Tweets about the players' trial regarding restraining orders...

I wasn't going to say it, but since you brought that dynamic into it, I've always thought it smacks of homoeroticism to want to watch your friends or have them watch you...even more so to share the same girl. I guess these young men don't agree.

The only reason I brought it up is I'm sure it doesn't help the situation. Peer pressure, getting egged on by your buddies etc. There's no excuse for it no matter what of course.
 

Was it or wasn't it? If it wasn't, it's rape and a crime. There should be a restraining order and all sorts of arrests should be made.. If it was, then no crime was committed, and no restraining order should have been even considered. There's no such thing as a restraining order because you're embarassing of what you did willingly. What a world.

I'm going to skip over the incident itselt. Regarding the R.O., wasn't the claim that someone threatened her after investigation was dismissed/ dropped? In other words wasn't the R.O. granted due to an alledged verbal threat?
 

It's under discussion. I didn't say it did or didn't happen, but it's implied in previous posts, and there's a history of it in our athletic department. Should I refrain from replying to those posts until you're satisfied with the evidence?

There is a history of it in every athletic department I would think. In this case, there isn't evidence of what you said or there would be charges. So maybe for this case you should refrain from making those types of statements as you have no evidence to back them up.
 

What is with so many of these situations where there are multiple guys with one girl at the same time? The last thing I would have wanted is my friends around while I'm with a girl.

this thread should go thru Conclusion Protocol.
 

There is a history of it in every athletic department I would think. In this case, there isn't evidence of what you said or there would be charges. So maybe for this case you should refrain from making those types of statements as you have no evidence to back them up.

In order to respond to something someone else said, I don't need evidence of a crime; I only need evidence that it was said. And it was. I hear your advice, and I'm going to ignore it. :)
 


In order to respond to something someone else said, I don't need evidence of a crime; I only need evidence that it was said. And it was. I hear your advice, and I'm going to ignore it. :)

You are making zero sense. Well done. Continue on.
 

What would one's motives be for falsely accusing rape? I know that Ray Buford Sr. said somewhere that she was embarrassed of the event that took place so afterward she went to report it. If she was embarrassed, why would she bring more attention to the situation?
 

Again, very slippery slope you are suggesting. No arrests, no charges, dismissed ROs. If they planned to release them, why would they have waited until now, especially since the ROs have been dismissed?

What slippery slope? Because I want the athletic department to have standards? Because I want the athletic department to stand for something other than win at all costs? Whether charges were filed or not is irrelevant. This incident took place, and based on what I understand, it demonstrates very poor judgement by some scholarship athletes - who like it or not, represent the U of MN.

You seem to be suggesting that you have no problem with athletes involved in a possible gang bang, or group sex, as long as no criminal charges are filed. I would like to believe that the U of M athletic department aspires to slightly higher standards. To the best of my knowledge, Brian Smith was not charged with any crime, and he was still kicked off the team.

To clarify - it's not the sex itself that disturbs me - it's the decision-making shown by the athletes who allowed themselves to wind up in a compromising situation. If you're a parent, and your kids do something stupid, it doesn't matter if no one got hurt or arrested - they still did something stupid. These players, in my opinion, did something really stupid. If an athlete shows poor decision-making off the field, it makes me question whether they will make good decisions on the field.
 

You are making zero sense. Well done. Continue on.

You are incorrect in your assumption that evidence=charges filed.

The actual courageous point of view, should a bunch of you people ever decide to take it, is to actively believe someone when they said they were a victim of this type of crime- and not throw out caveats and asterisks of evidence required. You should shift your focus. Believing a victim is different from prosecuting the offender. You do this all the time in everyday life within a wide spectrum of the rules of law. Ask yourself, why is this type of offense different for you?
 



What would one's motives be for falsely accusing rape? I know that Ray Buford Sr. said somewhere that she was embarrassed of the event that took place so afterward she went to report it. If she was embarrassed, why would she bring more attention to the situation?

the video must tell a different story.
 

This event did not happen in a vacuum. Less than a year ago, the gopher Men's basketball team was involved in an incident involving video of a sexual encounter where several people were in the room as witnesses and/or participants. As a result of that incident, several Gopher student-athletes were suspended, and one wound up leaving school.

Obviously, I don't know what coaches say to players behind closed doors, but I would be shocked if the coaches of every single athletic team at the U did not talk to their players about the previous incident, and explain the consequences of getting into this type of situation.

It's pretty damn simple: if you're a scholarship athlete, don't put yourself in questionable situations. If you wind up in a situation involving a woman, alcohol, and multiple men - AND you're a scholarship athlete, a huge alarm bell should be going off in your head saying "GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!!!!!"

