We Stand With Survivors Rally at TCF Bank Stadium now scheduled for Saturday

Donate To GopherHole

in -20 below weather? There will be like 3 people there.
 


How, a rally for the ten players to support those who are trying to fight against the tyranny of a runaway "alternative' social warrior justice system with no visibility, no accountability, no evidentiary standards, and no due process? That sounds great, and I'll be there!
 



wow they call out Reggie Lynch in this Facebook event post....

Now that I think about it, has Lynch made it pass his EOAA 60 day timeline for issuing a determination on a case?
 

Tough to read the comments there. It sucks so many women have gone through this.
 

The consensus seems to be that most of the time the accuser is telling the truth, therefore we should just assume that all 10 players assaulted her.
 

GophersInIowa said:
The consensus seems to be that most of the time the accuser is telling the truth, therefore we should just assume that all 10 players assaulted her.
Click to expand...

Terrifying naivete. Maybe they really are children and should be treated as such.
 



This is the type of thing special interests groups do, they imply strawman arguments.

There is an implicit statement that by supporting the EOAA, you are supporting victims of sexual assault.

These regressive groups devalue women and make a mockery of actual assault victims. They create terms like "rape culture", "triggering" and "safe spaces" to help build a false narrative. It's literally like 1984 - - they only bring up rape culture when there is not an actual rape.

They don't think women are as capable of men. Men can give consent. Men can even regret a sexual experience and deal with it. Get this, men can even give consent when drinking.

Women, they can kind of give consent, but they are pretty feeble creatures. We should make sure it's in writing and detail exactly what is going to happen. If they regret it, it's not real consent. If they felt any sort of pressure (even if it's just from society and not the guy), they didn't give consent, women can't be trusted to deal with that stuff. If they had a drink, bets are off.

If alcohol is being used as an excuse to why she didn't give consent, then why isn't she getting into trouble for sexual assault? I am certain the football players were drinking. They can give consent. . . even after a few drinks? Wow. They sound like adults.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This is the type of thing special interests groups do, they imply strawman arguments.

There is an implicit statement that by supporting the EOAA, you are supporting victims of sexual assault.

These regressive groups devalue women and make a mockery of actual assault victims. They create terms like "rape culture", "triggering" and "safe spaces" to help build a false narrative. It's literally like 1984 - - they only bring up rape culture when there is not an actual rape.

They don't think women are as capable of men. Men can give consent. Men can even regret a sexual experience and deal with it. Get this, men can even give consent when drinking.

Women, they can kind of give consent, but they are pretty feeble creatures. We should make sure it's in writing and detail exactly what is going to happen. If they regret it, it's not real consent. If they felt any sort of pressure (even if it's just from society and not the guy), they didn't give consent, women can't be trusted to deal with that stuff. If they had a drink, bets are off.

If alcohol is being used as an excuse to why she didn't give consent, then why isn't she getting into trouble for sexual assault? I am certain the football players were drinking. They can give consent. . . even after a few drinks? Wow. They sound like adults.
Click to expand...
+10



Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk
 

The whole situation is absurd. The argument is that sexual assault is too important of an issue to have to worry about the inconvenience of due process and truth. And if you argue with that viewpoint, you are pro sexual assault? It's sad.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This is the type of thing special interests groups do, they imply strawman arguments.

There is an implicit statement that by supporting the EOAA, you are supporting victims of sexual assault.

These regressive groups devalue women and make a mockery of actual assault victims. They create terms like "rape culture", "triggering" and "safe spaces" to help build a false narrative. It's literally like 1984


Since "past relationships" are not relevant to a sexual encounter according the U of M rules on sex, is it possible that if Joel Maturi, Coyle, or even Kaler had an desktop encounter with the wife? Would they need to have the proper consent paperwork on file?

As people removed a few or many years from college, do we actually apply any of these standards to our own sexual behavior? I am referring to the "consent" expectations the EOAA is enforcing, not the running of any trains after the neighborhood cook out.
Click to expand...
 




GophersInIowa said:
The consensus seems to be that most of the time the accuser is telling the truth, therefore we should just assume that all 10 players assaulted her.
Click to expand...

That is not it. Until we know more what we should assume is that the U did a thorough and impartial investigation and had reasonable grounds to punish the players for violating the Student Code of Conduct. The U was not trying to prove that the players committed a crime. That was the job of the police and the prosecutor who didn't conclude that the players did nothing wrong. All they said was they didn't have enough proof to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
That is not it. Until we know more what we should assume is that the U did a thorough and impartial investigation and had reasonable grounds to punish the players for violating the Student Code of Conduct. The U was not trying to prove that the players committed a crime. That was the job of the police and the prosecutor who didn't conclude that the players did nothing wrong. All they said was they didn't have enough proof to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding. I'm not into punishing people without proof of their guilt. Sure, you can ring them up for some lesser charger such as drinking and run them out of school for a "violation of the code of student conduct" which, if applied to everyone equally, would lead to a much smaller student body at the U. Personally, I see that as a major miscarriage of justice.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
That is not it. Until we know more what we should assume is that the U did a thorough and impartial investigation and had reasonable grounds to punish the players for violating the Student Code of Conduct. The U was not trying to prove that the players committed a crime. That was the job of the police and the prosecutor who didn't conclude that the players did nothing wrong. All they said was they didn't have enough proof to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

1. I was talking about comments in the link that was posted.
2. Why should we just assume anything? Are you ok then in all police cases that we just assume they always do the right thing? The reality is there have been many similar internal investigations at universities where they have been getting sued.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
If alcohol is being used as an excuse to why she didn't give consent, then why isn't she getting into trouble for sexual assault? I am certain the football players were drinking. They can give consent. . . even after a few drinks? Wow. They sound like adults.
Click to expand...

This is the most idiotic thing you have ever posted. I wander how many clients you would lose if they found out this is how you think and that you post this kind of crap on the internet.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
This is the most idiotic thing you have ever posted. I wander how many clients you would lose if they found out this is how you think and that you post this kind of crap on the internet.
Click to expand...

You mean that Bob_Loblaw believes in equal rights? That he takes equal protection at face value.

My assumption is that he would gain clients if he held everyone to the same standards. People have a natural need to be treated fairly.
 

GophersInIowa said:
1. I was talking about comments in the link that was posted.
2. Why should we just assume anything? Are you ok then in all police cases that we just assume they always do the right thing? The reality is there have been many similar internal investigations at universities where they have been getting sued.
Click to expand...

I don't ever assume that police always do the right thing. But I also don't criticize them until I have enough evidence to make a reasonable assessment on my own. The large majority of the posters today are automatically assuming the U doesn't have enough evidence to say the players violated the Code of Conduct even though they have seen none of the evidence the U is using to justify their actions. They think the punishment of the players is a hatchet job and many of them are calling for Kaler and the AD to be fired. I have been fighting that battle all day long.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
I don't ever assume that police always do the right thing. But I also don't criticize them until I have enough evidence to make a reasonable assessment on my own. The large majority of the posters today are automatically assuming the U doesn't have enough evidence to say the players violated the Code of Conduct even though they have seen none of the evidence the U is using to justify their actions. They think the punishment of the players is a hatchet job and many of them are calling for Kaler and the AD to be fired. I have been fighting that battle all day long.
Click to expand...

What Iowa is getting at is that their literally doesn't need to be any evidence other than testimony to convict. This has been borne out in other cases around the country.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
That is not it. Until we know more what we should assume is that the U did a thorough and impartial investigation and had reasonable grounds to punish the players for violating the Student Code of Conduct. The U was not trying to prove that the players committed a crime. That was the job of the police and the prosecutor who didn't conclude that the players did nothing wrong. All they said was they didn't have enough proof to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

The students are being punished for an act that is also a crime. The exact same conduct is being investigated.

You're right, there is a different burden but you're kind of describing it incorrectly.

The state decided not to bring charges against her. You're conflating the burden needed to get a conviction with the state's prosecutorial discretion to bring charges. It's really not as simple as you're making it out to be.

The "burden" question of whether or not a prosecutor brings charges is probably closer to probably cause than they think they can convict beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to get a case beyond a grand jury, a prosecutor only has to show "probable cause" that the defendant committed a crime.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
This is the most idiotic thing you have ever posted. I wander how many clients you would lose if they found out this is how you think and that you post this kind of crap on the internet.
Click to expand...

Care to explain to me why it's idiotic?

You are implying women cannot give consent if they have had a drink, but men can give consent if they have been drinking? Right?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Care to explain to me why it's idiotic?

You are implying women cannot give consent if they have had a drink, but men can give consent if they have been drinking? Right?
Click to expand...

It's idiotic that he doesn't know the difference between "wander" and "wonder."
 

I'm going to hold my own "I stand in a heated room" rally on Saturday. And I have a rule about only one rally per day...
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
That is not it. Until we know more what we should assume is that the U did a thorough and impartial investigation and had reasonable grounds to punish the players for violating the Student Code of Conduct. The U was not trying to prove that the players committed a crime. That was the job of the police and the prosecutor who didn't conclude that the players did nothing wrong. All they said was they didn't have enough proof to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

The U has not earned that assumption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
I don't ever assume that police always do the right thing. But I also don't criticize them until I have enough evidence to make a reasonable assessment on my own. The large majority of the posters today are automatically assuming the U doesn't have enough evidence to say the players violated the Code of Conduct even though they have seen none of the evidence the U is using to justify their actions. They think the punishment of the players is a hatchet job and many of them are calling for Kaler and the AD to be fired. I have been fighting that battle all day long.
Click to expand...

I don't give a flying fvck about the code of conduct. They probably violated it and were suspended for 4 games and had their name drug through the mud. What matters is if there was a rape and the evidence doesn't support it according to our justice system. Case closed. Stop pretending this doesn't all hinge on rape or no rape.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

quote:


That is not it. Until we know more what we should assume is that the U did a thorough and impartial investigation and had reasonable grounds to punish the players for violating the Student Code of Conduct. The U was not trying to prove that the players committed a crime. That was the job of the police and the prosecutor who didn't conclude that the players did nothing wrong. All they said was they didn't have enough proof to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.


How could the University of Minnesota do a more impartial investigation into this than the Police Department and the Hennepin County Attorney's office could to?

The U of M PD does not have the resources and they probably had nothing to do with it.

Does anyone know who these actually conducted the EUAA ,/ U of M investigation? Are the seasoned criminal investigators? Are there findings part of the public record?
 

oak_street1981 said:
quote:


That is not it. Until we know more what we should assume is that the U did a thorough and impartial investigation and had reasonable grounds to punish the players for violating the Student Code of Conduct. The U was not trying to prove that the players committed a crime. That was the job of the police and the prosecutor who didn't conclude that the players did nothing wrong. All they said was they didn't have enough proof to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.


How could the University of Minnesota do a more impartial investigation into this than the Police Department and the Hennepin County Attorney's office could to?

The U of M PD does not have the resources and they probably had nothing to do with it.

Does anyone know who these actually conducted the EUAA ,/ U of M investigation? Are the seasoned criminal investigators? Are there findings part of the public record?
Click to expand...

Just off a hunch, what percentage of cases do you think come over their desks involving sexual assault or harassment where they DON'T recommend punishment for the accused?

Do you think this gaggle of regressive lunatics weighs the evidence and comes to an impartial decision?

It's shocking to me that some people are arguing that these loons are less partial than the police.
 

The EOAA is victimizing the alleged victim. She is being used to advance their agenda.
She wanted this to be over. Now it's just beginning, and on a whole new level.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom