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

[Section2]

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.

www.tonsofgangbangs.com
Watch this and then call the police.

 

[GophersInIowa]

The three videos lasted for no more than 2 or 3 minutes of the approximately 90 minutes of group sex. What was happening the rest of the time? The girl had the legal right to tell the players to stop at any time. How many posters believe that any of the players would have stopped if she asked them to stop?

I can't let this question slide without anyone noticing. This says a lot about you. It's obvious you think most (maybe all) young men can't control themselves.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I love that according to so many posters here, 90 seconds of a phone video that nobody has ever seen equates to whatever happened over the other 95% of the experience to have been consensual.
Mostly because these guys show so much potential as future upperclassman contributors on the team. Or because they are scared at the uncertain future of how men chase women, that is staring them in the face in 2016.
If these were 5 Joe Sixpack Human Geography majors, a vast swath of opinions would change. The partisanship here is crazy, there is so much grey area and unknown territory going on with this.

Virtually no one has said that. It does show that at least for part of the ordeal it was consensual. That is all.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I can't let this question slide without anyone noticing. This says a lot about you. It's obvious you think most (maybe all) young men can't control themselves.

Yeah, that was an absolutely vile thing for someone to say. Upnorth thinks women can't give consent and men can't stop themselves from raping people. He also thinks that he should get to decide which sexual acts are acceptable, yet he was offended when I called him a creep.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Virtually no one has said that. It does show that at least for part of the ordeal it was consensual. That is all.

These are the type of people who give power to groups like the EOAA.

If the evidence suggests a thing they don't like . . . dismiss it because it isn't 100% definitive.

No evidence is 100% definitive but logically people follow the evidence. It absolutely means that occasionally we will think guilty people are innocent and innocent people are guilty. The system CANNOT be perfect.

It is not partisanship that has led the majority of people to think a certain way, it is the weight of the evidence.
I am sure if you polled the board about whether or not OJ Simpson is a murderer, most of us would say "yes". It's not partisanship. . . it's logic. Be careful, logic can trigger these regressives. They should find a safe space where the facts and evidence aren't important like an EOAA office.

 

[Deleted_User]

These are the type of people who give power to groups like the EOAA.

If the evidence suggests a thing they don't like . . . dismiss it because it isn't 100% definitive.

No evidence is 100% definitive but logically people follow the evidence. It absolutely means that occasionally we will think guilty people are innocent and innocent people are guilty. The system CANNOT be perfect.

It is not partisanship that has led the majority of people to think a certain way, it is the weight of the evidence.
I am sure if you polled the board about whether or not OJ Simpson is a murderer, most of us would say "yes". It's not partisanship. . . it's logic. Be careful, logic can trigger these regressives. They should find a safe space where the facts and evidence aren't important like an EOAA office.

Is this really about the EOAA office? Not in my humble opinion. The people who lash out at that office are the ones with an agenda to discredit. Which, makes you Bob, suspect. Regressives? Another attack for personal gain. Will you not realize how you come across? I am the conservative one here. I appeal to the law to be the arbiter of right and wrong. I do so with my consent. What you fail to realize Bobby, is that you too have consented to the law. You just have not accepted the fact that you did without even uttering a stammering word.

 

[Gogogopher]

the police and hennepin county attorneys saw all the evidence and didnt press charges - any DA who thought this had ANY shot of going ANYWHERE wouldve snapped it up in a minute with all the ingredients for a blockbuster media show (major university, student athletes, black guys and a white girl) i mean there are a million angles to play.

they saw all that laid before them and passed - that speaks volumes

DA's like to bring cases that they win. Their are limited resources, it takes a lot of time and money to hold a trial,let alone 5 trials. I think your assumption is incorrect. Being in the news for a WINNING case is great. Being in the news on a losing case...not so much.

 

[Gogogopher]

I don't plan on watching the video but I know the police have watched it and.....no charges filed. If four black guys did NOT have video evidence of consensual sex with a white girl who later claimed she was raped they would all be in jail right now.

From what I heard only one person had video evidence. Just because the sex was consensual with one person does not make it consensual with every one else.

 

[Section2]

Yeah, that was an absolutely vile thing for someone to say. Upnorth thinks women can't give consent and men can't stop themselves from raping people. He also thinks that he should get to decide which sexual acts are acceptable, yet he was offended when I called him a creep.

as a white male, upper hates himself above all else. but at least he's a multi millionaire to take away the sting.

 

[Section2]

From what I heard only one person had video evidence. Just because the sex was consensual with one person does not make it consensual with every one else.

true. but just because there isn't video of the other 3, doesn't mean their sex was non consensual either.

 

[Section2]

DA's like to bring cases that they win. Their are limited resources, it takes a lot of time and money to hold a trial,let alone 5 trials. I think your assumption is incorrect. Being in the news for a WINNING case is great. Being in the news on a losing case...not so much.

given the high profile nature of sexual assaults on campus, I think even bringing cases that they have a reasonable chance of winning is a PR plus. So I disagree. The case is a loser. No evidence of assault, and evidence exists that it was consensual.

 

[Sportsfan24]

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

And this is why players need union representation....guilty until proven innocent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gogogopher]

I don't think those defending the program believe, like myself, that all of the 10 suspended are completely innocent, but neither are other students at party, potential recruits supervised by coaches and U of football program employees, the alleged victim, or that the program itself is innocent or especially the AD under former AD Teagues watch. They had a lot of hypocrisy especially president Kaler in hiring AD Teague, and now they are wringing their hands and trying to hold students accountable when the President himself never held himself accountable for the action of hiring Norwood Teague as athletic director.
It's the timing of the announcement, and time for the appeals not happening at least three players not involved or 1 not being in the building that is troubling. Program overall is going to suffer as is the University. Situation will just get worse before anything get's better. Another troublesome aspect of this is a board of individuals gathered evidence that seems rather one sided against a group of University students and takes the side of only one witness. I get that we do not have all of the evidence and the U and administration has facts we don't what, I don't like is that they spilled the beans to the media, about announcing the suspensions for violations of student code of conduct, and then at the same time simultaneously make a big deal about this suspension announcement and subsequent statements announced by the leadership particularly President Kaler and AD Coyle. The grandstanding in the media, the letters to potential donors citing Claeys agreed with or supported the decision, all of that could have been avoided by talking less, sending out press releases with the players pictures, or by simply stating these indefinite suspensions would have appeals heard and more evidence would be allowed to be presented by the suspended. They were already suspended twice from the football program over this incident.

Instead the University made a big deal out of suspending these players, without giving them additional time to defend themselves against these accusations. They created a media sh~!t storm and this mess by distributing press releases with these guys pictures and grandstanding about the suspension on a bully pulpit that they did not need to do, especially President Kaler and his donor letter to Football boosters. That letter bugs the crap out of me and makes him seem like he is putting himself on a pedestal when he hired Norwood Teague with bad professional judgement.

Hiding behind student privacy laws, then dragging these players reputations through the mud with press releases, and including the program pictures, yeah that seems really fair.

I think this is very interesting. We had a AD who seemed to be a serial sexual harasser and it can't have helped the program. And I think he wasn't a good AD in other ways too.

The timing of the announcements is horrible, but the Universities hands are tied. The investigation was in October, these things take time. Once they had their findings the administration couldn't say, well we are going to wait until after the bowl game. Thats just NOT and option. That's not the way it works anymore.

 

[woozee]

And this is why players need union representation....guilty until proven innocent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I definitely think kids who are just over 18 are not capable of representing themselves and make sound decisions in instances like this for sure.

They're young and still trying to figure themselves out.

Even my perspective from my early twenties to my early thirties is significantly different and I hope more mature. (I'm not holding my breath on the mature part) but I've had a dozen years of experience to form my decision making now. These guys don't really have that yet.

I agree they need some kind of help through these kind of issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[scools12]

given the high profile nature of sexual assaults on campus, I think even bringing cases that they have a reasonable chance of winning is a PR plus. So I disagree. The case is a loser. No evidence of assault, and evidence exists that it was consensual.

According to the report there is some evidence to suggest that at least portion of the incident appears to be consensual. You have no idea that the whole incident was in fact consensual. Many posters are making this conclusion based on what was reported as 90 seconds of video from a 90 minute time frame according to the alleged victim. There is no way anyone on this board unless they have all the facts and know exactly what happened can make the determination on what was consensual or what may have been non consensual.

 

[woozee]

According to the report there is some evidence to suggest that at least portion of the incident appears to be consensual. You have no idea that the whole incident was in fact consensual. Many posters are making this conclusion based on what was reported as 90 seconds of video from a 90 minute time frame according to the alleged victim. There is no way anyone on this board unless they have all the facts and know exactly what happened can make the determination on what was consensual or what may have been non consensual.

Great point and I'll add that the policy clearly states the individuals are responsible for getting clear consent. In an investigation it's up to the accused to provide that clear evidence of consent.

That's what they agreed to in their student policy's when enrolling.

We have not seen evidence from the players showing clear affirmative consent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RolGnav]

According to the report there is some evidence to suggest that at least portion of the incident appears to be consensual. You have no idea that the whole incident was in fact consensual. Many posters are making this conclusion based on what was reported as 90 seconds of video from a 90 minute time frame according to the alleged victim. There is no way anyone on this board unless they have all the facts and know exactly what happened can make the determination on what was consensual or what may have been non consensual.

No one said the whole thing was consensual, what we have said was that because she first claimed her first guy was consensual to the police, then later changed her story to that it wasn't consensual, then the guy provided a video showing that she was coherent, playful, and not in any distress thus it being consensual... making her a totally unreliable accuser.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Is this really about the EOAA office? Not in my humble opinion. The people who lash out at that office are the ones with an agenda to discredit. Which, makes you Bob, suspect. Regressives? Another attack for personal gain. Will you not realize how you come across? I am the conservative one here. I appeal to the law to be the arbiter of right and wrong. I do so with my consent. What you fail to realize Bobby, is that you too have consented to the law. You just have not accepted the fact that you did without even uttering a stammering word.

I realize that I consented to the law. Trust me, I get the law. I am sitting in a law office RIGHT NOW. I have a blog about the law .

Why do you think attacks on the EOAA come from someone with an agenda? I completely supported the suspension of these players at the beginning of the season. I completely supported the suspension of Reggie Lynch. If there was evidence of a sexual assault, I would hope they would be immediately be kicked off the team. I hope we would never recruit anyone with any history of sexual assault or harassment. So please, tell me my agenda except to tell the Emperor that he's not wearing clothes.

I have a feeling you aren't that familiar with the EOAA. They are certifiable loons. If you're bored, check out the early posts when these players were suspended. The second that I saw the EOAA was involved, I warned people. . . this is going to be crazy. They are an agenda-driven office of ideologues. I don't know how anyone could come to any other conclusion about them.

So yes, I guess my attack on them is personal? I do call them regressives. They have gone so far that they do NOT promote progressive policies.

Lastly, you do not appeal to the law to the arbiter of right and wrong. The law already decided that there wasn't enough evidence to even file a charge against these students. The accuser was so afraid of the law that she fought for immunity from a potential civil lawsuit (rare as all hell), and she took the 5th on the witness stand.

You do not seem to care about the law or facts.

 

[scools12]

given the high profile nature of sexual assaults on campus, I think even bringing cases that they have a reasonable chance of winning is a PR plus. So I disagree. The case is a loser. No evidence of assault, and evidence exists that it was consensual.

No one said the whole thing was consensual, what we have said was that because she first claimed her first guy was consensual to the police, then later changed her story to that it wasn't consensual, then the guy provided a video showing that she was coherent, playful, and not in any distress thus it being consensual... making her a totally unreliable accuser.

It reads to me as the post quoted above yours is implying the whole thing was consensual.

 

[woozee]

No one said the whole thing was consensual, what we have said was that because she first claimed her first guy was consensual to the police, then later changed her story to that it wasn't consensual, then the guy provided a video showing that she was coherent, playful, and not in any distress thus it being consensual... making her a totally unreliable accuser.

Not true at all.

The policy states:

A lack of protest, the absence of resistance and silence do not indicate consent.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Section2]

It reads to me as the post quoted above yours is implying the whole thing was consensual.

No, my post is implying that there's no evidence it is not. And the video is evidence of consent.

 

[Section2]

Great point and I'll add that the policy clearly states the individuals are responsible for getting clear consent. In an investigation it's up to the accused to provide that clear evidence of consent.

That's what they agreed to in their student policy's when enrolling.

We have not seen evidence from the players showing clear affirmative consent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So we're expecting MEN ONLY, to video tape receiving affirmative consent before engaging in sex? Even then, at ANY point, DESPITE receiving affirmative consent, a woman could at any time decide that she no longer consents, and anything that happens after that is rape. This is the path we want to go down in society?

 

[Gogogopher]

(1) The first bold statement is NOT true. You are confusing the burden needed to find guilt with a burden needed to bring criminal charges. I'll give you a hint, google "prosecutorial discretion", also google "grand jury". If you want to call it a burden, it is significantly less than BARD, probably less than a preponderance of the evidence.

