So many people r saying it was consensual, what about this?

Donate To GopherHole

Here is an example of the sentiment out there (from...the Strib). People are full of biases, prejudices, and discriminate against others for all manner of reasons. What's missing is any sense of fairness, objectivity, proof of guilt. They don't like person X because of Y, so surely Z occurred (because they are nasty players, men, mexicans, blacks, white males, russians, teenagers, democrats, republicans).

Everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath.


−
Avatar
DRA • 4 hours ago
Football is pretty much a disgusting sport played by disgusting people. By middle school and beyond our youth are brainwashed into believing a bunch of BS. Criminal behavior at the high school, college, and pro levels is allowed. The hits and injuries are terrible yet condoned by the various leagues and authorities. And as taxpayers, we pay for the insanity at every level. Our society should be ashamed.

1 • Reply•Share ›

Avatar
DRA DRA • 4 hours ago
Furthermore, what is right or ok about a woman in a room with a line of guys outside the door waiting in line to have a turn. No one associated with the deal has an ounce of character. Best thing would be for the Holiday Bowl folks to pull the invite tomorrow and go find another criminal organization(team) to play other than the Gophers.
2 • Reply•Share ›
 

csom_1991 said:
If you rape someone in a criminally provable way - you go to jail. If you hurt the brand of an 'employer' through pure stupidity, you should lose the right to represent that brand and institution - which is what has happened thus far.

That said - for the University or anyone else to use the term 'rape' or 'sexual assault' is just plain out wrong and they should be sued for this in the absence of a conviction. They should simply say that the students violated the honor code and tarnished the brand and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

The problem here is the fetish of postmodernism...to label milder acts in a spectrum with the most extreme term possible.

The Yale basketball player had frequent sex with a coed and one night ended in an argument. He becomes a rapist...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/sports/ncaabasketball/jack-montague-yale-rape-lawsuit.html?_r=0
 

GoldenRodents said:
The problem here is the fetish of postmodernism...to label milder acts in a spectrum with the most extreme term possible.
Click to expand...

Similar to the "Mattress girl" from NYU? She texts a dude repeatedly about doing anal - they hook up and does the 2-hole - they exchange some friendly texts after, etc - and she then changes her mind and claims she was raped. She is now dragging his name through the mud while carrying around a mattress strapped to her back around campus. The feminism thing has swung WAY too far.
 

Hates Monikers said:
Everybody has acknowledged from the start at this was a he-said she-said case. If it's as cut and dried as the article makes it appear, there would've been charges. She initially said the sex with Djam was consensual, for example.

It doesn't mean she's making anything up and the guys are innocent. It's just not that clear.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It isn't a "he said she said" case when a rape kit and police investigation occurred. There is evidence of sex having occurred. And, there is a report from the victim that it was not consensual. Here is the legal standard on consent, the consenter is the one who has the most say in whether there was consent. Nobody else gets to determine it. You may disagree and argue specific points, but the consent either exists or it didn't. In this case, it didn't and nobody has offered evidence that it didn't happen that way.
 


Dean S said:
It isn't a "he said she said" case when a rape kit and police investigation occurred. There is evidence of sex having occurred. And, there is a report from the victim that it was not consensual. Here is the legal standard on consent, the consenter is the one who has the most say in whether there was consent. Nobody else gets to determine it. You may disagree and argue specific points, but the consent either exists or it didn't. In this case, it didn't and nobody has offered evidence that it didn't happen that way.
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous.
 


csom_1991 said:
If you rape someone in a criminally provable way - you go to jail. If you hurt the brand of an 'employer' through pure stupidity, you should lose the right to represent that brand and institution - which is what has happened thus far.

That said - for the University or anyone else to use the term 'rape' or 'sexual assault' is just plain out wrong and they should be sued for this in the absence of a conviction. They should simply say that the students violated the honor code and tarnished the brand and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Due process, double jeopardy and the right to know what you are being punished for. The U doesn't believe any of things apply to to their student athletes.[emoji15]

This is what incompetent leadership looks like.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 




Staying away from the he said/she said, did they/didn't they and the wow that is gross and disgusting stuff...I maintain the issue here is due process, fairness and openness.

Our legal system has many checks and balances, is an open process with legal representation, cross examination and trained investigators and prosecutors with multiple levels of process.