I don't know exactly what happened in this new situation, but it seems reasonably clear that a group of scholarship athletes from the FB team allowed themselves to get into a situation that resulted in a criminal investigation, a restraining order being filed, and a court hearing. That - IMHO - shows very poor decision-making on their part. I don't care if this involves the best player on the team, or the worst player on the team. They deserved the suspension, and I would have no problem if the coaching staff released any of these players from their scholarships - or at the very least, made it crystal-clear to all of the players that it's zero tolerance from this point on. Get into any trouble - violate any team rule - and you're gone. If that hurts the team's performance, well, the blame is with the players. I would hope there will be some peer pressure from their teammates to stay out of trouble in the future.
Well said.
 

What slippery slope? Because I want the athletic department to have standards? Because I want the athletic department to stand for something other than win at all costs? Whether charges were filed or not is irrelevant. This incident took place, and based on what I understand, it demonstrates very poor judgement by some scholarship athletes - who like it or not, represent the U of MN.

You seem to be suggesting that you have no problem with athletes involved in a possible gang bang, or group sex, as long as no criminal charges are filed. I would like to believe that the U of M athletic department aspires to slightly higher standards. To the best of my knowledge, Brian Smith was not charged with any crime, and he was still kicked off the team.

To clarify - it's not the sex itself that disturbs me - it's the decision-making shown by the athletes who allowed themselves to wind up in a compromising situation. If you're a parent, and your kids do something stupid, it doesn't matter if no one got hurt or arrested - they still did something stupid. These players, in my opinion, did something really stupid. If an athlete shows poor decision-making off the field, it makes me question whether they will make good decisions on the field.

Surely you are not saying don't investigate, just start kicking them off the team based on allegations or accusations? Not sure that's a wise course of action. Slippery slope referred to the is zero tolerance comment for violation of any team rule, and in response to an earlier poster who who stated almost that very thing...just dismiss based on allegations or accusations.
 

You are incorrect in your assumption that evidence=charges filed.

The actual courageous point of view, should a bunch of you people ever decide to take it, is to actively believe someone when they said they were a victim of this type of crime- and not throw out caveats and asterisks of evidence required. You should shift your focus. Believing a victim is different from prosecuting the offender. You do this all the time in everyday life within a wide spectrum of the rules of law. Ask yourself, why is this type of offense different for you?

The MPR article reported she initially said it was consensual with Djam to investigators, then testified that she didn't think it was.

Listen, this is a very hot button topic and there have been way too many instances where the woman is re-victimized by the questioning of her accusation. Having said that, are you saying that we should automatically not believe the accused because, well, they've been accused?
 



What would one's motives be for falsely accusing rape? I know that Ray Buford Sr. said somewhere that she was embarrassed of the event that took place so afterward she went to report it. If she was embarrassed, why would she bring more attention to the situation?
I won't pretend to try and get inside the girls mind, false reports of rape happen fairly often, the Duke lacrosse team and UVa fraternity stories are prime examples. It's important to note that, after she was cross examined by the players counsel, her attorney quickly hammered out a deal that included the dropping of mutual civil claims.
 


What would one's motives be for falsely accusing rape? I know that Ray Buford Sr. said somewhere that she was embarrassed of the event that took place so afterward she went to report it. If she was embarrassed, why would she bring more attention to the situation?

Primary reasons are alibi, attention-seeking, and guilt. People are not all rational. I'm amazed at the very dangerous thinking on display here by Citywok, gooophers, and a few others.

A rational and balanced article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ns_why_must_be_pretend_they_never_happen.html
 

Surely you are not saying don't investigate, just start kicking them off the team based on allegations or accusations? Not sure that's a wise course of action. Slippery slope referred to the is zero tolerance comment for violation of any team rule, and in response to an earlier poster who who stated almost that very thing...just dismiss based on allegations or accusations.

SON, you're holding up quite a double standard here and siding with the irrationals.
 

Primary reasons are alibi, attention-seeking, and guilt. People are not all rational. I'm amazed at the very dangerous thinking on display here by Citywok, gooophers, and a few others.

A rational and balanced article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ns_why_must_be_pretend_they_never_happen.html

well part of the issue is this goes public and blows up on the accused when the accusation happens. Rape is one of the guilty until proven innocent type of crimes, which in itself can be incredibly damaging given the media firestorm that typically follows these cases. People will pass judgement based on the facts/opinions they have at the time and you won't convince people otherwise. Because as we all know, we are never wrong
 

I need to add revenge as one of the primary reasons for false accusations.
 


I would go as far as to say that these issues have become a sort of pseudo-religion for some. Keep the faith, against all evidence. Or sometimes they are genuine man-haters for various reasons in their past. Thankfully we still have some standard of justice and due process. The activists have started pushing for Title IX expulsions to be printed on transcripts, essentially ending their ability to get a good education. Scary stuff happening folks.
 

I would go as far as to say that these issues have become a sort of pseudo-religion for some. Keep the faith, against all evidence. Or sometimes they are genuine man-haters for various reasons in their past. Thankfully we still have some standard of justice and due process. The activists have started pushing for Title IX expulsions to be printed on transcripts, essentially ending their ability to get a good education. Scary stuff happening folks.

Eh, I don't want to wade in on this but there is the other side of folks who think every rape allegation is false .... a lot of folks put a lot of personal politics play into a lot of this.

Nobody knows what happened, we have plenty of folks in this forum who know jack **** about the recent situation are absolutely sure they think they know... they just go with what they're inclined to belive.
 

I would go as far as to say that these issues have become a sort of pseudo-religion for some. Keep the faith, against all evidence. Or sometimes they are genuine man-haters for various reasons in their past. Thankfully we still have some standard of justice and due process. The activists have started pushing for Title IX expulsions to be printed on transcripts, essentially ending their ability to get a good education. Scary stuff happening folks.

I agree with your points as far as they go, but wouldn't you agree that there exists some space between guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and absolute fabrication where you still may not want to grant the privilege of letting someone continue to represent the university? It there a set of circumstances where a player/players have done nothing illegal, yet you might still legitimately want them off the team?

Pulling a train on a drunk/near incapacitated girl would do it for me, YMMV.
 

I agree with your points as far as they go, but wouldn't you agree that there exists some space between guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and absolute fabrication where you still may not want to grant the privilege of letting someone continue to represent the university? It there a set of circumstances where a player/players have done nothing illegal, yet you might still legitimately want them off the team?

Pulling a train on a drunk/near incapacitated girl would do it for me, YMMV.

Certainly there are those circumstances, it happens often, probably in a majority of the dismissals (cutting class, fighting with a teammate, poor grades, etc, etc, etc)...and PE's point of view is not the black and white scenario you put forth.

Also, serious question, did I miss the "Pulling a train on a drunk/near incapacitated girl" fact somewhere in the reporting of this situation?
 

Also, serious question, did I miss the "Pulling a train on a drunk/near incapacitated girl" fact somewhere in the reporting of this situation?

Fact? Never claimed it was a fact, simply positing a scenario between crime and fabrication that might impact how much you'd want a person to represent your school. Just curious where folks might draw the line, maybe you seem to give more latitude to this kind of behavior than I do. That's your prerogative.

All that said, it may be a fair description of what may have happened:
"She then described a series of successive assaults by men in Djam's apartment, but conceded she didn't remember all the details clearly, possibly including the number of young men involved.
...
He also made reference to Instagram messages passing between the woman and the players, to her drinking before she went to Djam's apartment, as well as the woman's opportunities to leave the apartment."
 

Fact? Never claimed it was a fact, simply positing a scenario between crime and fabrication that might impact how much you'd want a person to represent your school. Just curious where folks might draw the line, maybe you seem to give more latitude to this kind of behavior than I do. That's your prerogative.

All that said, it may be a fair description of what may have happened:
"She then described a series of successive assaults by men in Djam's apartment, but conceded she didn't remember all the details clearly, possibly including the number of young men involved.
...
He also made reference to Instagram messages passing between the woman and the players, to her drinking before she went to Djam's apartment, as well as the woman's opportunities to leave the apartment."


In your opinion, "drinking" equates to "drunk/near incapacitated"? As a point of clarification, are you also saying that, if it was a situation where all involved agreed that it was consensual, but it became public, they should be dismissed?
 

It was years ago but the guys that pulled the train on the girl that was passed out were expelled. They might have taken photos or video of it.

While I don't know the exact details of this situation, I've heard plenty of rumors, but just because someone doesn't remember, it does not mean they were incapacitated. I've have conversations with people that have no recollection of it the next day because they were drunk. They were still able to walk around, carry on conversations, etc.
 

Lots of "guilty until proven innocent...but probably still guilty" opinions around here.
 


It was years ago but the guys that pulled the train on the girl that was passed out were expelled. They might have taken photos or video of it.

While I don't know the exact details of this situation, I've heard plenty of rumors, but just because someone doesn't remember, it does not mean they were incapacitated. I've have conversations with people that have no recollection of it the next day because they were drunk. They were still able to walk around, carry on conversations, etc.

Are you referring to the Dominic Jones, Alex Daniels, etc., incident?
 




Top Bottom