(2) So you're dismissing the video, ok. You don't seem to have a vested interest in this at all.

(3) Are you implying that girls never lie about being raped?

(4) I know you feel smart when you keep bringing up "beyond a reasonable doubt", but you're missing it. I'll try to explain. . . OJ Simpson was found not guilty because the jury felt the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, charges were filed. Do you see how you're skipping a REALLY big step in criminal procedure.

For serious felonies, a prosecutor show "probable cause" to bring charges. Probable cause is a much lower standard than preponderance of the evidence.

You are 100% correct that the burden to bring charges is lower then the burden to convict. However, Prosecutors have limited resources and consider whether they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt when they decide to charge someone. That is also part of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors are not required to charge people, they also decide which charges to file.

Your OJ example is puzzling. It only shows that the prosecutor's office did not prove that OJ was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The office thought they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but they, somehow, failed to do that.

 

[woozee]

So we're expecting MEN ONLY, to video tape receiving affirmative consent before engaging in sex? Even then, at ANY point, DESPITE receiving affirmative consent, a woman could at any time decide that she no longer consents, and anything that happens after that is rape. This is the path we want to go down in society?

Men could have filed a complaint too.

Yes in many sexual events one could be in consent and as it progresses wants to stop. They should be able to stop. Anything after that is rape.

Certainly this is the policy of the U and you don't have to be a student there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Section2]

Men could have filed a complaint too.

Yes in many sexual events one could be in consent and as it progresses wants to stop. They should be able to stop. Anything after that is rape.

Certainly this is the policy of the U and you don't have to be a student there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course they should be able to stop. The point is that affirmative consent is worthless, it can be withdrawn at any time.

 

[woozee]

Of course they should be able to stop. The point is that affirmative consent is worthless, it can be withdrawn at any time.

Could be.. but remember this policy was developed to protect the U as an organization from liability and excess expenditures proving consent vs. non consent.

They're basically saying if this is brought to our attention and we investigate it's up to you to demonstrate clear affirmative consent.

The U needs to provide a safe environment for students, but at the same time they're subject to a very complex argument like the one gopherhole is doing now.

So they simply took the stance that the accused should be able to supply proof of consent.


I don't know what's a better approach. Only posting based on the written policies rather than people's "assumptions" of what the policies could read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RolGnav]

Alright, so let's teach our children to make sure they get a detailed video asking for their sexual partner's consent every 5 minutes to keep this from happening ever again.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

You are 100% correct that the burden to bring charges is lower then the burden to convict. However, Prosecutors have limited resources and consider whether they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt when they decide to charge someone. That is also part of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors are not required to charge people, they also decide which charges to file.

Your OJ example is puzzling. It only shows that the prosecutor's office did not prove that OJ was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The office thought they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but they, somehow, failed to do that.

Prosecutors have limited resources? Compared to who?

As far as their "burden" to bring charges, bringing charges is more of an art than a science. However, it is certainly lower than they only bring charges against people they feel like they have evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. In close cases, they often charge, get over the grand jury and then offer plea deals. That is especially common for sexual assaults because not filing charges in a sexual assault case can look really bad.

Sexual assault is NEVER the kind of crime that a Prosecutor would choose not charge if there was evidence.

The OJ example was only an illustration of how people generally believe things because they follow the evidence. The poster I was replying to was implying that the fact everyone believed a certain thing is proof of partisanship. My OJ example was that everyone thinks he is guilty because he obviously killed her. We don't know it (it's POSSIBLE something else happened), but the evidence clearly drives most people to that conclusion. It isn't partisanship, it's obvious. The OJ example was not meant to show a parallel to the procedural aspects of this case, just a case of the evidence driving most people to a single conclusion and not partisanship.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Alright, so let's teach our children to make sure they get a detailed video asking for their sexual partner's consent every 5 minutes to keep this from happening ever again.

Kimberly Hewitt (EOAA) advocated for consent contracts where you detail everything you consent to. So if you agree to to 7 ass smacks and you smack for an 8th time. . . sexual assault.

This is the kind of person we are dealing with.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

Kimberly Hewitt (EOAA) advocated for consent contracts where you detail everything you consent to. So if you agree to to 7 ass smacks and you smack for an 8th time. . . sexual assault.

This is the kind of person we are dealing with.

you have a link for this?