The EoAA is none of those things. Now the EoAA can't put you in jail, but expulsion, one year suspensions, destroying people's reputations and frankly, the tyrannical threat of career damage among the admin including job loss and the black balling that can occur within their ranks...these people are McCarthyesque in their power and need to be brought into the light.

Sadly, it will take many lawsuits and tens of millions in settlement before the cost of having a transparent process with accountability and fairness be implemented because right now we all live in a PC world and even electing Donald Trump hasn't changed that.
 

Dean S said:
It isn't a "he said she said" case when a rape kit and police investigation occurred. There is evidence of sex having occurred. And, there is a report from the victim that it was not consensual. Here is the legal standard on consent, the consenter is the one who has the most say in whether there was consent. Nobody else gets to determine it. You may disagree and argue specific points, but the consent either exists or it didn't. In this case, it didn't and nobody has offered evidence that it didn't happen that way.
Click to expand...

You mean except for the 3 videos of her consenting and the statements by 4 other witnesses.
 

Dean S said:
It isn't a "he said she said" case when a rape kit and police investigation occurred. There is evidence of sex having occurred. And, there is a report from the victim that it was not consensual. Here is the legal standard on consent, the consenter is the one who has the most say in whether there was consent. Nobody else gets to determine it. You may disagree and argue specific points, but the consent either exists or it didn't. In this case, it didn't and nobody has offered evidence that it didn't happen that way.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm, the professional investigator ls don't agree with you. I would also like to know why a judge allowed the women to effectively suspend these players for three games earlier in the season?

"Five of the 10 University of Minnesota football players suspended from the team in the fallout of a student’s sexual assault allegation now face expulsion from school, the players’ attorney, Lee Hutton, said Wednesday night.

Four other players face a one-year suspension and another could get probation stemming from the Sept. 2 incident. The school discipline comes weeks after a criminal investigation resulted in no arrests or charges.

A woman’s claim that she was assaulted in the early morning hours after the Gophers’ first game, documented through police reports and court testimony, ultimately led to an investigation by the school’s office for Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action.

Hutton said the EOAA recommended expulsion for Ray Buford, Carlton Djam, KiAnte Hardin, Dior Johnson and Tamarion Johnson; one-year suspensions from the university for Seth Green, Kobe McCrary, Mark Williams and Antoine Winfield Jr., and probation for Antonio Shenault.

Some of the players were directly accused in the alleged sexual assault; the involvement of others is unclear. Hutton, who is representing all 10 players, said he is working on their appeals.

Gophers players unified over suspensions on Twitter: #WeHadEnough
U can take action in sexual assault cases, even if police or prosecutors don't
University President Eric Kaler wrote in a letter to donors Wednesday that football coach Tracy Claeys, with athletic director Mark Coyle’s support, decided to suspend the players from the team ahead of its Dec. 27 bowl game in San Diego.

“The need to take actions like this is incredibly disappointing. Unfortunately, these types of situations are difficult for the University because we are limited in what we can say,” Kaler wrote. “While we strive to be transparent in all that we do, the fact is that, under the law, our students have privacy rights that we value and respect.”


Hutton confirmed that all the suspensions stem from the incident in a Dinkytown apartment after the team’s season-opening victory over Oregon State. After the complaint was first reported, the Gophers suspended four players — Buford, Hardin, Dior Johnson and Tamarion Johnson — for an unspecified violation of team rules. Those players missed three games while police investigated.

They were reinstated when the Hennepin County attorney declined to press charges. The Star Tribune initially did not specify the nature of the investigation because the players were not charged.

The university’s statement said: “Due to privacy restrictions relating to student educational data, there is nothing further the University can share.”

According to police reports and the student’s testimony, the student, who is part of the gameday operations at TCF Bank Stadium, drank five to six shots of vodka on the night of Sept. 1 before heading out of her apartment with her roommates toward Dinkytown.

She then went with two football players to the Radius, an off-campus apartment building. Though she said her memory was spotty, she recalled Djam in a common area asking her to go up to his apartment. She would later testify that she had no intention of having sex.

She said she felt panicked when Djam walked her into his bedroom, but later testified that he never pushed her, prevented her from leaving or said anything threatening to her.

Asked during a court hearing why she didn’t leave, she said, “I felt scared, trapped, isolated with someone I felt had power over me.”

At some point, they began having sex. The police report said “she doesn’t have a recall about how the sex acts started.”

After Djam, others followed. She told police she saw a line of men waiting to take turns.


“I was removing myself from my mind and my body to help myself from the pain and experience going on,” she testified.

She estimated there were at least a dozen men. “I was shoving people off of me,” she testified. “They kept ignoring my pleas for help. Anything I said they laughed. They tried to cheer people on.”

About an hour and a half later, she said, she was allowed to leave. She called her sister, who told her to go to the hospital immediately, where she was given a rape exam, while her mother made a report to Minneapolis police. The next day, an officer sat down with the student, who described her version of what happened.

On Sept. 8, police investigators Eric Faulconer and Matthew Wente interviewed Djam. He acknowledged having sex with the woman, but was adamant that it was consensual. As proof, he played them three separate videos, totaling about 90 seconds, taken that morning.

During an 8-second clip, the woman “appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,” Wente wrote in his report. After viewing two additional videos, he wrote “the sexual contact appears entirely consensual.”

Police later interviewed four other players, who each said the sex was consensual.

On Sept. 30, Wente sent the investigation to the Hennepin County Attorney’s office for possible prosecution. In it, he wrote about the videos, “at no time does she indicate that she is in distress or that the contact is unwelcome or nonconsensual.”

On Oct. 3 the attorney’s office announced there would be no charges.

Afterward, the alleged victim filed a restraining order against six of the players, asking that they be made to stay away from the stadium. After a judge granted the orders, the woman dropped a petition against one of the players.

Hutton, the players’ attorney, appealed, setting up a hearing where the woman testified for several hours. The hearing eventually ended in a settlement — the restraining order would be dropped, but the players still had to stay 20 feet away from the woman and have no contact with her. The two sides also agreed that neither would be able to file a lawsuit.

“I’m glad this is over,” the student read in a statement after the hearing. “This has never been about punishing anyone, I just wanted to feel safe. Because of this resolution that we came to, now I do.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Dean S said:
It isn't a "he said she said" case when a rape kit and police investigation occurred. There is evidence of sex having occurred. And, there is a report from the victim that it was not consensual. Here is the legal standard on consent, the consenter is the one who has the most say in whether there was consent. Nobody else gets to determine it. You may disagree and argue specific points, but the consent either exists or it didn't. In this case, it didn't and nobody has offered evidence that it didn't happen that way.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I'll take the state's side on whether or not consent occurred, not yours.
 



Dean S said:
It isn't a "he said she said" case when a rape kit and police investigation occurred. There is evidence of sex having occurred. And, there is a report from the victim that it was not consensual. Here is the legal standard on consent, the consenter is the one who has the most say in whether there was consent. Nobody else gets to determine it. You may disagree and argue specific points, but the consent either exists or it didn't. In this case, it didn't and nobody has offered evidence that it didn't happen that way.
Click to expand...

In this genderless society where everything is equalized - can you explain why the female would be labeled the consenter? I fully understand why the female is the one who gives consent in traditional society but not in this society where gender is out the door. The EEOA and PC folks cannot have it both ways- or should not be able to.
 

Dean S said:
It isn't a "he said she said" case when a rape kit and police investigation occurred. There is evidence of sex having occurred. And, there is a report from the victim that it was not consensual. Here is the legal standard on consent, the consenter is the one who has the most say in whether there was consent. Nobody else gets to determine it. You may disagree and argue specific points, but the consent either exists or it didn't. In this case, it didn't and nobody has offered evidence that it didn't happen that way.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm, the professional investigators don't agree with you. I would also like to know why a judge allowed the women to effectively suspend these players for three games earlier in the season?

"Five of the 10 University of Minnesota football players suspended from the team in the fallout of a student’s sexual assault allegation now face expulsion from school, the players’ attorney, Lee Hutton, said Wednesday night.

Four other players face a one-year suspension and another could get probation stemming from the Sept. 2 incident. The school discipline comes weeks after a criminal investigation resulted in no arrests or charges.

A woman’s claim that she was assaulted in the early morning hours after the Gophers’ first game, documented through police reports and court testimony, ultimately led to an investigation by the school’s office for Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action.

Hutton said the EOAA recommended expulsion for Ray Buford, Carlton Djam, KiAnte Hardin, Dior Johnson and Tamarion Johnson; one-year suspensions from the university for Seth Green, Kobe McCrary, Mark Williams and Antoine Winfield Jr., and probation for Antonio Shenault.

Some of the players were directly accused in the alleged sexual assault; the involvement of others is unclear. Hutton, who is representing all 10 players, said he is working on their appeals.

Gophers players unified over suspensions on Twitter: #WeHadEnough
U can take action in sexual assault cases, even if police or prosecutors don't
University President Eric Kaler wrote in a letter to donors Wednesday that football coach Tracy Claeys, with athletic director Mark Coyle’s support, decided to suspend the players from the team ahead of its Dec. 27 bowl game in San Diego.

“The need to take actions like this is incredibly disappointing. Unfortunately, these types of situations are difficult for the University because we are limited in what we can say,” Kaler wrote. “While we strive to be transparent in all that we do, the fact is that, under the law, our students have privacy rights that we value and respect.”


Hutton confirmed that all the suspensions stem from the incident in a Dinkytown apartment after the team’s season-opening victory over Oregon State. After the complaint was first reported, the Gophers suspended four players — Buford, Hardin, Dior Johnson and Tamarion Johnson — for an unspecified violation of team rules. Those players missed three games while police investigated.

They were reinstated when the Hennepin County attorney declined to press charges. The Star Tribune initially did not specify the nature of the investigation because the players were not charged.

The university’s statement said: “Due to privacy restrictions relating to student educational data, there is nothing further the University can share.”

According to police reports and the student’s testimony, the student, who is part of the gameday operations at TCF Bank Stadium, drank five to six shots of vodka on the night of Sept. 1 before heading out of her apartment with her roommates toward Dinkytown.

She then went with two football players to the Radius, an off-campus apartment building. Though she said her memory was spotty, she recalled Djam in a common area asking her to go up to his apartment. She would later testify that she had no intention of having sex.

She said she felt panicked when Djam walked her into his bedroom, but later testified that he never pushed her, prevented her from leaving or said anything threatening to her.

Asked during a court hearing why she didn’t leave, she said, “I felt scared, trapped, isolated with someone I felt had power over me.”

At some point, they began having sex. The police report said “she doesn’t have a recall about how the sex acts started.”

After Djam, others followed. She told police she saw a line of men waiting to take turns.


“I was removing myself from my mind and my body to help myself from the pain and experience going on,” she testified.

She estimated there were at least a dozen men. “I was shoving people off of me,” she testified. “They kept ignoring my pleas for help. Anything I said they laughed. They tried to cheer people on.”

About an hour and a half later, she said, she was allowed to leave. She called her sister, who told her to go to the hospital immediately, where she was given a rape exam, while her mother made a report to Minneapolis police. The next day, an officer sat down with the student, who described her version of what happened.

On Sept. 8, police investigators Eric Faulconer and Matthew Wente interviewed Djam. He acknowledged having sex with the woman, but was adamant that it was consensual. As proof, he played them three separate videos, totaling about 90 seconds, taken that morning.

During an 8-second clip, the woman “appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,” Wente wrote in his report. After viewing two additional videos, he wrote “the sexual contact appears entirely consensual.”

Police later interviewed four other players, who each said the sex was consensual.

On Sept. 30, Wente sent the investigation to the Hennepin County Attorney’s office for possible prosecution. In it, he wrote about the videos, “at no time does she indicate that she is in distress or that the contact is unwelcome or nonconsensual.”

On Oct. 3 the attorney’s office announced there would be no charges.

Afterward, the alleged victim filed a restraining order against six of the players, asking that they be made to stay away from the stadium. After a judge granted the orders, the woman dropped a petition against one of the players.

Hutton, the players’ attorney, appealed, setting up a hearing where the woman testified for several hours. The hearing eventually ended in a settlement — the restraining order would be dropped, but the players still had to stay 20 feet away from the woman and have no contact with her. The two sides also agreed that neither would be able to file a lawsuit.

“I’m glad this is over,” the student read in a statement after the hearing. “This has never been about punishing anyone, I just wanted to feel safe. Because of this resolution that we came to, now I do.”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24 said:
Mmmmmm, the professional investigators don't agree with you. I would also like to know why a judge allowed the women to effectively suspend these players for three games earlier in the season?
Click to expand...

Your post was a total waste of time, 24. The criminal case was resolved months ago when the DA declined to prosecute. The only issue that matters now is the Student Code of Conduct which cover many aspects of student behavior that are not crimes. Nobody on this board knows the evidence the U used to suspend the players. That may or may not come out during the appeal process. The people most likely to divulge it will be the players or their attorney. But they will only give us half the story.

The U is is apparently prevented by privacy laws from saying anything about the players conduct and the evidence they used. My guess is that a large part of the evidence will have nothing to do with whether or not the girl consented to the sex.

The Code of Conduct covers the players activities both before and after the sex was happening. Among other things. it covers the use of alcohol, drugs, harrassment of the victim, lying to the police and the U's investigators about where they were, what they were doing, and who else was involved, and violation of any Athletics Department and football team policies and rules about player conduct.

It bears repeating. None of us know what evidence the U used against the 10 players. But it is a safe bet that the large majority of it had nothing to do with whether or not the girl consented to the sex.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
You mean except for the 3 videos of her consenting and the statements by 4 other witnesses.
Click to expand...

The video cannot prove intent. I can have 4 brutes in a room with a video camera on me while moments before they say, "if you don't agree to this..." And, smile while you say it....

As for the 4 other witnesses, for every witness statement, there is a value judgment of its veracity. Just because 4 people speak does not mean it is more true than the 1 person who spoke or did not speak.

I will argue that a person cannot give consent to 4 men simultaneously in a room. There is a coercive affect of the presence of 4 men. It is difficult enough for women to express the word "no" to a single man who they know.
 


Criminal issue is totally different

Criminal conduct and burden of proof are completely different than student code of conduct violations and burden of proof. People on here act like the fact that the players were not prosecuted criminally exonerates them from code of conduct issues. Every situation is a he-said, she-said, but criminal conduct is harder to prove due to rules of evidence. For example, if a male student had 4 separate women allege sexual assault in 4 totally separate incidents do you think that would be important? Logically, you would think it is, but criminally, it is not. You have to take each one on its own merits and cannot allow the other allegations in as evidence in another case, but that does not control code of conduct scenarios. Look at Bill Cosby’s situation as an example of someone that could get away for years with serial rape. He has not been convicted of anything yet and any single incident may sound far-fetched, but together, they create a pretty damning picture. However, you cannot put that into evidence.

Therein lies the issue. How do you get a serial sexual assaulter off of your campus, even if the police will not criminally prosecute them for any individual incident? One way is you impose a code of conduct to capture it where you can take into account multiple allegations and the language of the code may include one-time offenders and ensnare the innocent as well if a witness is untruthful.

Again, it is a he-said, she-said situation and not an easy situation to judge, but someone has to judge. However, it is totally different than a criminal proceeding.
 

Dean S said:
The video cannot prove intent. I can have 4 brutes in a room with a video camera on me while moments before they say, "if you don't agree to this..." And, smile while you say it....

As for the 4 other witnesses, for every witness statement, there is a value judgment of its veracity. Just because 4 people speak does not mean it is more true than the 1 person who spoke or did not speak.

I will argue that a person cannot give consent to 4 men simultaneously in a room. There is a coercive affect of the presence of 4 men. It is difficult enough for women to express the word "no" to a single man who they know.
Click to expand...

Now you have moved beyond concerned father to raving zeolot who will say anything to support his conclusion. The cops (which I suspect you are one) watched the videos and stated they saw no coercion and saw consent. The DA saw the tapes and agreed by not pressing charges. Now you, who have not seen the tapes, make up a false narrative to support your continued idiocy. And maybe your daughter is incapable and waif like and can't say no, but the women who I know (and this was a 21 year old woman not a little girl) can say no quit well. I support law enforcement and their professional experience and the DA and his/her experience when they chose not to press charges against these young men based on the evidence...that is due process. This EoAA is not due process by any stretch of the imagination.
 

KillerGopherFan said:
I appreciate that the players believe in their teammates. BUT, everyone should know that gang sex, consensual or not, is completely F'ng stupid and just begging for trouble. A girl may stupidly get herself in a situation that she can't control, but if at any point, even after the fact, she decides that she was raped, the male participants are doomed.
Coach Kill used to constantly remind players to stay out of trouble, make wise decisions, etc. If Claeys wasn't doing the same, it's on him too. And, the parents of these players for not telling their kids that situations like this occur and to be smart.
IMO, Claeys is trying to play it both ways, say yes to his boss and support his players. Claeys is in way over his head. He wasn't prepared, may never have been, to be a head coach.
The administration's hands are tied. They legally can't give all the details to satisfy the fans and they will not be dictated to by student-athletes, no matter how altruistic their motives.
Click to expand...

This is the best post I've read. I visited with my freshman daughter about it yesterday, and she said the prevailing opinion among the classmates she's talked to is that they feel betrayed by the players for taking this kind of risk and making this mess possible.
 

Dean S said:
It isn't a "he said she said" case when a rape kit and police investigation occurred. There is evidence of sex having occurred. And, there is a report from the victim that it was not consensual. Here is the legal standard on consent, the consenter is the one who has the most say in whether there was consent. Nobody else gets to determine it. You may disagree and argue specific points, but the consent either exists or it didn't. In this case, it didn't and nobody has offered evidence that it didn't happen that way.
Click to expand...

ok, now I know you are just trolling.
 

Hates Monikers said:
Everybody has acknowledged from the start at this was a he-said she-said case. If it's as cut and dried as the article makes it appear, there would've been charges. She initially said the sex with Djam was consensual, for example.

It doesn't mean she's making anything up and the guys are innocent. It's just not that clear.

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Right, but under the student code (Which is what they are being judged on for the university investigation ) it explicitly says that it's the responsibility of a individual to acquire clear evidence of consent:

From the policy — It is the responsibility of each person who wishes to engage in the sexual activity to obtain consent.

https://policy.umn.edu/operations/sexualassault-appa

Thus it is the responsibility of the accused to demonstrate that there was clear and unambiguous affirmitive consent. The university has a policy that they will investigate any inquiries from accusers as long as it's done in good will.

Unlike Criminal charges where our judicial system must provide evidence of guilt under MN Statutes. The policies at the U of M do not need to prove guilt.

They are merely required to:

1. Conduct a prompt, fair and impartial investigation, and make recommendations for action, as appropriate (in many cases the police may conduct the investigation) including where the accused is a student on the Twin Cities campus only.

2. Proceed independently of any action taken in the criminal or civil courts, as determined on a case-by-case basis. Criminal court proceedings are not a substitute for University procedures.

3. Inform both alleged victim survivor and accused person of the outcome. If the person accused is a student, report the incident to the campus office responsible for administering Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code and conduct a thorough investigation of the report.

https://policy.umn.edu/operations/sexualassault-proc01

Notice how in these procedures there is no statement of proving guilt (like in our judicial system).

I personally believe on the affirmative consent policy if there is any ambiguity and the players can't prove otherwise then they are liable for university discipline unless they can provide evidence otherwise that there was no ambiguity.

They agreed to these policies when joining the University so currently I have little sympathy for whats going on for them. They shouldn't have been in that apartment in the first place.

Here is a goto for the entire procedure at the U. It's pretty clear cut.
https://policy.umn.edu/operations/sexualassault
 


If she was shoving them off they ignored her request to stop and it was rape but how does anyone but them know that?. Doesnt fit the video evidence exactly. It is very possible she agreed to something got taken advantage of and was in way over her head but how do you prove that?. The police felt they couldnt so I dont see how anyone else can.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Your post was a total waste of time, 24. The criminal case was resolved months ago when the DA declined to prosecute. The only issue that matters now is the Student Code of Conduct which many aspects of student behavior that are not crimes. Nobody on this board knows the evidence the U used to suspend the players. That may or may not come out during the appeal process. The people most likely to divulge it will be the players or their attorney. But they will only give us half the story.

The U is is apparently prevented by privacy laws from saying anything about the players conduct and the evidence they used. My guess is that a large part of the evidence will have nothing to do with whether or not the girl consented to the sex.

The Code of Conduct covers the players activities both before and after the sex was happening. Among other things. it covers the use of alcohol, drugs, harrassment of the victim, lying to the police and the U's investigators, and violation of any Athletics Department and football team policies and rules about player conduct.

It bears repeating. None of us know what evidence the U used against the 10 players. But it is a safe bet that the large majority of it had nothing to do with whether or not the girl consented to the sex.
Click to expand...

You continue to miss the point; the players being punished don't know either. If people keep referring back to the criminal allegations it's only because that's all that's being made public. I have personally been involved in a University investigation and I can tell you they won't share their findings. All you get is a decision. If you loose (we didn't) I can see where that may be a huge problem.

Stop using the term victim unless you are referencing the players suspended without due process.[emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The U's Code of Conduct could have been violated on multiple levels.
Subd. 4. Falsification
Subd. 7. Bullying
Subd. 8. Sexual Misconduct
Subd. 11. Illegal or Unauthorized Possession or Use of Drugs or Alcohol
Subd. 12. Providing Alcohol to Minors
Subd. 19. Violation of University Rules
Subd. 21. Persistent Violations

What is interesting to me is that Mr. Hutton is not releasing evidence that would exonerate the ten in the court of public opinion. Did he counter allegations that an underage recruit was there? Did he release information saying they were sober or there was no drug use? Did he tell us that none of these young men had ever been accused of anything before. Did he say that not one of the guys falsified anything or that there was absolutely no evidence of harassment? I haven't seen his answers to these questions but I seem to see a lot of tweets saying he is going to appeal these claims. Why can't he be more specific? Perhaps the evidence presented to the EOCC was compelling....tweets of harassment....lying to the administration...I can't say but no doubt they took drastic action and I would be more than dismayed if they had no basis to do it.
 

Speaking of only Djam's encounter, which I guess her playfulness, awareness, and lack of complaints on video which were still not enough to leave his name off the list... I suppose we should add in that Any student that has sex while intoxicated is breaking school policy. Any student that doesn't develop telepathy and or mind reading ability, that can really read a person's thoughts even though their body and their actions are showing consent, their mind could be non-consenting.
 

Dean S said:
The video cannot prove intent. I can have 4 brutes in a room with a video camera on me while moments before they say, "if you don't agree to this..." And, smile while you say it....

As for the 4 other witnesses, for every witness statement, there is a value judgment of its veracity. Just because 4 people speak does not mean it is more true than the 1 person who spoke or did not speak.

I will argue that a person cannot give consent to 4 men simultaneously in a room. There is a coercive affect of the presence of 4 men. It is difficult enough for women to express the word "no" to a single man who they know.
Click to expand...

Dean S said:
The video cannot prove intent. I can have 4 brutes in a room with a video camera on me while moments before they say, "if you don't agree to this..." And, smile while you say it....

As for the 4 other witnesses, for every witness statement, there is a value judgment of its veracity. Just because 4 people speak does not mean it is more true than the 1 person who spoke or did not speak.

I will argue that a person cannot give consent to 4 men simultaneously in a room. There is a coercive affect of the presence of 4 men. It is difficult enough for women to express the word "no" to a single man who they know.
Click to expand...

Wow. . . you think very little of women.

First - -OF COURSE THE VIDEO CAN PROVE INTENT it's just that no evidence is definitive. It is almost an impossibility. It's perfectly possible that an innocent person could be leaving a crime scene, covered in blood, holding the murder weapon. We could all imagine a scenario where that could happen to an innocent person. That does NOT mean that the blood and weapon are not evidence. The video is absolutely, 100% evidence that it was consensual. You can attack that evidence and suggest it does not tell the whole story and that's true. No piece of evidence can ever tell the entire story.

The video is evidence, it's very strong evidence. But no, it doesn't 100% guarantee that it was consensual. That said, it's considerably stronger evidence than anything that has been suggested by the other side. You are choosing not to weigh the evidence (that's where the term comes from), rather you are dismissing actual evidence because it is not impossibly perfect.

As far as the four people - - Yes, you're right. However, you are automatically assuming that the 1 person is telling the truth. You are REFUSING to weigh the evidence.

You would argue that a person CANNOT give consent to 4 men simultaneously? What? OF course they can. You are treating women like absolute children. Children and animals cannot give consent because they aren't grownups. It's nice to see that you think women are intellectually on the same level as children 15 and under and animals.
 

RolGnav said:
Speaking of only Djam's encounter, which I guess her playfulness, awareness, and lack of complaints on video which were still not enough to leave his name off the list... I suppose we should add in that Any student that has sex while intoxicated is breaking school policy. Any student that doesn't develop telepathy and or mind reading ability, that can really read a person's thoughts even though their body and their actions are showing consent, their mind could be non-consenting.
Click to expand...

Yeah...this is scary. I haven't been in college in a while but certainly had a fun time while there. So many instances where there was clear consent but could easily be revised post event to blame on alcohol or pot and claim no consent and it would have been he said/she said.

So glad I am no longer in school and don't have to worry about this crap...feel bad for all involved.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom