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

Donate To GopherHole
Tim Riggins said:
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.
Click to expand...

Understood...but the presumption with some folks here seems to be that she was fall-down, nearly passed out drunk.
 

Tim Riggins said:
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.
Click to expand...

seconded
 

PMWinSTP said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nope. I have no information regarding her level of intoxication/incapacitation, but I'm pretty comfortable assuming from her statements and other reporting that "drunk" is a given.

"Near incapacitation" is admittedly more speculative, based partly on my old-fashioned notion that most girls don't willingly allow 4, 5, 6 or more guys to assault them combined with her subsequently reporting it to the police.

If it was entirely consensual amongst all parties, I'd have no problem with it. Do you believe that to be the case here?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
SON, you're holding up quite a double standard here and siding with the irrationals.
Click to expand...

My "zero tolerance" comment referred specifically to the players involved in this incident. No more 2nd chances - one more screw-up and they're gone. I am NOT suggesting that you throw people off the team willy-nilly. Obviously, there needs to be investigation and due process - but the coaches and/or AD still have the final say.

Again - there seems to be some issues with reading comprehension here. My biggest problem is not with the specific details of this incident - it's the poor decision-making shown by these student-athletes. I expect more from people who represent the U of MN.

Whenever one of these incidents takes place, there are people who defend the players based on (my assumption) the belief that "we need these guys to win games." I have a different point of view. I think there are concepts and principles that are more important than winning a football game or a basketball game. I think that being a scholarship athlete is a privilege, not a right, and athletes need to show they deserve that privilege (with the resulting financial benefits of a free 4-year college education.)

In the end, I think I just believe in holding scholarship athletes to a higher standard. Other people on this board seem to think a lower standard is permissible. Ironically, a HS FB coach I know just kicked a kid off his team the day before a playoff game. The kid told some of his buddies he was going to try and "throw" the game. Anybody want to defend that?
 

First, I will say that I havent a clue what happened in this case. But with regards to possible scenarios that may have played out. There are many girls who make it a goal to sleep with an entire team, or will do anything to sleep with an athlete. For instance, the basketball players situation. It is well known it was consensual. 1 girl, 3 guys. The fallout was because the video was leaked. Not the act itself.
 


goooogophers said:
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?
Click to expand...

It wasn't rape, but ask Robert Allenby or Ryan Lochte the motive for falsely accusing others of a crime. It happens.
 

GhostofBronko said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right, my mileage varies. What evidence do you have she was " near-incapacitated"? There was video, which apparently is pretty damning vs this young lady.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is what's known as a straw man argument. Literally nobody has said this and I certainly don't think most accusations are false. However, guilt can not be presumed. I don't know how else to say it.


Like I said, it's a ***damn religion.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
This is what's known as a straw man argument. Literally nobody has said this and I certainly don't think most accusations are false. However, guilt can not be presumed. I don't know how else to say it.


Like I said, it's a ***damn religion.
Click to expand...


There's plenty of insinuations that the allegation was false and that no rape took place on these forums. Some folks said far worse (posts no longer with us).

Nobody knows what happened but the folks involved, everyone just picks their personal bias and assumes that. You're stuck on this religion thing that you don't know if it has anything to do with this other than it being a related topic...
 



short ornery norwegian said:
My "zero tolerance" comment referred specifically to the players involved in this incident. No more 2nd chances - one more screw-up and they're gone. I am NOT suggesting that you throw people off the team willy-nilly. Obviously, there needs to be investigation and due process - but the coaches and/or AD still have the final say.

Again - there seems to be some issues with reading comprehension here. My biggest problem is not with the specific details of this incident - it's the poor decision-making shown by these student-athletes. I expect more from people who represent the U of MN.

Whenever one of these incidents takes place, there are people who defend the players based on (my assumption) the belief that "we need these guys to win games." I have a different point of view. I think there are concepts and principles that are more important than winning a football game or a basketball game. I think that being a scholarship athlete is a privilege, not a right, and athletes need to show they deserve that privilege (with the resulting financial benefits of a free 4-year college education.)

In the end, I think I just believe in holding scholarship athletes to a higher standard. Other people on this board seem to think a lower standard is permissible. Ironically, a HS FB coach I know just kicked a kid off his team the day before a playoff game. The kid told some of his buddies he was going to try and "throw" the game. Anybody want to defend that?
Click to expand...

You don't know any details of the actual circumstances but are passing judgement. What "principle" are you defending here? Image?

If you want to throw them out for extramarital relations or underage drinking then you have a point. The problem is we might have 7 guys left on the team.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
There's plenty of insinuations that the allegation was false and that no rape took place on these forums.
Click to expand...

Well...you're the one who wrote "but there is the other side of folks who think every rape allegation is false"
 

Unregistered User said:
Well...you're the one who wrote "but there is the other side of folks who think every rape allegation is false"
Click to expand...

Yeah I did.... I don't think those conflict.

I was commenting on posts seen on here. The other line was a comparison that there are folks on both sides of the larger topic.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
There's plenty of insinuations that the allegation was false and that no rape took place on these forums. Some folks said far worse (posts no longer with us).

Nobody knows what happened but the folks involved, everyone just picks their personal bias and assumes that. You're stuck on this religion thing that you don't know if it has anything to do with this other than it being a related topic...
Click to expand...

Correct. But what we do know is an investigation was done and there was not enough evidence for any charges. But before that was announced many people around here already hung these players as guilty and so did the media with their coverage. Being fair goes both ways, both the accused and the accuser have rights. Some folks around here need to remember that. Again, in the end these players names were drug through the dirt and there were no charges and now the RO has been dropped.
 



bottlebass said:
Correct. But what we do know is an investigation was done and there was not enough evidence for any charges. But before that was announced many people around here already hung these players as guilty and so did the media with their coverage. Being fair goes both ways, both the accused and the accuser have rights. Some folks around here need to remember that. Again, in the end these players names were drug through the dirt and there were no charges and now the RO has been dropped.
Click to expand...

Yup they both have rights.

Back it up a bit. Pompous Elitist went off about this issue he has with folks "pseudo-religion for some. Keep the faith, against all evidence." and my point being there are plenty of folks with the opposite POV on the same issue that are just as ridiculous.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
There's plenty of insinuations that the allegation was false and that no rape took place on these forums. Some folks said far worse (posts no longer with us).

Nobody knows what happened but the folks involved, everyone just picks their personal bias and assumes that. You're stuck on this religion thing that you don't know if it has anything to do with this other than it being a related topic...
Click to expand...

I'm not stuck on anything except I'm incredulous some of you presume guilt when the facts that we know don't support it. She said the sex with Djam was consensual, then recanted after consulting Ms. Isenor. She made false accusations vs Kiondre. She is not a reliable witness. There was video, presumably showing an alert and willing participant or at the very least not an indictment of the players. She agreed to settle and not pursue further action.

And, there absolutely is a fervor amongst activists. I have learned I can only accommodate the crazies so far. Give an inch and they go for a mile.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Yup they both have rights.

Back it up a bit. Pompous Elitist went off about this issue he has with folks "pseudo-religion for some. Keep the faith, against all evidence." and my point being there are plenty of folks with the opposite POV on the same issue that are just as ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Who?
 


Pompous Elitist said:
I'm not stuck on anything except I'm incredulous some of you presume guilt when the facts that we know don't support it. She said the sex with Djam was consensual, then recanted after consulting Ms. Isenor. She made false accusations vs Kiondre. She is not a reliable witness. There was video, presumably showing an alert and willing participant or at the very least not an indictment of the players. She agreed to settle and not pursue further action.

And, there absolutely is a fervor amongst activists. I have learned I can only accommodate the crazies so far. Give an inch and they go for a mile.
Click to expand...

question. How do you know this? is there somewhere you can read the court proceedings online or something or you just know someone present at the case or you're just inferring? I'm legitimately just curious, not calling you out.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Take a look online man.

Really if you're all familiar with this stuff you'd be familiar with the other folks. I don't want to post links to either side.
Click to expand...

You're on fire today. Bring me some evidence of someone that thinks all rape allegations are false.
 

upnorthkid said:
question. How do you know this? is there somewhere you can read the court proceedings online or something or you just know someone present at the case or you're just inferring? I'm legitimately just curious, not calling you out.
Click to expand...

Lee Hutton brought it up, so it exists. What it shows is not known but clearly tends to support the players story. Fair enough?
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Lee Hutton brought it up, so it exists. What it shows is not known but clearly tends to support the players story. Fair enough?
Click to expand...

You seem to think this video so strongly supports the players story, but have you stopped to consider it doesn't support either side? That it was taken before anything bad happened? That it only lasted a few seconds? You're so stuck on these players that I wouldn't be surprised if you are Lee Hutton himself. I truly hope that your mother, daughter, sister, or any other woman close to you doesn't have to go through this situation because they would obviously get no support from you.
 

goooogophers said:
You seem to think this video so strongly supports the players story, but have you stopped to consider it doesn't support either side? That it was taken before anything bad happened? That it only lasted a few seconds? You're so stuck on these players that I wouldn't be surprised if you are Lee Hutton himself. I truly hope that your mother, daughter, sister, or any other woman close to you doesn't have to go through this situation because they would obviously get no support from you.
Click to expand...

I've met and spoken with Dr. Lee Hutton.(Doing my best Lloyd Benson impersonation) Trust me on this. He is notDr. Hutton.
 

This thread is quite a read. Maybe I can help clear some things up that might be misunderstood by the media and non-lawyers.

I've represented domestic violence victims for over 10 years in Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) and Order for Protection (OFP) cases.
1) Relevant Minnesota Statutes are 518B.01 (the Domestic Abuse Act) and 609.748 (for HROs).
2) Obtaining an HRO or OFP are primarily designed to require someone to have no contact with another person, and can also provide other specific additional relief (child custody, support, restitution, exclusive occupancy, etc.)
3) The matter usually begins with a Petition for an HRO or OFP, similar procedural devices which if entered, primarily require someone to stay away from a victim of domestic/sexual violence and/or harassment.
4) The Petition can request an "ex parte" OFP, which seems to have happened in this case. The Ex Parte Order is issued based on the allegations as written in the petition and essentially prevents the alleged abusers/harassers from contact with the Petitioner (the alleged victim) until a hearing is scheduled, which is usually within a week or two (depending on court schedules).
5) The hearing is a civil dispute, not a criminal case, meaning an OFP or HRO preventing contact and other relief can be issued based on "a preponderance of the evidence"--that is, Petitioner gets her OFP or HRO preventing contact if she demonstrates that the Respondents (alleged harassers/abusers) more likely than not engaged in harassment or sexual abuse (sort of like the evidence suggests it is more than 50% likely that harassment or abuse occurred).
6) She would present her case for an OFP or HRO first, including a cross examination by the Respondent's attorney (here, Hutton) and any other evidence or witnesses she might have, and then the Respondents could put on counter evidence and testimony. The the judge issues a ruling from the bench or takes the evidence under advisement and issues a final order later on (no jury for OFP or HRO cases).

Here, Hutton previously challenged the ex parte order as an unconstitutional violation of due process--that the statute as written for ex parte orders is unconstitutional because it restricts his clients before they were even given a hearing/trial. It is not a bad argument but it has been rejected by the Courts many times.

It also appears that at the hearing/trial (according to media articles), that Hutton was in the process of cross-examining her and, during a lunch break during her cross examination, the attorneys meet and crafted a settlement--this is not unusual. In my experience, it is not unusual for a Petitioner to simply want any type of order requiring no contact so she can feel safe, avoid the whole ordeal, and so she has recourse in case she is ever confronted by her alleged abusers in the future. If someone can get an agreement/settlement like this, it is not unusual for a Petitioner to accept it. There are no guarantees of a favorable outcome in any case. Even the best cases can go sideways and being cross examined about a traumatic event by a skilled attorney is oftentimes a very unwanted event (as you can imagine), which is another reason many of these cases settle or aren't even brought in the first place.

From the little media reporting on the substance of the evidence, I don't think it would be fair for anyone here to take sides on this matter. Neither side completed their presentation of evidence. There's supposedly a video out there which could be good or bad for each side. The fact that no criminal charges were brought says very little about whether an HRO or OFP might or might not have ultimately been issued--there is a much higher standard of proof (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt--the highest standard of proof), the case would go before a jury, and prosecutors have lots of discretion whether to bring charges, and in my experience, they don't like to lose cases.
 

goooogophers said:
You seem to think this video so strongly supports the players story, but have you stopped to consider it doesn't support either side? That it was taken before anything bad happened? That it only lasted a few seconds? You're so stuck on these players that I wouldn't be surprised if you are Lee Hutton himself. I truly hope that your mother, daughter, sister, or any other woman close to you doesn't have to go through this situation because they would obviously get no support from you.
Click to expand...

That was a rather aggressive move
 

Pompous Elitist said:
You're right, my mileage varies. What evidence do you have she was " near-incapacitated"? There was video, which apparently is pretty damning vs this young lady.
Click to expand...

I already answered that, and it's not germane to my original question to you which was, "I agree with your points as far as they go [regarding false accusations, title IX, etc.], 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?"

The question isn't about whether a crime has been committed (or, more precisely, whether the evidence is adequate to convince a jury of guilt or to exonerate completely), it's whether you can look at what happened and allow that the behavior is enough to not want those guys on the team. You can concoct all sorts of lurid scenarios of a big, happy, super-consensual orgy if that's your thing. It seems to me that something quite a bit darker occurred here.
 

GhostofBronko said:
I already answered that, and it's not germane to my original question to you which was, "I agree with your points as far as they go [regarding false accusations, title IX, etc.], 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?"

The question isn't about whether a crime has been committed (or, more precisely, whether the evidence is adequate to convince a jury of guilt or to exonerate completely), it's whether you can look at what happened and allow that the behavior is enough to not want those guys on the team. You can concoct all sorts of lurid scenarios of a big, happy, super-consensual orgy if that's your thing. It seems to me that something quite a bit darker occurred here.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to bring the characters of the defendants into play. Many want to bring up work situations or other non-criminal proceedings where it is ok to fire an at-will employee or find judgment based on preponderance of evidence. Don't you think a reasonable management team or jury would take the past behavior and character of the plaintiffs and defendants into account? It seems like Claeys has already made his decision regarding this case (as have most of us here). The guys have played and will continue to play for the University of Minnesota. In contrast Brian Smith was let go for an apparent series of bad behaviors culminating in a fight.
 

STPGopher said:
I've met and spoken with Dr. Lee Hutton.(Doing my best Lloyd Benson impersonation) Trust me on this. He is notDr. Hutton.
Click to expand...

Yes because I'm a rabid racist and a misogynist that - strangely - tirelessly defends the due process of black student athletes (and police officers, white people, brown people, muslims, christians, LGBT, the aged, the overweight, and the ugly). How could I possibly be DR. Lee Hutton?
 

Tater said:
This thread is quite a read. Maybe I can help clear some things up that might be misunderstood by the media and non-lawyers.

I've represented domestic violence victims for over 10 years in Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) and Order for Protection (OFP) cases.
1) Relevant Minnesota Statutes are 518B.01 (the Domestic Abuse Act) and 609.748 (for HROs).
2) Obtaining an HRO or OFP are primarily designed to require someone to have no contact with another person, and can also provide other specific additional relief (child custody, support, restitution, exclusive occupancy, etc.)
3) The matter usually begins with a Petition for an HRO or OFP, similar procedural devices which if entered, primarily require someone to stay away from a victim of domestic/sexual violence and/or harassment.
4) The Petition can request an "ex parte" OFP, which seems to have happened in this case. The Ex Parte Order is issued based on the allegations as written in the petition and essentially prevents the alleged abusers/harassers from contact with the Petitioner (the alleged victim) until a hearing is scheduled, which is usually within a week or two (depending on court schedules).
5) The hearing is a civil dispute, not a criminal case, meaning an OFP or HRO preventing contact and other relief can be issued based on "a preponderance of the evidence"--that is, Petitioner gets her OFP or HRO preventing contact if she demonstrates that the Respondents (alleged harassers/abusers) more likely than not engaged in harassment or sexual abuse (sort of like the evidence suggests it is more than 50% likely that harassment or abuse occurred).
6) She would present her case for an OFP or HRO first, including a cross examination by the Respondent's attorney (here, Hutton) and any other evidence or witnesses she might have, and then the Respondents could put on counter evidence and testimony. The the judge issues a ruling from the bench or takes the evidence under advisement and issues a final order later on (no jury for OFP or HRO cases).

Here, Hutton previously challenged the ex parte order as an unconstitutional violation of due process--that the statute as written for ex parte orders is unconstitutional because it restricts his clients before they were even given a hearing/trial. It is not a bad argument but it has been rejected by the Courts many times.

It also appears that at the hearing/trial (according to media articles), that Hutton was in the process of cross-examining her and, during a lunch break during her cross examination, the attorneys meet and crafted a settlement--this is not unusual. In my experience, it is not unusual for a Petitioner to simply want any type of order requiring no contact so she can feel safe, avoid the whole ordeal, and so she has recourse in case she is ever confronted by her alleged abusers in the future. If someone can get an agreement/settlement like this, it is not unusual for a Petitioner to accept it. There are no guarantees of a favorable outcome in any case. Even the best cases can go sideways and being cross examined about a traumatic event by a skilled attorney is oftentimes a very unwanted event (as you can imagine), which is another reason many of these cases settle or aren't even brought in the first place.

From the little media reporting on the substance of the evidence, I don't think it would be fair for anyone here to take sides on this matter. Neither side completed their presentation of evidence. There's supposedly a video out there which could be good or bad for each side. The fact that no criminal charges were brought says very little about whether an HRO or OFP might or might not have ultimately been issued--there is a much higher standard of proof (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt--the highest standard of proof), the case would go before a jury, and prosecutors have lots of discretion whether to bring charges, and in my experience, they don't like to lose cases.
Click to expand...


I think we've covered that before but thank you for the legal aspect. And in my professional experience there is a not-insignificant portion of the public that possess borderline personalities, histrionic personalities, and antisocial personalities. This is why you participate in a legal system that in criminal matters requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a not unreasonable standard.
 

Tater said:
This thread is quite a read. Maybe I can help clear some things up that might be misunderstood by the media and non-lawyers.

I've represented domestic violence victims for over 10 years in Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) and Order for Protection (OFP) cases.
1) Relevant Minnesota Statutes are 518B.01 (the Domestic Abuse Act) and 609.748 (for HROs).
2) Obtaining an HRO or OFP are primarily designed to require someone to have no contact with another person, and can also provide other specific additional relief (child custody, support, restitution, exclusive occupancy, etc.)
3) The matter usually begins with a Petition for an HRO or OFP, similar procedural devices which if entered, primarily require someone to stay away from a victim of domestic/sexual violence and/or harassment.
4) The Petition can request an "ex parte" OFP, which seems to have happened in this case. The Ex Parte Order is issued based on the allegations as written in the petition and essentially prevents the alleged abusers/harassers from contact with the Petitioner (the alleged victim) until a hearing is scheduled, which is usually within a week or two (depending on court schedules).
5) The hearing is a civil dispute, not a criminal case, meaning an OFP or HRO preventing contact and other relief can be issued based on "a preponderance of the evidence"--that is, Petitioner gets her OFP or HRO preventing contact if she demonstrates that the Respondents (alleged harassers/abusers) more likely than not engaged in harassment or sexual abuse (sort of like the evidence suggests it is more than 50% likely that harassment or abuse occurred).
6) She would present her case for an OFP or HRO first, including a cross examination by the Respondent's attorney (here, Hutton) and any other evidence or witnesses she might have, and then the Respondents could put on counter evidence and testimony. The the judge issues a ruling from the bench or takes the evidence under advisement and issues a final order later on (no jury for OFP or HRO cases).

Here, Hutton previously challenged the ex parte order as an unconstitutional violation of due process--that the statute as written for ex parte orders is unconstitutional because it restricts his clients before they were even given a hearing/trial. It is not a bad argument but it has been rejected by the Courts many times.

It also appears that at the hearing/trial (according to media articles), that Hutton was in the process of cross-examining her and, during a lunch break during her cross examination, the attorneys meet and crafted a settlement--this is not unusual. In my experience, it is not unusual for a Petitioner to simply want any type of order requiring no contact so she can feel safe, avoid the whole ordeal, and so she has recourse in case she is ever confronted by her alleged abusers in the future. If someone can get an agreement/settlement like this, it is not unusual for a Petitioner to accept it. There are no guarantees of a favorable outcome in any case. Even the best cases can go sideways and being cross examined about a traumatic event by a skilled attorney is oftentimes a very unwanted event (as you can imagine), which is another reason many of these cases settle or aren't even brought in the first place.

From the little media reporting on the substance of the evidence, I don't think it would be fair for anyone here to take sides on this matter. Neither side completed their presentation of evidence. There's supposedly a video out there which could be good or bad for each side. The fact that no criminal charges were brought says very little about whether an HRO or OFP might or might not have ultimately been issued--there is a much higher standard of proof (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt--the highest standard of proof), the case would go before a jury, and prosecutors have lots of discretion whether to bring charges, and in my experience, they don't like to lose cases.
Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining this. It seems like it was needed. Settlement does not equate fabrication.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom