is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary,[1] the first recorded use of the expression in its modern sense was by the English politician and orator John Bright, referring to the Reform Act of 1867, which called for more democratic representation in Parliament. Trying to rouse Parliament from its apathy on the issue, he said in a speech, would be like trying to flog a dead horse to make it pull a load. The Oxford English Dictionary cites The Globe, 1872, as the earliest verifiable use of flogging a dead horse, where someone is said to have "rehearsed that [. . .] lively operation known as flogging a dead horse".[2]

However Jay Dillon[3] has discovered an earlier instance attributed to the same John Bright thirteen years earlier: speaking in Commons 28 March 1859, Lord Elcho (Francis Charteris, 10th Earl of Wemyss) remarked that Bright had not been "satisfied with the results of his winter campaign" and that "a saying was attributed to him [Bright] that he [had] found he was 'flogging a dead horse.'"[4]



and in closing, the wikipedia entry included a lovely picture of a man, sitting on a dead horse, in Sheboygan, Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

WTDnnwE.gif
 

rugger14 said:
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
Click to expand...

No warrant was needed Because the Police investigator had already received consent, to due the exam, from Carlton Djam. You can read that in the the evidence section of the police report. Along with the fact there were lab results returned on the phone.
 




A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Or he's not willing to pass judgement without knowing more...
Click to expand...

Huh?

He is absolutely willing to pass judgement even though he admits to not knowing. He literally said "I don't care if he's guilty or not".

Either someone was wrongfully accused of sexual assault - Travesty
OR
Someone was sexually assaulted and the perpetrator got away with it - Absolute Travesty

The fact that he says his opinion of the situation is set REGARDLESS of that huge component is disgusting.
 

badgergopher said:
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?
Click to expand...

Read my post again (the one he is responding to), I did not wish Buford well.

I said he either did it and I do NOT wish him well - - OR he did not do it (and I don't think he has lessons to learn).

I was just saying that I think saying "I wish him well and I hope he learned his lesson" is odd.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Huh?

He is absolutely willing to pass judgement even though he admits to not knowing. He literally said "I don't care if he's guilty or not".

Either someone was wrongfully accused of sexual assault - Travesty
OR
Someone was sexually assaulted and the perpetrator got away with it - Absolute Travesty

The fact that he says his opinion of the situation is set REGARDLESS of that huge component is disgusting.
Click to expand...

This is the internet I guess..... everyone has to be right or wrong, better shake it out of them so you can yell at them if need be...
 

fraternity2017 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are unable to follow simple logic.

You said that it didn't matter to you whether or not he was guilty.

Here is where I stand:
If he is guilty, he should never see the light of day. He shouldn't get a second chance. He shouldn't play football. He should be locked in a cell.

If he is NOT guilty, his life was ruined because of this.

YOUR STANCE:
It does not matter if he was guilty or not.

So you are fine with a perfectly innocent person being kicked out of school and accused of sexual assault. READ THIS AGAIN. If he is not guilty, you are fine with a perfectly innocent person being accused and publicly condemned for committing a sexual assault.

Again, that's a big IF either way and I have no idea what's true or not. However, to me, that "IF" is the entire discussion. For you, it is irrelevant because you lack any moral conviction.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Again, that's a big IF either way and I have no idea what's true or not. However, to me, that "IF" is the entire discussion. For you, it is irrelevant because you lack any moral conviction.
Click to expand...

Moral conviction drips off every word in fraternity 2017's post. I don't know him but I am guessing he is morally opposed to:

- group sex without the consent of the female;

- group sex where the female is too intoxicated to give her consent;

- group sex where the female is pressured by one or more participants to give her consent;

- group sex where the female consents to sex with some but not all of the participants;

- group sex where the female consents and later withdraws her consent to one or more participants;

- group sex where the female does not consent to being watched by non-participants;

- group sex where the female does not consent to being photographed by non-participants;

- group sex where the female does not consent to photographs sent or posted on the internet for the entire world to see.

All the above activities were at issue in the Gopher gang bang scandal. Much of what happened might not have been a crime but could have been a violation of the U's student code of conduct. There was plenty of evidence to support code of conduct violations including statements from some of the football players who were in the apartment that night. Only one of the ten players was never in the apartment. The player who wasn't there was accused of lying to investigators and participating in a conspiracy with other players to obstruct the investigation.

Those who don't agree the alleged victim deserved the opportunity to file a complaint against a fellow student and have a hearing before the U's Campus Committee on Student Behavior are on the wrong side of history. They are dinosaurs whose time is fast coming to an end. If they haven't learned anything from the events of the last 12 months then they are beyond saving. Women all over America are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore.
 

Cruze - How much moral conviction does it take to assume guilt and then justify it by saying things that even the girl didn't claim?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

These people are out of their gourds.

Bottom line is this: prejudice in any sort of legal or disciplinary hearing is not ideal. The very loud and vocal group of activists want to simply assume all accused are guilty. They don't care what happens with the innocent, however few or many there are. It's sad and dangerous. And it will *no doubt* precipitate a possibly equally ridiculous and nonsensical countermovement that could lead to things like...I don't know, DJT becoming the candidate and the president.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Either someone was wrongfully accused of sexual assault - Travesty
OR
Someone was sexually assaulted and the perpetrator got away with it - Absolute Travesty
Click to expand...

This exactly. It sucks and none of us know what really happened. We can have our opinions but we were not there that night. If everyone involved had a chance for a do-over of that night it would not happen again.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk
 

Cruze said:
Moral conviction drips off every word in fraternity 2017's post. I don't know him but I am guessing he is morally opposed to:

- group sex without the consent of the female; This doesn't matter to him, he said he doesn't care if it was consensual or not.

- group sex where the female is too intoxicated to give her consent;This doesn't matter to him, he said he doesn't care if it was consensual or not

- group sex where the female is pressured by one or more participants to give her consent; This doesn't matter to him, he said he doesn't care if it was consensual or not

- group sex where the female consents to sex with some but not all of the participants;This doesn't matter to him, he said he doesn't care if it was consensual or not

- group sex where the female consents and later withdraws her consent to one or more participants; This doesn't matter to him, he said he doesn't care if it was consensual or not

- group sex where the female does not consent to being watched by non-participants; This doesn't matter to him, he said he doesn't care if it was consensual or not

- group sex where the female does not consent to being photographed by non-participants; This doesn't matter to him, he said he doesn't care if it was consensual or not.

- group sex where the female does not consent to photographs sent or posted on the internet for the entire world to see.This doesn't matter to him, he doesn't care if it was consensual or not.

All the above activities were at issue in the Gopher gang bang scandal. Much of what happened might not have been a crime everything that you described above would be a crimebut could have been a violation of the U's student code of conduct More importantly, it would have been a crimeThere was plenty of evidence to support code of conduct violations including statements from some of the football players who were in the apartment that night. Only one of the ten players was never in the apartment. The player who wasn't there was accused of lying to investigators and participating in a conspiracy with other players to obstruct the investigation.

Those who don't agree the alleged victim deserved the opportunity to file a complaint against a fellow student and have a hearing before the U's Campus Committee on Student Behavior are on the wrong side of history.Literally no one thinks this. Everyone agrees she had the right to file her complaint. They are dinosaurs whose time is fast coming to an end. If they haven't learned anything from the events of the last 12 months then they are beyond saving. Women all over America are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore.Did you just point to the last 12 months and as proof to people being on the wrong side of history?
Click to expand...

You really can't be this stupid. Re-read my post and then re-read his. He said that he doesn't care if it was consensual or NOT. He doesn't care. It doesn't change his opinion of what should happen here. I'll address your post, one-by-one so that it can sink in a little.

My post said that if they lacked consent (see your tirade up top), he should be thrown in jail and I don't care if he ever sees the light of the day. IF HE LACKED CONSENT. I have no way of knowing if he did or did not.

Now, your post immediately assumes it was sexual assault (let's skip over what that says about you), but the premise of your post is sexual assault is bad. All of the scenarios you listed described acts that are non-consensual. You are going on and on about how bad sexual assault is and you're preaching to the choir. We. . . all. . .agree. ALL OF US. You're not some white knight who is going out on a limb for unpopular but just cause. This post was the equivalent of saying "You know what? I'm not afraid to say it, Hitler wasn't a great guy."

We all agree - sexual assault is horrific and if any of the scenarios happened to the victim in this case (I don't have the hubris to assume I know either way), he should never play again. If she was sexually assaulted, it matters to me and it would shape my opinion and thoughts of Ray Buford. They'd shape yours too. They would not shape his. He said so.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
You really can't be this stupid. Re-read my post and then re-read his. He said that he doesn't care if it was consensual or NOT. He doesn't care. It doesn't change his opinion of what should happen here. I'll address your post, one-by-one so that it can sink in a little.

My post said that if they lacked consent (see your tirade up top), he should be thrown in jail and I don't care if he ever sees the light of the day. IF HE LACKED CONSENT. I have no way of knowing if he did or did not.

Now, your post immediately assumes it was sexual assault (let's skip over what that says about you), but the premise of your post is sexual assault is bad. All of the scenarios you listed described acts that are non-consensual. You are going on and on about how bad sexual assault is and you're preaching to the choir. We. . . all. . .agree. ALL OF US. You're not some white knight who is going out on a limb for unpopular but just cause. This post was the equivalent of saying "You know what? I'm not afraid to say it, Hitler wasn't a great guy."

We all agree - sexual assault is horrific and if any of the scenarios happened to the victim in this case (I don't have the hubris to assume I know either way), he should never play again. If she was sexually assaulted, it matters to me and it would shape my opinion and thoughts of Ray Buford. They'd shape yours too. They would not shape his. He said so.
Click to expand...

I am offended by this comment.

Yours truly,

Eva Braun
 

Anytime hitler is brought up in an argument that argument loses all value
 






You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom