MUScoop

The Gophers suspend 10.  Team boycotts bowl game.

Political correctness run amuck?

Entitled student athletes?

Wow, what a cluster eff.

Coach sides with players, gives (figuratively speaking) the bird to U of M administration.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/12/15/gophers-players-threaten-to-boycott-holiday-bowl-over-suspensions/

Some thoughts:

**Title IX investigations are a federal requirement.  They don't have to meet the same standards as the law which means it is very consistent to be not criminally charged but still be suspended or dismissed from school.

**That being said, schools all over are struggling with these investigations because they don't have the background and experience to conduct them.  That leads to inconsistent application.

**I have no idea if the players are guilty.  However they simply cannot reinstate the players based on this protest.  My goodness the backlash would be awful.  (And don't bring up the Duke LAX case.  That is completely different.)

**I don't blame the players for the protest.  They have every right to do so.  They also have to face whatever consequences come from this, but it's not like they are going to revoke everyone's scholarship.

**Tracy Claeys is rightfully supportive of his players, but I don't think he's long for the University of Minnesota.

As a university Title IX Investigator, I would challenge your assertion that we don't have the background and experience to conduct investigations. Some schools maybe don't, but they are becoming few and far between. I have received extensive training in how to conduct an investigation. I am very familiar with Title IX, its requirements, and all the necessary due process. We are more than qualified to conduct these investigations. Hell, I just did three trainings on how to interview both complrightnts and accused students in SASH (sexual assault, sexual harassment) cases for our University Police last week. The police come to us to get trained.

What people don't like is that we use a lower standard of proof than law enforcement. We are only required to reach a "preponderance of the information" which means that we think it is more likely than not that a conduct violation occurred. Since we have a lower range of sanctions (no jail time, fines, record is completely private etc) the lowered standard of proof is warranted.

I can personally vouch for the office at the University of Minnesota. They are one of the leaders in the field. A school that the Department of Education has pointed to as an example for others. It is certainly possible that they made a mistake, but I would be very surprised.

From my understanding of this case, there is a video that shows that the young woman consented to sex with multiple players (she also admits to consenting to sex with two players). However, the video combined with testimony  from the accused show that the woman was way beyond drunk when the consent occurred making it invalid. It also shows her as a willing participant for the first two men. But then a line formed and they started taking turns. At no point was consent given for most of the men in the train. I would also assume that the young woman did not consent to being video taped while having sex and having that video distributed. Another violation.

The DA likely declined to press charges because Minnesota law requires a person to be passed out from alcohol in order for it to be non-consensual. The DA also likely didn't think s/he could convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the train was non-consensual when she consented to the first two. The University of Minnesota code of conduct requires that a person not be incapacitated by alcohol when giving consent. Per Title IX, incapacitated is .08 BAC. The University of Minnesota is also one of the few universities that require "affirmative consent" which means you need to actively ask for consent or it can be considered an assault. My guess is that the video and witness testimony clearly showed a woman who looked well beyond the .08 BAC and that no attempt to gain consent was made by a majority of the train. There would also be conduct violations if the video was taken and distributed without the consent of everyone in the train.

People will get bent out of shape because the DA decided not to press charges. But not pressing charges and innocent are two different things. Universities have different standards for conduct and that is a good thing.

I was not present for the investigation. I have not seen the video. I have the same information everyone else does. But based on what I know, I think the University did everything they should have. There certainly could have been mistakes made. But by the preponderance of the information that we have, I think it is more likely than not that these men are appropriately being held accountable for their actions.

I feel for the University. There is no good way out of this situation.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 16, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
As a university Title IX Investigator, I would challenge your assertion that we don't have the background and experience to conduct investigations. Some schools maybe don't, but they are becoming few and far between. I have received extensive training in how to conduct an investigation. I am very familiar with Title IX, its requirements, and all the necessary due process. We are more than qualified to conduct these investigations. Hell, I just did three trainings on how to interview both complrightnts and accused students in SASH (sexual assault, sexual harassment) cases for our University Police last week. The police come to us to get trained.

Here's what I said.  "...schools all over are struggling with these investigations because they don't have the background and experience to conduct them."

I didn't say *all* are struggling.

I didn't say *most* are struggling.

But I do know that *many* are.

EDIT:  But the rest of your post was fantastic and thank you for the explanation.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 16, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
The DA likely declined to press charges because Minnesota law requires a person to be passed out from alcohol in order for it to be non-consensual. The DA also likely didn't think s/he could convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the train was non-consensual when she consented to the first two. The University of Minnesota code of conduct requires that a person not be incapacitated by alcohol when giving consent. Per Title IX, incapacitated is .08 BAC. The University of Minnesota is also one of the few universities that require "affirmative consent" which means you need to actively ask for consent or it can be considered an assault. My guess is that the video and witness testimony clearly showed a woman who looked well beyond the .08 BAC and that no attempt to gain consent was made by a majority of the train. There would also be conduct violations if the video was taken and distributed without the consent of everyone in the train.

This is the key point most people are missing... I can tell you that when I attended HS in Minnesota, there was a code of conduct that all athletes signed as a condition of their being allowed to participate in varsity sports.  One of the provisions was no tobacco products, and with 18 being the age of majority, you can figure out what happened... Tommy was kicked off the football team because he was caught smoking despite being legally able to smoke.  A small bunch of very loud parents made a stink about it saying the code of conduct was unfair because he was legally allowed to smoke and threatened legal action; at the end of the day, the majority of the parents stood up for the school and the others backed down.

I'd like to hear what the other players and parents not defending these 10 have to say, but I'm not going to hold my breath for those interviews.

TAMU, thanks for the great explanation. One of the things that makes Scoop great (besides BBall).

In earlier times, a certain poster would have blown up the thread. It's nice to come here and be able to read all of the replies without throwing my hands in the air in disgust.

I am always in favor of futile gestures in the face of overwhelming odds.    But in the end, the players are going to stay suspended.   The school can't cave, right or wrong.     So the only real question is whether the players cave.     Will there be an opportunity for a graceful withdrawal or will each side dig in and not play the bowl game?

Quote from: brandx on December 16, 2016, 10:56:14 AM
TAMU, thanks for the great explanation. One of the things that makes Scoop great (besides BBall).

In earlier times, a certain poster would have blown up the thread. It's nice to come here and be able to read all of the replies without throwing my hands in the air in disgust.

Indeed. Thanks, TAMU, for such a thorough explanation. While a certain many of us enjoy seeing college athletes asserting their rights--such as they are--this is a tough one to get behind (no pun intended).

This may be prudish of me, but here's a tip for young men:  sex is really not a group activity.

Don't get me wrong...I fully understand that it is possible for fully consensual group sex. But I'd suggest that you significantly increase your chance of being accused of sexual assault if you find yourself participating in group sex with a single woman. Just say no.

Thanks TAMU.  We've disagreed in the past about where the line should be (the .08 thing) but if what you described is accurate, the players' behavior was WAAAAAY over the line.  Damn lucky not to be in jail.

You know what bothers me about this?  How come all of these knumbskulls failed to recognize what was going on and failed to stop it?  I don't care how intoxicated I was, I never would have thought those actions were appropriate.  Not now, not when I was 20.  Didn't these clowns have parents who taught them a little right from wrong?

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 16, 2016, 10:17:55 AM

Here's what I said.  "...schools all over are struggling with these investigations because they don't have the background and experience to conduct them."

I didn't say *all* are struggling.

I didn't say *most* are struggling.

But I do know that *many* are.

EDIT:  But the rest of your post was fantastic and thank you for the explanation.

Fair enough. I apologize for jumping the gun. I reacted because I hear the "these damn universities aren't qualified to be handing sexual assault cases" all the time. It can be a dangerous message because it shifts the blame from the people committing sexual assaults to the universities. But that isn't what you said.

Quote from: jsglow on December 16, 2016, 11:26:34 AM
You know what bothers me about this?  How come all of these knumbskulls failed to recognize what was going on and failed to stop it?  I don't care how intoxicated I was, I never would have thought those actions were appropriate.  Not now, not when I was 20.  Didn't these clowns have parents who taught them a little right from wrong?

This here is the problem. I guarantee that not one person in that train thinks they broke the law. They believe 100% that by consenting to sex with two guys that she was fair game for everybody. They assume that because she wanted sex with multiple guys that she was a slut and that somehow makes her responsible for whatever happens afterward. Sadly, many people accept this line of thinking. I've seen plenty of comments on the articles along the lines of "If she didn't want this to happen than she shouldn't have told two guys to put their .... in her."

Quote from: tower912 on December 16, 2016, 11:07:59 AM
I am always in favor of futile gestures in the face of overwhelming odds.    But in the end, the players are going to stay suspended.   The school can't cave, right or wrong.     So the only real question is whether the players cave.     Will there be an opportunity for a graceful withdrawal or will each side dig in and not play the bowl game?

The only way the players would stand their ground is if they could somehow use a possible cancellation of the Holiday Bowl as leverage (which they might believe would cause the bowl and the networks to lean on the school).  They can't.  The bowl has a Plan B (Northern Illinois), so if they stick to the protest, it will only hurt themselves and the school that gave them scholarships.  My guess is that they'd get less than favorable treatment from the bowls for the next couple of years as well, since the network won't be happy with the lower ratings they get with Northern Illinois.

Quote from: GooooMarquette on December 16, 2016, 05:02:33 PM
The only way the players would stand their ground is if they could somehow use a possible cancellation of the Holiday Bowl as leverage (which they might believe would cause the bowl and the networks to lean on the school).  They can't.  The bowl has a Plan B (Northern Illinois), so if they stick to the protest, it will only hurt themselves and the school that gave them scholarships.  My guess is that they'd get less than favorable treatment from the bowls for the next couple of years as well, since the network won't be happy with the lower ratings they get with Northern Illinois.

Although I think the protest is ill-conceived, I doubt missing the Holiday Bowl would end up hurting the school. Those lower-tier bowls normally end up costing schools far more money than they make.

Quote from: Babybluejeans on December 16, 2016, 05:21:29 PM
Although I think the protest is ill-conceived, I doubt missing the Holiday Bowl would end up hurting the school. Those lower-tier bowls normally end up costing schools far more money than they make.

It might not hurt the school in terms of dollars, but the loss of bowl exposure can have an impact on recruiting and the school's overall reputation.  Not huge since it's just the Holiday Bowl, but I still think it would have an impact....

Quote from: jsglow on December 16, 2016, 11:26:34 AM
Thanks TAMU.  We've disagreed in the past about where the line should be (the .08 thing) but if what you described is accurate, the players' behavior was WAAAAAY over the line.  Damn lucky not to be in jail.

You know what bothers me about this?  How come all of these knumbskulls failed to recognize what was going on and failed to stop it?  I don't care how intoxicated I was, I never would have thought those actions were appropriate.  Not now, not when I was 20.  Didn't these clowns have parents who taught them a little right from wrong?

I agree, but if I had to ask a girl permission to kiss her and made sure i had it recorded on my iphone or signed in writing to conform to Title IX regs; it sure takes the "spontaneity" and "romance" out of dating. And if you broke up, it could get pretty  ugly going to Title IX hearing. I guess that is where we are today.

Dat depends on weather urine a gender neutral bathroom when said neckin' began, ai na?

Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 16, 2016, 07:39:43 PM
I agree, but if I had to ask a girl permission to kiss her and made sure i had it recorded on my iphone or signed in writing to conform to Title IX regs; it sure takes the "spontaneity" and "romance" out of dating. And if you broke up, it could get pretty  ugly going to Title IX hearing. I guess that is where we are today.

Not really but keep believing that. 

Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 16, 2016, 07:39:43 PM
I agree, but if I had to ask a girl permission to kiss her and made sure i had it recorded on my iphone or signed in writing to conform to Title IX regs; it sure takes the "spontaneity" and "romance" out of dating. And if you broke up, it could get pretty  ugly going to Title IX hearing. I guess that is where we are today.

Nope. Not there at all.

Quote from: jsglow on December 16, 2016, 11:26:34 AM
Thanks TAMU.  We've disagreed in the past about where the line should be (the .08 thing) but if what you described is accurate, the players' behavior was WAAAAAY over the line.  Damn lucky not to be in jail.

You know what bothers me about this?  How come all of these knumbskulls failed to recognize what was going on and failed to stop it?  I don't care how intoxicated I was, I never would have thought those actions were appropriate.  Not now, not when I was 20.  Didn't these clowns have parents who taught them a little right from wrong?

+1000. I have no sympathy for these guys. And not a great deal of sympathy for the young woman.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2016, 08:27:53 PM
+1000. I have no sympathy for these guys. And not a great deal of sympathy for the young woman.

Uh.. what??  Presuming the report is accurate how can you not have sympathy for her?

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 16, 2016, 08:39:39 PM
Uh.. what??  Presuming the report is accurate how can you not have sympathy for her?

I confess that I have not seen the 84 page report. Where can I find it?

I meant "reports."  Reports of the players behavior.

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 16, 2016, 09:25:18 PM
I meant "reports."  Reports of the players behavior.

I'd have to see the video. How drunks was she? She gave verbal consent to multiple players, could the other players fairly implied consent was given to them? If prosecutors don't believe sexual assault can be established beyond a reasonable doubt even with a videotape it gives me pause.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2016, 09:43:07 PM
I'd have to see the video. How drunks was she? She gave verbal consent to multiple players, could the other players fairly implied consent was given to them? If prosecutors don't believe sexual assault can be established beyond a reasonable doubt even with a videotape it gives me pause.

What does this have to do with sympathy for the woman?  You can have sympathy for an alleged victim even if crimes cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

BTW, an interesting byproduct of this topic is watching JB go back and forth with Mbakwe on twitter. 

  "In earlier times, a certain poster would have blown up the thread. It's nice to come here and be able to read all of the replies without throwing my hands in the air in disgust."

   seriously??  the guy hasn't been anywhere near this board for over ? months, but you've got to keep picking at the scab  ?-(


thanks tamu for the clarity from the schools point of view.  i can understand how a defense attorney for the alleged perpetrators would have a field day here.  there are so many things wrong here on both sides.  i'm hoping that they are working toward better resolutions. correct me if i'm wrong, but due process and representation would be a good start.  i can just see defense attorneys dropping flyers over the campus like propaganda leaflets-better call saul, eyn'a?  this has nasty written all over it-no winners here

Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 16, 2016, 10:08:22 PM

thanks tamu for the clarity from the schools point of view.  i can understand how a defense attorney for the alleged perpetrators would have a field day here.  there are so many things wrong here on both sides.  i'm hoping that they are working toward better resolutions. correct me if i'm wrong, but due process and representation would be a good start.  i can just see defense attorneys dropping flyers over the campus like propaganda leaflets-better call saul, eyn'a?  this has nasty written all over it-no winners here

What makes you think that they don't get due process and representation? Per Title IX students accused of any form of sexual violence are allowed to have an attorney present for the process.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2016, 08:27:53 PM
+1000. I have no sympathy for these guys. And not a great deal of sympathy for the young woman.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2016, 09:43:07 PM
I'd have to see the video. How drunks was she? She gave verbal consent to multiple players, could the other players fairly implied consent was given to them? If prosecutors don't believe sexual assault can be established beyond a reasonable doubt even with a videotape it gives me pause.

What do you mean by these comments? What does it matter if she verbally consented to two of the players? Why would the players misinterpreting her make a difference? If she gave consent to two people and others think that included them and they forced themselves on her, then she was still raped by multiple people. Why would you not have sympathy for her? I can understand that impacting your feeling towards the football players and the case. But that woman is still deserving of sympathy.

The only situation where she is not deserving of sympathy is if she consented to all of the players having sex with her and decided to lie about it later. That doesn't seem to be the case here and I don't think it was what you were talking about but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 17, 2016, 12:38:46 AM
What makes you think that they don't get due process and representation? Per Title IX students accused of any form of sexual violence are allowed to have an attorney present for the process.

there have been many articles written on this, critical of due process and title IX. here is one of many you can find if you google it.  i would truly respect your viewpoint of this as you do have experience with it, but it seems to be a common denominator.  here is a snippet written by george will in the  5/2016 WaPo

    "Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools' disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up
In 2011, the Education Department's civil rights office sent "dear colleague" letters to schools directing them to convict accused persons on a mere "preponderance" of evidence rather than "clear and convincing" evidence. Schools were instructed to not allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers, but to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, a form of double jeopardy.

"Although a "dear colleague" letter is supposedly a mere "guidance document," it employs the word "must" in effectively mandating policies. While purporting to just "interpret" Title IX, these letters shred constitutional guarantees. And the letters evade the legal requirement that such significant rulemaking must be subject to comment hearings open to a properly notified public. Even were CSU Pueblo inclined to resist such dictates — academic administrators nowadays are frequently supine when challenged — it would risk a costly investigation and the potential loss of the 11 percent of its budget that comes from Washington."

  from the washington post 5/16

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/due-process-is-still-being-kicked-off-campus/2016/05/13/cbf3ee6e-1860-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?utm_term=.5838d0d8c760

Rocket Chicos doesn't need you to be his personal defender.

And again Title IX isn't a court of law. Attending a specific university isn't a civil liberty.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 17, 2016, 05:30:41 AM
there have been many articles written on this, critical of due process and title IX. here is one of many you can find if you google it.  i would truly respect your viewpoint of this as you do have experience with it, but it seems to be a common denominator.  here is a snippet written by george will in the  5/2016 WaPo

    "Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools' disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up
In 2011, the Education Department's civil rights office sent "dear colleague" letters to schools directing them to convict accused persons on a mere "preponderance" of evidence rather than "clear and convincing" evidence. Schools were instructed to not allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers, but to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, a form of double jeopardy.

"Although a "dear colleague" letter is supposedly a mere "guidance document," it employs the word "must" in effectively mandating policies. While purporting to just "interpret" Title IX, these letters shred constitutional guarantees. And the letters evade the legal requirement that such significant rulemaking must be subject to comment hearings open to a properly notified public. Even were CSU Pueblo inclined to resist such dictates — academic administrators nowadays are frequently supine when challenged — it would risk a costly investigation and the potential loss of the 11 percent of its budget that comes from Washington."

  from the washington post 5/16

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/due-process-is-still-being-kicked-off-campus/2016/05/13/cbf3ee6e-1860-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html?utm_term=.5838d0d8c760

The article has some misinformation in it. While yes, the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) technically forced all schools to go to the preponderance of the information (not evidence) standard, most schools were already there. The reason the DCL included this is because there were some schools that had set up separate systems for sexual assault cases that used the higher "clear and convincing" or sometimes even "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards when every other violation on their campus was using the the "preponderance of the information" standard. It was meant to stop schools from using a higher standard to artificially lower their rates of sexual assault.

The not allowing accused to cross examine their accusers is a true statement. But accusers are not allowed to cross examine the accused either. Instead a panel questions both sides. This is to keep students from harassing and bullying each other during the process. This too was also a standard practice, and what was used in most kinds of cases that happen on campus. The DCL simply standardized it.

Complainants are allowed to appeal if the panel finds the accused not responsible. That is true. Just like the accused is allowed to appeal if the panel finds them responsible. Its even on both sides.

Really the due process issues that most people complain about is the standard of proof. Preponderance of the information requires the panel to think it is more likely than not (or 50.1% likely) that a violation occurred with the burden of proof being on the university. This means that panel member start completely on the side of the accused (0% likely) and it is the university's responsibility to convince the panel from 0 to 50.1%. This is the correct standard to use in university cases. The university has very limited powers in terms of sanctions so a beyond all reasonable doubt standard is not warranted. I could hear an argument for the clear and convincing standard but it is such an arbitrary standard. It would lead to wildly different rulings based on who was in the panel.

The sad reality of our legal system is that it fails us when it comes to rape. It is currently estimated that 97% of people who commit an act of rape (different from sexual assault) will never spend a day in jail. It is such a hard crime to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It usually happens behind closed doors, without witnesses. Rape kits can just tell you that sex occurred, not if it was consensual. All it takes is 1 out of 12 jurors to say "I think they're lying" and the case is lost. Short of someone walking in on the crime and being willing to step in and testify, you aren't likely to get a conviction. And even when you do, there are biases that often lead to comically short prison terms (Brock Turner).

To be clear, while the legal system does fail us on this crime, beyond a reasonable doubt is still the right thing in these cases. When a person's freedom hangs in the balance, you need to be 100% sure. But its still failing us. The fact that a woman that I love could be raped tomorrow and her rapist has a 97% of getting of scott free is a terrible reality. I don't know how to fix it though.

Someone's freedom does not hang in the balance in the university system. The process is completely private, shielded by several layers of privacy laws. The absolute worst a university can do is expel them. They are more than free to transfer to a different university. A difficult inconvenience for sure, but hardly life shattering. Attending a specific university is not a right, it is a privilege.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 17, 2016, 12:56:12 AM



The only situation where she is not deserving of sympathy is if she consented to all of the players having sex with her and decided to lie about it later. That doesn't seem to be the case here and I don't think it was what you were talking about but please correct me if I'm wrong.

That is the only situation where she is deserving of NO sympathy. I didn't say she deserved no sympathy, but the sympathy I have for any alleged victim of any crime is mitigated by both the the likelihood that he/she is being truthful and the reckless behavior (if any) that put said person in harm's way.

When I said I didn't have "a great deal" of sympathy for the alleged victim in this case I misspoke. The extent of my sympathy depends on the weighing of the facts.

Minnesota is going to play - http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/minnesota-football-team-will-play-in-holiday-bowl/ar-AAlGq9j?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp (http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/minnesota-football-team-will-play-in-holiday-bowl/ar-AAlGq9j?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp)

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 17, 2016, 09:54:32 AM
That is the only situation where she is deserving of NO sympathy. I didn't say she deserved no sympathy, but the sympathy I have for any alleged victim of any crime is mitigated by both the the likelihood that he/she is being truthful and the reckless behavior (if any) that put said person in harm's way.

When I said I didn't have "a great deal" of sympathy for the alleged victim in this case I misspoke. The extent of my sympathy depends on the weighing of the facts.

I would be careful with this part. Reckless behavior is dumb, but it does not make her responsible for her own rape. Getting drunk around people you don't know and consenting to have sex with two guys in one night is reckless and dumb. But the only people responsible for the rape are the attackers. Not the one who was attacked.

Quote from: ChuckyChip on December 17, 2016, 10:48:35 AM
Minnesota is going to play - http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/minnesota-football-team-will-play-in-holiday-bowl/ar-AAlGq9j?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp (http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/minnesota-football-team-will-play-in-holiday-bowl/ar-AAlGq9j?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp)

That didn't last long.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on December 16, 2016, 07:39:43 PM
I agree, but if I had to ask a girl permission to kiss her and made sure i had it recorded on my iphone or signed in writing to conform to Title IX regs; it sure takes the "spontaneity" and "romance" out of dating. And if you broke up, it could get pretty  ugly going to Title IX hearing. I guess that is where we are today.

Of course.  We've had this discussion on another thread 6  months ago and I completely agree with your point.  A big point of contention was the .08 BAC issue. 

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 16, 2016, 09:24:24 PM
I confess that I have not seen the 84 page report. Where can I find it?

http://kstp.com/sports/university-of-minnesota-eoaa-investigative-report-gophers-football-players/4347059/

Colleges that are the subject of a negative long-form news article typically see a 10% drop in applications the following year, according to a working paper published earlier this year. That's about the same effect on applications as if the school dropped 10 spots in the U.S. News and World college rankings, the study found.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-a-college-scandal-costs-in-terms-of-applicants-and-donations-2016-11-16?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 17, 2016, 11:42:55 AM
I would be careful with this part. Reckless behavior is dumb, but it does not make her responsible for her own rape. Getting drunk around people you don't know and consenting to have sex with two guys in one night is reckless and dumb. But the only people responsible for the rape are the attackers. Not the one who was attacked.

Of course you're right. And when someone is drunk and leaves their wallet on the bar to go to the bathroom the one responsible for the wallet's theft is the thief. But I'll have less sympathy for that victim than I will for the victim who has their apartment broken into and wallet stolen.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 16, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
What people don't like is that we use a lower standard of proof than law enforcement. We are only required to reach a "preponderance of the information" which means that we think it is more likely than not that a conduct violation occurred. Since we have a lower range of sanctions (no jail time, fines, record is completely private etc) the lowered standard of proof is warranted.

I guess I have a real problem with this. The university is a branch of the state and it is ruining people's lives based on the "preponderance of the evidence," whatever that means. What happened was horrible but I have strong fear that in these situations, politics is a bigger issue and institutional messaging the standard of proof. That scares me no matter what the incident.

You end up too often with a situation like Duke Rugby, which hurts women who have been assaulted as well as men who didn't but were accused of doing so.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 16, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
I feel for the University. There is no good way out of this situation.

I do agree with you on this matter, TAMU.

Quote from: dgies9156 on December 17, 2016, 04:28:06 PM
I guess I have a real problem with this. The university is a branch of the state and it is ruining people's lives based on the "preponderance of the evidence," whatever that means. What happened was horrible but I have strong fear that in these situations, politics is a bigger issue and institutional messaging the standard of proof. That scares me no matter what the incident.

You end up too often with a situation like Duke Rugby, which hurts women who have been assaulted as well as men who didn't but were accused of doing so.

A university can discipline students without holding the proceedings to the standards of a criminal court.  They accept that when they enroll.

And these players haven't had their "lives ruined."  They aren't in jail.  They just can't continue their education at the University of Minnesota.  That is the key difference between this and the Duke Lax case.

Yeah their path has changed due to a poor decision they made.  That's life.

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 17, 2016, 04:37:17 PM

A university can discipline students without holding the proceedings to the standards of a criminal court.  They accept that when they enroll.

And these players haven't had their "lives ruined."  They aren't in jail.  They just can't continue their education at the University of Minnesota.  That is the key difference between this and the Duke Lax case.

Yeah their path has changed due to a poor decision they made.  That's life.

The players are named and their pictures are on every newscast up here.  You cen bet they are getting the same treatment from the media in their home towns. 

It's not jail, but it is significant.  This will follow them. 

What a complex issue.  If they did it, they deserve it.  If they didn't......

Did dey at least sport da ol' raincoat, hey?

Interesting difference in the evidence reviewed.

The police viewed almost 2 minutes of cell phone video evidence.  The U of M investigators reviewed 12 seconds of video evidence. 

You can't make any conclusions based on the differences in the amount of evidence, but it is interesting.

Quote from: real chili 83 on December 17, 2016, 05:22:12 PM
The players are named and their pictures are on every newscast up here.  You cen bet they are getting the same treatment from the media in their home towns. 

It's not jail, but it is significant.  This will follow them. 

What a complex issue.  If they did it, they deserve it.  If they didn't......

That's because the police got involved. The university process is completely private. The media coverage has nothing to do with the university.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 17, 2016, 02:24:38 PM
Of course you're right. And when someone is drunk and leaves their wallet on the bar to go to the bathroom the one responsible for the wallet's theft is the thief. But I'll have less sympathy for that victim than I will for the victim who has their apartment broken into and wallet stolen.

I don't think that's the right analogy. I think the closer analogy is two people have their apartment broken into. One had their door locked, the other didn't. Do you really feel less sympathy for the one who forgot to lock their door? Both were equally violated.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 17, 2016, 06:53:41 PM
That's because the police got involved. The university process is completely private. The media coverage has nothing to do with the university.

In the university investigation, students who weren't investigated by the police were named.

Quote from: dgies9156 on December 17, 2016, 04:28:06 PM
I guess I have a real problem with this. The university is a branch of the state and it is ruining people's lives based on the "preponderance of the evidence," whatever that means. What happened was horrible but I have strong fear that in these situations, politics is a bigger issue and institutional messaging the standard of proof. That scares me no matter what the incident.

You end up too often with a situation like Duke Rugby, which hurts women who have been assaulted as well as men who didn't but were accused of doing so.


I do agree with you on this matter, TAMU.

First, I wouldn't believe everything you read about Duke LAX. Second, even if you do believe everything you've read about Duke LAX, that case would be the a very rare exception. Not the rule. It is far more common that victims are railroaded and rapists walk free than the other way around.

Instead of comparing the university system to criminal court, compare it to civil court. Lower sanctions, lower standard or proof, and due process is designed to make it fair for both parties, not give an advantage to the accused. Its a much more accurate comparison. No one has an issue when someone who wasn't convicted of sexual assault in criminal court gets held responsible in civil court. I'm not sure why they wouldn't view the university system in the same way.

The university system makes no attempt to be a criminal court. In fact, it goes to great lengths to distance itself from comparisons to criminal court.

Quote from: real chili 83 on December 17, 2016, 07:02:11 PM
In the university investigation, students who weren't investigated by the police were named.

Quote"out in a confidential EOAA report obtained by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS."

1 of 2 things happened here. Either one of the accused students leaked it to the news for god knows what reason. Or someone at the University of Minnesota is getting fired and then sued.

Student conduct investigations are part of a students educational record. As such they are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The university cannot release the information without the written consent of everyone involved, a warrant/subpoena, or to a specific individual with an "educational need to know" (e.g. releasing gpa to financial aid to determine scholarship availability). However, individuals involved in the investigation are free to share it with whoever they like.

Again, the university process is completely private. If one of the accused students chooses to share their copy of the investigation with the news, that is not the university's fault.

TAMU,

Have you heard of this case?

UK prof: Singing a Beach Boys' tune got me punished for 'sexual misconduct'

http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article121505232.html

Quote from: Eldon on December 17, 2016, 07:33:35 PM
TAMU,

Have you heard of this case?

UK prof: Singing a Beach Boys' tune got me punished for 'sexual misconduct'

http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article121505232.html

Had not heard this one. It is...interesting. Based on what this professor has provided about himself, there is nothing there. That doesn't even meet the standard for harassment. Now, this article was written by the accused, so I would not be at all surprised to learn that this was not the full story.

However, it also needs to be kept in mind that employees don't receive the same protections and due process rights that students do. This is an employer disciplining their employee.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 17, 2016, 07:12:52 PM
1 of 2 things happened here. Either one of the accused students leaked it to the news for god knows what reason. Or someone at the University of Minnesota is getting fired and then sued.

Student conduct investigations are part of a students educational record. As such they are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The university cannot release the information without the written consent of everyone involved, a warrant/subpoena, or to a specific individual with an "educational need to know" (e.g. releasing gpa to financial aid to determine scholarship availability). However, individuals involved in the investigation are free to share it with whoever they like.

Again, the university process is completely private. If one of the accused students chooses to share their copy of the investigation with the news, that is not the university's fault.

Judging that the team backed down after these reports were leaked, I am guessing that some one from the university left the reports "out on a table" for the press. That report is damning in regards to misconduct of the student athletes, basically justifying the school's case. Let's not be naive as to who actually leaked these.

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 17, 2016, 09:29:29 PM
Judging that the team backed down after these reports were leaked, I am guessing that some one from the university left the reports "out on a table" for the press. That report is damning in regards to misconduct of the student athletes, basically justifying the school's case. Let's not be naive as to who actually leaked these.

I could never imagine this happening. If it did, then many people need to be fired. That being said, I am a very small fish and I have never handled a case this high profile.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 17, 2016, 06:56:19 PM
I don't think that's the right analogy. I think the closer analogy is two people have their apartment broken into. One had their door locked, the other didn't. Do you really feel less sympathy for the one who forgot to lock their door? Both were equally violated.

Disagree. The closer analogy is two people have their apartment broken into. One had their door locked, the other was drunk and left the door wide open. And yes, I feel more sympathy for the person who locked his/her door.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 17, 2016, 11:25:08 PM
Disagree. The closer analogy is two people have their apartment broken into. One had their door locked, the other was drunk and left the door wide open. And yes, I feel more sympathy for the person who locked his/her door.

Even if you use that analogy I still think you are very much in the wrong. Your analogy is the exact same as mine, except you gave a specific reason why the person forgot to lock their door. How does a person being drunk make the crime of robbery or rape any less heinous? Why are they deserving of less sympathy?

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 17, 2016, 06:11:56 AM
Rocket Chicos doesn't need you to be his personal defender.

And again Title IX isn't a court of law. Attending a specific university isn't a civil liberty.

     i think many would agree that to keep bringing him up in a "backhanded" way 1) provocative and 2)unnecessary and 3) a passive/aggressive way to smack a fellow 'scooper who can't defend himself is uncalled for.  when he would sneak back on here under a different log-in, some would call him out and "diagnose" him with some type of "problem".  my responses are-check your mirror and i know chicos doesn't "NEED" me to do anything.  the guy is gone-end of story.  i'm sure you would do the same for a friend of yours

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 17, 2016, 09:47:17 AM
The article has some misinformation in it. While yes, the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) technically forced all schools to go to the preponderance of the information (not evidence) standard, most schools were already there. The reason the DCL included this is because there were some schools that had set up separate systems for sexual assault cases that used the higher "clear and convincing" or sometimes even "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards when every other violation on their campus was using the the "preponderance of the information" standard. It was meant to stop schools from using a higher standard to artificially lower their rates of sexual assault.

The not allowing accused to cross examine their accusers is a true statement. But accusers are not allowed to cross examine the accused either. Instead a panel questions both sides. This is to keep students from harassing and bullying each other during the process. This too was also a standard practice, and what was used in most kinds of cases that happen on campus. The DCL simply standardized it.

Complrightnts are allowed to appeal if the panel finds the accused not responsible. That is true. Just like the accused is allowed to appeal if the panel finds them responsible. Its even on both sides.

Really the due process issues that most people complain about is the standard of proof. Preponderance of the information requires the panel to think it is more likely than not (or 50.1% likely) that a violation occurred with the burden of proof being on the university. This means that panel member start completely on the side of the accused (0% likely) and it is the university's responsibility to convince the panel from 0 to 50.1%. This is the correct standard to use in university cases. The university has very limited powers in terms of sanctions so a beyond all reasonable doubt standard is not warranted. I could hear an argument for the clear and convincing standard but it is such an arbitrary standard. It would lead to wildly different rulings based on who was in the panel.

The sad reality of our legal system is that it fails us when it comes to rape. It is currently estimated that 97% of people who commit an act of rape (different from sexual assault) will never spend a day in jail. It is such a hard crime to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It usually happens behind closed doors, without witnesses. Rape kits can just tell you that sex occurred, not if it was consensual. All it takes is 1 out of 12 jurors to say "I think they're lying" and the case is lost. Short of someone walking in on the crime and being willing to step in and testify, you aren't likely to get a conviction. And even when you do, there are biases that often lead to comically short prison terms (Brock Turner).

To be clear, while the legal system does fail us on this crime, beyond a reasonable doubt is still the right thing in these cases. When a person's freedom hangs in the balance, you need to be 100% sure. But its still failing us. The fact that a woman that I love could be raped tomorrow and her rapist has a 97% of getting of scott free is a terrible reality. I don't know how to fix it though.

Someone's freedom does not hang in the balance in the university system. The process is completely private, shielded by several layers of privacy laws. The absolute worst a university can do is expel them. They are more than free to transfer to a different university. A difficult inconvenience for sure, but hardly life shattering. Attending a specific university is not a right, it is a privilege.

ok-thank you-well stated

i realize title IX has some flaws and as you stated above, "rape" is difficult to prove.  one case that really shook the process was the mattress girl.  for fear of posting any of the many stories written on her from a source that some will interpret as "biased" i will let you guys look it up.  it should be exhibit A, exposing the weaknesses of the due process the universities are ignoring.  ok, it was one of a few, but lives were messed up(really really messed up) either way.  would anyone here want to be in a paul nungessor's shoes?  the support and notoriety that emma sulkowicz got was beyond the pale.     

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 18, 2016, 12:06:07 AM
Even if you use that analogy I still think you are very much in the wrong. Your analogy is the exact same as mine, except you gave a specific reason why the person forgot to lock their door. How does a person being drunk make the crime of robbery or rape any less heinous? Why are they deserving of less sympathy?

good example-i would submit another scenario- one who is seen as dressed provocatively(use your own visuals) and another who is wearing over-sized clothes, sweaters, jackets...what have you. add in, the provocatively dressed one is drunk as well. both get raped...were either of them worthy of more sympathy than the other?  i mean, you can add all kinds of things to each of these scenarios and decide whether or not a rape was rape.  there is always, the rest of the story...the importance however is that each are allowed to present all sides of "the story"

All that really matters in this case is that Title IX is the law.  Either you live with Title IX or gut it, probably in court.

Anyone know if it's survived a Supreme Court review?

Quote from: real chili 83 on December 18, 2016, 07:03:42 AM
All that really matters in this case is that Title IX is the law.  Either you live with Title IX or gut it, probably in court.

Anyone know if it's survived a Supreme Court review?

is it really in the supreme court's wheel house though?  i suppose anything can be reviewed by them, but i'm thinking some of our 'scoop lawyers know the process better than i.  i also think it's probably a good law with good intentions, but they forgot to dot the t's and cross their i's, ein'er?

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 18, 2016, 12:06:07 AM
Even if you use that analogy I still think you are very much in the wrong. Your analogy is the exact same as mine, except you gave a specific reason why the person forgot to lock their door. How does a person being drunk make the crime of robbery or rape any less heinous? Why are they deserving of less sympathy?

Of course the crime is the same and the perps deserve the same punishment. Never have I said anything different. But I reserve the right to be more sympathetic to victims who have acted responsibly and not made themselves more vulnerable because of their stupidity or carelessness.

You can feel the exact same amount of sympathy for the person who leaves their car unlocked and running and is the victim of car theft as you feel for the guy whose car is broken into and hot wired. I don't.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 18, 2016, 06:27:43 AM
     i think many would agree that to keep bringing him up in a "backhanded" way 1) provocative and 2)unnecessary and 3) a passive/aggressive way to smack a fellow 'scooper who can't defend himself is uncalled for.  when he would sneak back on here under a different log-in, some would call him out and "diagnose" him with some type of "problem".  my responses are-check your mirror and i know chicos doesn't "NEED" me to do anything.  the guy is gone-end of story.  i'm sure you would do the same for a friend of yours

LOL.  Yeah good thing we have you around to keep us on the straight and narrow.  ::)

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 18, 2016, 10:19:28 AM
Of course the crime is the same and the perps deserve the same punishment. Never have I said anything different. But I reserve the right to be more sympathetic to victims who have acted responsibly and not made themselves more vulnerable because of their stupidity or carelessness.

You can feel the exact same amount of sympathy for the person who leaves their car unlocked and running and is the victim of car theft as you feel for the guy whose car is broken into and hot wired. I don't.

I find that to be very strange.  The very idea that your degrees of sympathy is related to how much some one who is a victim of a crime made themselves more vulnerable to a crime seems quite questionable.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 18, 2016, 10:12:27 AM
is it really in the supreme court's wheel house though?  i suppose anything can be reviewed by them, but i'm thinking some of our 'scoop lawyers know the process better than i.  i also think it's probably a good law with good intentions, but they forgot to dot the t's and cross their i's, ein'er?

It's a federal law.  Of course it is in their "wheel house" if a case gets that far. 

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 18, 2016, 10:33:43 AM

It's a federal law.  Of course it is in their "wheel house" if a case gets that far.

thank you...i think

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 18, 2016, 10:31:06 AM

LOL.  Yeah good thing we have you around to keep us on the straight and narrow.  ::)

just sayin-if i, jesse, and/or a few others would be rippin on someone from your club who can't respond, there would be a fast n furious chitstorm of responses clogging up the 'scoop airways.   

Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 18, 2016, 06:58:39 AM
good example-i would submit another scenario- one who is seen as dressed provocatively(use your own visuals) and another who is wearing over-sized clothes, sweaters, jackets...what have you. add in, the provocatively dressed one is drunk as well. both get raped...were either of them worthy of more sympathy than the other?  i mean, you can add all kinds of things to each of these scenarios and decide whether or not a rape was rape.  there is always, the rest of the story...the importance however is that each are allowed to present all sides of "the story"

Help me understand what you are trying to say here. I'm reading it as "If a woman dresses provocatively and is raped then she is a partially to blame for her own rape." Which I would disagree with vehemently.

The U has to take a hardline stance. They lied about Mbakwe's case and are in an awful situation where they must come down hard.

Ban hammer 2 U

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 18, 2016, 10:19:28 AM
Of course the crime is the same and the perps deserve the same punishment. Never have I said anything different. But I reserve the right to be more sympathetic to victims who have acted responsibly and not made themselves more vulnerable because of their stupidity or carelessness.

You can feel the exact same amount of sympathy for the person who leaves their car unlocked and running and is the victim of car theft as you feel for the guy whose car is broken into and hot wired. I don't.

This is very....concerning to me. If, god-forbid, your daughter, wife or another woman you cared about was raped, I hope your level of sympathy towards them wouldn't be dependent on how many risk reduction strategies they were using to prevent the rape. It doesn't seem like a very Jesuit way of thinking.

Is it just alcohol that effects your level of sympathy? What if the woman was walking alone at night? That greatly increases your risk of being assaulted. Is she less deserving of sympathy? What if she took her eyes off her beverage for a few seconds and had something slipped into it? Does that make her less worthy of sympathy? What if she got on an uber in Chicago with all the news of uber drivers assaulting their passengers? What if she met a guy who seemed nice and gave him her number and he then used that to track her and rape her? How many steps must she take in order to prevent her rape in order for her to be worthy of your full sympathy?

This may be an argument over vocabulary. I can understand simply stating that she could have reduced her risk but to withhold sympathy based on vulnerability seems very questionable.

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 18, 2016, 10:32:50 AM

I find that to be very strange.  The very idea that your degrees of sympathy is related to how much some one who is a victim of a crime made themselves more vulnerable to a crime seems quite questionable.

I believe in personal responsibility. People who contribute to their own vulnerability get less sympathy from me when things go wrong. I find disagreement with that to be strange, so I guess we're even.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 18, 2016, 02:04:20 PMWhat if she got on an uber in Chicago with all the news of uber drivers assaulting their passengers?

Broad sweeping statements like this don't help your point.  I've enjoyed reading your perspective on this topic. 

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 18, 2016, 01:48:54 PM
Help me understand what you are trying to say here. I'm reading it as "If a woman dresses provocatively and is raped then she is a partially to blame for her own rape." Which I would disagree with vehemently.

sorry- i can see where my statement didn't clarify the rape part.  what i got caught in doing was presenting different scenarios with the same outcome or conclusion.  what i am saying is BOTH rapes are WRONG regardless if a woman is dressed provocatively OR in an ugly suit.  i don't care if the woman was bare naked walking down the street-if she doesn't consent, it's rape.  now walking down the street naked part is a whole different can of worms in and of itself, but i don't mean to digress

Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 18, 2016, 02:38:21 PM
sorry- i can see where my statement didn't clarify the rape part.  what i got caught in doing was presenting different scenarios with the same outcome or conclusion.  what i am saying is BOTH rapes are WRONG regardless if a woman is dressed provocatively OR in an ugly suit.  i don't care if the woman was bare naked walking down the street-if she doesn't consent, it's rape.  now walking down the street naked part is a whole different can of worms in and of itself, but i don't mean to digress

If you capitalized your sentences, and cut down on the extraneous punctuation, it would make your point much easier to get across. 

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 18, 2016, 02:42:07 PM
If you capitalized your sentences, and cut down on the extraneous punctuation, it would make your point much easier to get across.

i'm a complicated, yet simple guy.  i am what i am,  what you see is what you get.  you really are a ball buster, aren't you.  now that chicos is out of the way, next up...i have no one on ignore and i intend on keeping it that way.  you?

LOL.  Right.  I'm out to get you.  You learned victimization from your friend too I see.

You two need to get a room.  ;D

Chicos and Lenny, v2

Quote from: Dr. Vinnie Boombatz on December 18, 2016, 02:54:58 PM
LOL.  Right.  I'm out to get you.  You learned victimization from your friend too I see.

nope-but sure are trying-read, starts with a "t" and ryhmes with mole.  have ya ever thought about stamp collecting, maybe coins?

Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 18, 2016, 02:38:21 PM
sorry- i can see where my statement didn't clarify the rape part.  what i got caught in doing was presenting different scenarios with the same outcome or conclusion.  what i am saying is BOTH rapes are WRONG regardless if a woman is dressed provocatively OR in an ugly suit.  i don't care if the woman was bare naked walking down the street-if she doesn't consent, it's rape.  now walking down the street naked part is a whole different can of worms in and of itself, but i don't mean to digress

Thanks for the clarification. 100% agree

Quote from: real chili 83 on December 18, 2016, 02:32:26 PM
Broad sweeping statements like this don't help your point.  I've enjoyed reading your perspective on this topic.

I understand, but that was part of the point I was making. When news was coming out about people being raped and kidnapped by uber drivers in Chicago (some real, some fake) I heard/saw many comments that the women should have known better than to get into an uber alone when this had been happening.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 18, 2016, 02:04:20 PM
This is very....concerning to me. If, god-forbid, your daughter, wife or another woman you cared about was raped, I hope your level of sympathy towards them wouldn't be dependent on how many risk reduction strategies they were using to prevent the rape. It doesn't seem like a very Jesuit way of thinking.

Is it just alcohol that effects your level of sympathy? What if the woman was walking alone at night? That greatly increases your risk of being assaulted. Is she less deserving of sympathy? What if she took her eyes off her beverage for a few seconds and had something slipped into it? Does that make her less worthy of sympathy? What if she got on an uber in Chicago with all the news of uber drivers assaulting their passengers? What if she met a guy who seemed nice and gave him her number and he then used that to track her and rape her? How many steps must she take in order to prevent her rape in order for her to be worthy of your full sympathy?

This may be an argument over vocabulary. I can understand simply stating that she could have reduced her risk but to withhold sympathy based on vulnerability seems very questionable.

If one of my daughters went to a party with 10 football players, got drunk, consented to have sex with some of them but maybe not all of them I would want anyone who forced themselves on her to go to prison for a long time. I would also be terribly disappointed in my daughter. I think that disappointment would, to some degree, mitigate my sympathy.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 18, 2016, 06:27:43 AM
     i think many would agree that to keep bringing him up in a "backhanded" way 1) provocative and 2)unnecessary and 3) a passive/aggressive way to smack a fellow 'scooper who can't defend himself is uncalled for.  when he would sneak back on here under a different log-in, some would call him out and "diagnose" him with some type of "problem".  my responses are-check your mirror and i know chicos doesn't "NEED" me to do anything.  the guy is gone-end of story.  i'm sure you would do the same for a friend of yours

I thought you said, multiple times, that he didn't do this.

Quote from: jesmu84 on December 18, 2016, 03:17:08 PM
I thought you said, multiple times, that he didn't do this.

no i didn't.  go back and read what context i did say-multiple times he didn't do THIS.    honeybadger was one of the posters he was accused of being, of which he was not.  there were at least one or two others people thought were chicos, but were not.  it's all about context

" Coleman
All American
*****

Posts: 2710
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: We can do better. We need to. All MU fans
« Reply #63 on: November 15, 2016, 02:45:44 PM »
Quote from: rocket surgeon on November 15, 2016, 02:37:34 PM
totally agree with chick-you guys are brutal.  honeybadger and all the others were NOT chicos.  it was a troll trying to sound like him so you guys would think it was him.  so unless you know for sure, which you don't, knock it off!  i spoke to him specifically about those posts and they weren't him-why would he lie to me as he has no plans trying to get back on the board.  he knows one little slip or msg that comes across the wrong way, he'll get bombed-not worth his or anyone's time.  you guys who are gloating, thinking karma and all that b.s., fine, hope ya feel better

Are you familiar with the concept of occam's razor?

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.


Here we have two hypotheses:

1) After being banned, Chicos created another screen name, as he has admitted to doing many times in the past, to continue the exact same types of political discussions he never could resist.

2) A different forum member, with no vested interest in doing so, created another screen name and tried to sound like Chicos pretending to be an African American in Madison, because he wanted other people to think he was Chicos, for no reason.

Coleman
All American
*****

Posts: 2710
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 18, 2016, 03:16:32 PM
If one of my daughters went to a party with 10 football players, got drunk, consented to have sex with some of them but maybe not all of them I would want anyone who forced themselves on her to go to prison for a long time. I would also be terribly disappointed in my daughter. I think that disappointment would, to some degree, mitigate my sympathy.

You say this and maybe you even think it's true. But if it actually happened to your daughter, I'm guessing your sympathy wouldn't be mitigated one iota. Just my opinion and hopefully one that will never have to be proven (don't even know if you have a daughter; I do).

It's like the strict, anti-gay people all of a sudden having sympathy for the cause as soon as one of their kids comes out of the closet.

I have a 21 year old daughter.    When the alleged assaults took place at MU, I used it as a teaching moment for her.    Star athletes, entitlement mentality among some males, when no means no, both in the eyes of the law and realistically.    The dangers of drunken sex, the problems with social media...... man, I had her embarrassed and pissed at me.     But, through 3 1/2 year of college, no problems that she has shared with me. 

Quote from: MU82 on December 18, 2016, 06:30:51 PM
You say this and maybe you even think it's true. But if it actually happened to your daughter, I'm guessing your sympathy wouldn't be mitigated one iota. Just my opinion and hopefully one that will never have to be proven (don't even know if you have a daughter; I do).

It's like the strict, anti-gay people all of a sudden having sympathy for the cause as soon as one of their kids comes out of the closet.

I have two daughters. My oldest got her undergraduate degree at Marquette, the youngest (and #3 of 4 children) at SLU.

I can't imagine them behaving like the young woman at Minnesota, but if either of them did my sympathy would be mixed with disappointment - and disappointment waters it down a bit.

As for the gay analogy, it doesn't fit. A child had no choice (and therefore no responsibility) for his or her sexual orientation. So I would have total sympathy for anyone persecuted because of it.

Quote from: tower912 on December 18, 2016, 06:37:58 PM
I have a 21 year old daughter.    When the alleged assaults took place at MU, I used it as a teaching moment for her.    Star athletes, entitlement mentality among some males, when no means no, both in the eyes of the law and realistically.    The dangers of drunken sex, the problems with social media...... man, I had her embarrassed and pissed at me.     But, through 3 1/2 year of college, no problems that she has shared with me.

Our daughters are different ages but we've had the same discussions.

Quote from: tower912 on December 18, 2016, 06:37:58 PM
I have a 21 year old daughter.    When the alleged assaults took place at MU, I used it as a teaching moment for her.    Star athletes, entitlement mentality among some males, when no means no, both in the eyes of the law and realistically.    The dangers of drunken sex, the problems with social media...... man, I had her embarrassed and pissed at me.     But, through 3 1/2 year of college, no problems that she has shared with me. 

OK but that's not really the point.  Even if you teach her this, and even if she listened, she still could find herself in that situation.  Maybe 99% of the time, she would make the right choices.  But maybe she doesn't that 1% for whatever reasons.

And she should deserve less sympathy for that 1%?  Because she didn't exercise "personal responsibility" 100% of the time?

Nah.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 18, 2016, 06:41:10 PM
As for the gay analogy, it doesn't fit. A child had no choice (and therefore no responsibility) for his or her sexual orientation. So I would have total sympathy for anyone persecuted because of it.

This woman had no choice once the players decided to force themselves on her. That is what you are missing. The lead up does not matter. Judge and shame away for the drinking and sex with multiple partners. But letting it affect your sympathy for what happened to her is misguided.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 18, 2016, 06:42:29 PM
Our daughters are different ages but we've had the same discussions.

But what discussions have you had with your sons?

Quote from: jesmu84 on December 18, 2016, 03:17:08 PM
I thought you said, multiple times, that he didn't do this.

just an FYI, he wasn't FreeRepublic either-someone here is messing with a lot of you and you're all falling for it.  he might check in once in a while to see what's going on, but i think many of you are familiar with the term "rent free".  check it out in urban dictionary if you aren't-there should be a picture of some 'scoop people with it's description as well

Quote from: warriorchick on December 18, 2016, 09:08:56 PM
But what discussions have you had with your sons?

And that (as the father of two young boys) is the only question that matters.  Once again, thanks Chick for getting to the real issue.

Quote from: warriorchick on December 18, 2016, 09:08:56 PM
But what discussions have you had with your sons?

Good and fair question, chick. I told them to be polite and (though it's old fashioned) chivalrous. I told them to respect all women like they did their sisters and their mother and to not be afraid to intercede if they saw guys acting like they didn't. I told them to never so much as take a girl's hand or kiss her without encouragement. And that no (at any time) unequivocally meant no. And beyond discussion I tried to show a good example in the way I treated their mother.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on December 18, 2016, 09:18:40 PM
just an FYI, he wasn't FreeRepublic either-someone here is messing with a lot of you and you're all falling for it.  he might check in once in a while to see what's going on, but i think many of you are familiar with the term "rent free".  check it out in urban dictionary if you aren't-there should be a picture of some 'scoop people with it's description as well

OK...Wow!  I may be the only one but I have no idea who the actual person Chico's is.  I do know that he turned himself into a Scoop meme by his preposterous logic shifting arguments, need for attention and continuous stalking. 

It's the meme that is being attacked.....Chico's is now part of Scoop lore like #donedeal, 'aine, crean sux, N'ers, or the "it's happening" GIF.  By defending 'Chicos' you only ensure the meme grows stronger.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 18, 2016, 07:21:56 PM
This woman had no choice once the players decided to force themselves on her. That is what you are missing. The lead up does not matter. Judge and shame away for the drinking and sex with multiple partners. But letting it affect your sympathy for what happened to her is misguided.

I'm not missing that. And I sympathize with her. It shouldn't have happened to her and if those other guys really raped her I'm for locking them up and tossing the key. But her own choices and extremely reckless behavior made her more vulnerable and even cast some doubt about what actually happened. That's a mitigating factor for me. I gather that makes me cruel in your (and sultan's) eyes, but I think it's more cruel to excuse and ultimately enable that kind of recklessness.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 18, 2016, 10:00:48 PM
I'm not missing that. And I sympathize with her. It shouldn't have happened to her and if those other guys really raped her I'm for locking them up and tossing the key. But her own choices and extremely reckless behavior made her more vulnerable and even cast some doubt about what actually happened. That's a mitigating factor for me. I gather that makes me cruel in your (and sultan's) eyes, but I think it's more cruel to excuse and ultimately enable that kind of recklessness.

Its not excusing or enabling. I just recognize that it is a completely separate issue. Her actions before don't make what happened to her any less terrible. Being raped is not an appropriate response or punishment for reckless behavior. Whether you are trying to or not, you are sending the message that she is partially at fault for the heinous actions of the men who raped her. The only person who is at fault is the attacker.

I don't think you are cruel. I do think you have some discomfort and bias around this topic. In this and other conversations you have repeated this line about "personal responsibility" which sends the message that victim's are responsible for their own rape. You also tend to spend a lot of time focused on the victim's responsibility  and very little on the responsibility of the attacker. I'm not sure why this is the case but I would encourage you to reflect and think about what the Jesuits would say about these situations. Do you really think they would teach their students to have less sympathy for rape victims based on how risky their behavior was before?

You didn't answer my earlier question. What if the young woman was walking alone at night? That greatly increases her risk of being attacked. Would you have less sympathy for her for doing something so reckless?

Quote from: naginiF on December 18, 2016, 09:40:51 PM
OK...Wow!  I may be the only one but I have no idea who the actual person Chico's is.  I do know that he turned himself into a Scoop meme by his preposterous logic shifting arguments, need for attention and continuous stalking. 

It's the meme that is being attacked.....Chico's is now part of Scoop lore like #donedeal, 'aine, crean sux, N'ers, or the "it's happening" GIF.  By defending 'Chicos' you only ensure the meme grows stronger.

that's a pretty narrow minded, myopic summary and viewpoint, but if that's what you want to go with, have a good one.  the real chicos/jams was closer to the last post he wrote-"we can do better, we need to. to all MU fans"   
       there is a good dude in there, but from your post, it seems that you "slept in" during the jesuit parts of your MU experience.

    my point is that despite what some here want to believe that he is still haunting/stalking the scoop, he has moved on and is doing very well with an occasional chuckle hearing his name live on in 'scooper lore perpetrated by some squatter(s) who can't let it go.   

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 19, 2016, 12:11:50 AM
Its not excusing or enabling. I just recognize that it is a completely separate issue. Her actions before don't make what happened to her any less terrible. Being raped is not an appropriate response or punishment for reckless behavior. Whether you are trying to or not, you are sending the message that she is partially at fault for the heinous actions of the men who raped her. The only person who is at fault is the attacker.

I don't think you are cruel. I do think you have some discomfort and bias around this topic. In this and other conversations you have repeated this line about "personal responsibility" which sends the message that victim's are responsible for their own rape. You also tend to spend a lot of time focused on the victim's responsibility  and very little on the responsibility of the attacker. I'm not sure why this is the case but I would encourage you to reflect and think about what the Jesuits would say about these situations. Do you really think they would teach their students to have less sympathy for rape victims based on how risky their behavior was before?

You didn't answer my earlier question. What if the young woman was walking alone at night? That greatly increases her risk of being attacked. Would you have less sympathy for her for doing something so reckless?

I'll answer your last paragraph first. Good question, since walking alone at night is not a good idea, not a very responsible thing to do. But in spite of that I concede that I would have the same amount of sympathy for her as I would for two women out walking who are attacked. Why? Because while being out alone may be somewhat irresponsible it doesn't go to the heart of her believability.

The case we've been discussing is different. I know rape can be hard to prove, but the DA had a video! But even given that no charges were filed. Why? Victim impaired, mixed, maybe confusing messaging, reasonable doubt. Bottom line, even with a video the DA didn't think 12 people would believe her story (or at least would doubt it). Her reckless behavior makes her less believable, which makes her less sympathetic.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 19, 2016, 10:19:22 AM
I'll answer your last paragraph first. Good question, since walking alone at night is not a good idea, not a very responsible thing to do. But in spite of that I concede that I would have the same amount of sympathy for her as I would for two women out walking who are attacked. Why? Because while being out alone may be somewhat irresponsible it doesn't go to the heart of her believability.

The case we've been discussing is different. I know rape can be hard to prove, but the DA had a video! But even given that no charges were filed. Why? Victim impaired, mixed, maybe confusing messaging, reasonable doubt. Bottom line, even with a video the DA didn't think 12 people would believe her story (or at least would doubt it). Her reckless behavior makes her less believable, which makes her less sympathetic.

Is that a problem with her? Or a problem with the average 12 people?

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 19, 2016, 11:57:12 AM
Is that a problem with her? Or a problem with the average 12 people?

C'mon, now. You don't really want the trial after the execution, do you? You prefer guilty unless proven innocent?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 19, 2016, 01:36:43 PM
C'mon, now. You don't really want the trial after the execution, do you? You prefer guilty unless proven innocent?

I think the point he's trying to make is the assumption that a girl who gets intoxicated and/or invites casual sex is somehow culpable for being raped.
That's a pretty slippery slope - or at least one that it's impossible to  maintain logically - you're situating yourself upon.
I mean, what's that family killed by a drunk driver doing out in their minivan around midnight on a Saturday? Pretty reckless of them, if you ask me. Id' feel bad for them if it happened at midday, but the fact they were out so late tempers by sympathy.

A little off topic.  But the players that were suspended here, were at the very very very least, involved in questionable behavior that placed the university in an extremely negative light.  A suspension is warranted in the least.

In comparison, a female soccer player from UCONN, gave a camera the middle finger after scoring a penalty shot.  Was removed from the team, scholarship revoked and forced to leave the university without any chance for appeal. 

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/12/19/uconn-player-sues-over-punishment-for-middle-finger-incident.html (http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/12/19/uconn-player-sues-over-punishment-for-middle-finger-incident.html)

The football players should be very happy that they are not:  1.  In jail, 2. Careers and free education ended.

Quote from: forgetful on December 19, 2016, 02:12:20 PM
A little off topic.  But the players that were suspended here, were at the very very very least, involved in questionable behavior that placed the university in an extremely negative light.  A suspension is warranted in the least.

In comparison, a female soccer player from UCONN, gave a camera the middle finger after scoring a penalty shot.  Was removed from the team, scholarship revoked and forced to leave the university without any chance for appeal. 

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/12/19/uconn-player-sues-over-punishment-for-middle-finger-incident.html (http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/12/19/uconn-player-sues-over-punishment-for-middle-finger-incident.html)

The football players should be very happy that they are not:  1.  In jail, 2. Careers and free education ended.

Sadly, the difference between soccer football (non-revenue sport) and real football (revenue sport).

Quote from: Pakuni on December 19, 2016, 01:43:32 PM
I think the point he's trying to make is the assumption that a girl who gets intoxicated and/or invites casual sex is somehow culpable for being raped.
That's a pretty slippery slope - or at least one that it's impossible to  maintain logically - you're situating yourself upon.
I mean, what's that family killed by a drunk driver doing out in their minivan around midnight on a Saturday? Pretty reckless of them, if you ask me. Id' feel bad for them if it happened at midday, but the fact they were out so late tempers by sympathy.

That's nothing even remotely like what I was saying.

Time of day matters not at all. And let me reiterate. Being drunk does NOT make it OK for people to commit rape against you. And having consensual sex with a couple of guys doesn't mean you consented to having sex with several others. But put it all together and add a videotape that's not conclusive and it muddies the water - makes her a less reliable/believable witness. Someone less sympathetic to a jury of her peers. Which means no prosecution or a good chance acquittal if there is one.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 19, 2016, 04:51:49 PM
That's nothing even remotely like what I was saying.

Didn't you write this:
I believe in personal responsibility. People who contribute to their own vulnerability get less sympathy from me when things go wrong.

Doesn't making the decision to be on the roads after midnight on a Saturday contribute to one's vulnerability to being victimized by a drunken driver? After all, stats show 31 percent of fatal DUI-related accidents occur between midnight and 3 a.m. over the weekend.
Doesn't the victim bear some personal responsibility for putting himself/herself in a vulnerable situation?

Of course, that sounds ridiculous. And is ridiculous. But that's where you've placed yourself.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 19, 2016, 05:08:19 PM
Didn't you write this:
I believe in personal responsibility. People who contribute to their own vulnerability get less sympathy from me when things go wrong.

Doesn't making the decision to be on the roads after midnight on a Saturday contribute to one's vulnerability to being victimized by a drunken driver? After all, stats show 31 percent of fatal DUI-related accidents occur between midnight and 3 a.m. over the weekend.
Doesn't the victim bear some personal responsibility for putting himself/herself in a vulnerable situation?

Of course, that sounds ridiculous. And is ridiculous. But that's where you've placed yourself.

So you don't believe in personal responsibility. And if someone lying dead drunk in an alley has his wallet lifted he bears no responsibility and deserves the same amount of sympathy as someone whose wallet is pilfered when his room is broken into. I guess that's the ridiculous place where you guys live.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 19, 2016, 05:36:50 PM
So you don't believe in personal responsibility. And if someone lying dead drunk in an alley has his wallet lifted he bears no responsibility and deserves the same amount of sympathy as someone whose wallet is pilfered when his room is broken into. I guess that's the ridiculous place where you guys live.

Yes, I do not believe in personal responsibility. That's what I wrote.

Here's a crazy thought ... crime victims deserve sympathy, especially victims of violent crime. There's no need to create a hierarchy of sympathy.
Doing so is just a form of victim blaming ... a completely unnecessary one at that.
And as for "personal responsibility," I don't believe any person is ever responsible for another person choosing to rape them. I guess we differ there.

Quote from: Pakuni on December 19, 2016, 05:53:02 PM
Yes, I do not believe in personal responsibility. That's what I wrote.

Here's a crazy thought ... crime victims deserve sympathy, especially victims of violent crime. There's no need to create a hierarchy of sympathy.
Doing so is just a form of victim blaming ... a completely unnecessary one at that.
And as for "personal responsibility," I don't believe any person is ever responsible for another person choosing to rape them. I guess we differ there.

You're right. All rape accusers are rape victims. So all rape accusers (even when their own actions cause doubts about the accuracy of their accusations) deserve the same sympathy as all rape victims.

Sorry, but that logic escapes me.

I don't get the wallet analogy.  Violent crime is way different than property crime.  If a guy passes out in an alley and has his wallet stolen, I might have less sympathy for him.

If he was raped my sympathy would not be affected!

Quote from: Lazar's Headband on December 20, 2016, 04:33:31 PM
I don't get the wallet analogy.  Violent crime is way different than property crime.  If a guy passes out in an alley and has his wallet stolen, I might have less sympathy for him.

If he was raped my sympathy would not be affected!

I think you should even separate rape from violent crime. 

If a guy got absurdly drunk and pissed off some guy that kicked the royal crap out of him (assault), I would have less sympathy for him.

If he was raped, my sympathy would not be affected. 

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 19, 2016, 11:10:49 PM
You're right. All rape accusers are rape victims. So all rape accusers (even when their own actions cause doubts about the accuracy of their accusations) deserve the same sympathy as all rape victims.

Sorry, but that logic escapes me.

So you're changing your position from rape victims to rape "accusers?"
That's some Chicos-esque goalpost maneuvering.

Hennepin County attorney considering reopening the case. 

Scenario A: 10 year old girl gets caught in crossfire because the gangbangers shooting up her house we're aiming for her rival-gangbanging 17 year old brother.

Scenario B: Same as A except the girl is unscathed and the brother is lying dead from a bullet wound.


Someone please raise their hand like an idiot and tell me that a reasonable person would have the same sympathy for the brother in B as they would for the sister in A.

Quote from: Benny B on December 20, 2016, 09:21:00 PM
Scenario A: 10 year old girl gets caught in crossfire because the gangbangers shooting up her house we're aiming for her rival-gangbanging 17 year old brother.

Scenario B: Same as A except the girl is unscathed and the brother is lying dead from a bullet wound.


Someone please raise their hand like an idiot and tell me that a reasonable person would have the same sympathy for the brother in B as they would for the sister in A.

No "hierarchy of sympathy" allowed for violent crime victims - it's right there in the Pakuni Papers!

Add TAMU while you're at it. Since nobody deserves to be murdered, all victims MUST engender the same amount of sympathy. Otherwise you have a "murder bias".

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 20, 2016, 10:43:09 PM
No "hierarchy of sympathy" allowed for violent crime victims - it's right there in the Pakuni Papers!

Add TAMU while you're at it. Since nobody deserves to be murdered, all victims MUST engender the same amount of sympathy. Otherwise you have a "murder bias".

Hmmmm... we could probably have a much more intelligent conversation on this topic simply arguing between the two of us  sarcastically.  I'll keep it going...

What does engender a sympathetic role have anything to do with murder bias?  Are you implying that transgender people can't be murderers, too?  Is it because someone wears a dress and high heels that she's not allowed to shoot up Christmas markets in Europe with a TEC-9?

The players caved and they are playing the game.   

Quote from: Benny B on December 21, 2016, 09:57:31 AM
Hmmmm... we could probably have a much more intelligent conversation on this topic simply arguing between the two of us  sarcastically.  I'll keep it going...

What does engender a sympathetic role have anything to do with murder bias?  Are you implying that transgender people can't be murderers, too?  Is it because someone wears a dress and high heels that she's not allowed to shoot up Christmas markets in Europe with a TEC-9?

Scenario A: While protesting at a soldier's funeral and carrying a "God Hates cute ones" poster a member of the Westboro Baptist Church is hit in the eye by a bottle hurled by the fallen soldier's brother. He subsequently loses sight in that eye.

Scenario B: While marching in a 4th of July parade a high school band member is hit in the eye by a bottle hurled by her jealous ex boyfriend. She subsequently loses sight in that eye.

Being a victim of a thrown bottle is a terrible thing. We all agree that it shouldn't happen to anyone. But equal amounts of sympathy for both victims?

Yikes. I stepped away for a day and this really went off the rails.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 19, 2016, 05:36:50 PM
So you don't believe in personal responsibility. And if someone lying dead drunk in an alley has his wallet lifted he bears no responsibility and deserves the same amount of sympathy as someone whose wallet is pilfered when his room is broken into. I guess that's the ridiculous place where you guys live.

I believe in personal responsibility. The young woman has zero responsibility for her rape. To suggest otherwise is misguided and blaming the victim. What the young woman does have responsibility for is the hangover she will get from drinking too much. The potential pregnancy that could have resulted from the "consensual" sex with the first two. Partial responsibility for an STD she might have contracted from the "consensual" sex (they also have responsibility to inform her if they are aware of it). The potential hit to her reputation if people see her. These are all things that are a direct result of her choosing to drink too much and have "consensual" sex with two people at the same party.

The responsibility for the rape is 100% on the men who did it. No questions asked. The rape is a direct result of their actions that they did TO her. Not because of any actions that she took. You can judge for the drinking and "consensual" sex if you think that makes her an immoral person (though that's funny because there a plenty of men on here that brag about getting drunk and hooking up with multiple women and no one seems to make a peep) but you can not place any responsibility for her own rape on her.  Unless of course you believe that rape is a reasonable response when someone is drunk and having consensual sex with your teammates. Or if you think that somehow by being drunk and consenting to sex with others that she forced the others to rape her.

Quote from: Benny B on December 20, 2016, 09:21:00 PM
Scenario A: 10 year old girl gets caught in crossfire because the gangbangers shooting up her house we're aiming for her rival-gangbanging 17 year old brother.

Scenario B: Same as A except the girl is unscathed and the brother is lying dead from a bullet wound.


Someone please raise their hand like an idiot and tell me that a reasonable person would have the same sympathy for the brother in B as they would for the sister in A.

This is a terrible analogy.

There are two reasons why we have less sympathy for the gangbanger than the sister:

1. Because he is a gangbanger, we view him as not as good of a person as the sister.
2. Because he is in a rival gang, he did something to provoke the shooting whereas the sister did nothing.

Because of these two reasons we feel the gangbanger deserved to die more than the sister did. A completely reasonable human thought process. If you have another reason why you have less sympathy for the gangbanger, I would love to hear it.

So let's apply this logic to the U of M case. Are you saying:

1. Because she got drunk and "consented" to sex with two people she is not a good person and thus less deserving of sympathy?
2. Because she got drunk and "consented" to sex with two people she provoked the other players to rape her?

And because of one or both of these reasons she is more deserving of being raped than another person?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 20, 2016, 10:43:09 PM
No "hierarchy of sympathy" allowed for violent crime victims - it's right there in the Pakuni Papers!

Add TAMU while you're at it. Since nobody deserves to be murdered, all victims MUST engender the same amount of sympathy. Otherwise you have a "murder bias".

No. I have no issue with you having different amounts of sympathy for different victims of the same crime. Completely normal, human thing to do. My issue is with the logic behind why you have different sympathy for this victim. Honestly, what I have taken away from your argument has been "She was a drunk slut. I have less sympathy for drunk sluts. Her being a drunk slut provoked the players into raping her."

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 21, 2016, 11:16:57 AM
Scenario A: While protesting at a soldier's funeral and carrying a "God Hates cute ones" poster a member of the Westboro Baptist Church is hit in the eye by a bottle hurled by the fallen soldier's brother. He subsequently loses sight in that eye.

Scenario B: While marching in a 4th of July parade a high school band member is hit in the eye by a bottle hurled by her jealous ex boyfriend. She subsequently loses sight in that eye.

Being a victim of a thrown bottle is a terrible thing. We all agree that it shouldn't happen to anyone. But equal amounts of sympathy for both victims?

Same as the gangbanger and his sister. We have less sympathy for the Westboro Baptist Church member because he is part of an organization that exists to spread hate and because he provoked it by protesting with a hateful message at a soldier's funeral.

Benny and Lenny, please think about what you have posted in the last day. To make your point, you have compared an 18 year old rape victim to a gangbanger and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Really think about that. The young woman in this case is not the gangbanger or WBC member from your examples. She is the sister or band member.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 21, 2016, 02:36:12 PM




No. I have no issue with you having different amounts of sympathy for different victims of the same crime. Completely normal, human thing to do. My issue is with the logic behind why you have different sympathy for this victim. Honestly, what I have taken away from your argument has been "She was a drunk slut. I have less sympathy for drunk sluts. Her being a drunk slut provoked the players into raping her."

First, I'm afraid the "drunk slut" stuff is you projecting - I said nothing of the kind. The reason that I am less sympathetic to this particular victim is that her own bad, stupid, reckless (fill in whatever adjective you prefer) behavior has diminished her status from victim to accuser, made her less believable. Even with a video the DA (up until now anyway) isn't convinced her victimhood will stand up to scrutiny. Doubt about whether a person is indeed a victim = less sympathy for that person.

On the bigger issue (different amounts of sympathy for victims of the same crime) this is what I  hear you saying: if YOU deem a person to be bad for some reason (homophobia, gang member, etc.) you feel less sympathy for them if they're raped, murdered, etc. But nobody deserves to be raped or murdered, right? Are you saying it's their fault that they were raped or murdered? Is that what your "less sympathy" means? Of course not. But that's the faulty logic you tried to brand me with.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 21, 2016, 03:36:50 PM
First, I'm afraid the "drunk slut" stuff is you projecting - I said nothing of the kind. The reason that I am less sympathetic to this particular victim is that her own bad, stupid, reckless (fill in whatever adjective you prefer) behavior has diminished her status from victim to accuser, made her less believable. Even with a video the DA (up until now anyway) isn't convinced her victimhood will stand up to scrutiny. Doubt about whether a person is indeed a victim = less sympathy for that person.

Is all your trying to say that because she was drunk, her testimony isn't as reliable, ergo I can't be sure if she was a victim or not, and that is affecting my level of sympathy? But if I knew for a fact, that everything she said was the gospel truth (the drinking, the "consensual" sex with two people, and the rape) than I would have just as much sympathy for her as a victim who was sober and not having sex with other people at the party? If that's the case, I can understand that.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 17, 2016, 09:54:32 AM
the sympathy I have for any alleged victim of any crime is mitigated by both the the likelihood that he/she is being truthful and the reckless behavior (if any) that put said person in harm's way.

I remembered you said this earlier. The first part about "likelihood that s/he is being truthful" no issue there. The issue was with the second part, "the reckless behavior (if any) that put said person in harm's way."

What I am hearing when you say that is "because she got drunk and consented to sex with two guys at the same party, I have less sympathy." Is that correct? I'm honestly trying to understand, because you and I often end up finding that our arguments are about the vocabulary we use rather than the actual issue.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 21, 2016, 03:36:50 PM
On the bigger issue (different amounts of sympathy for victims of the same crime) this is what I  hear you saying: if YOU deem a person to be bad for some reason (homophobia, gang member, etc.) you feel less sympathy for them if they're raped, murdered, etc. But nobody deserves to be raped or murdered, right? Are you saying it's their fault that they were raped or murdered? Is that what your "less sympathy" means? Of course not. But that's the faulty logic you tried to brand me with.

My "less sympathy" means I value a gangbanger and a WBC member less than the average human being. A terrible thing to say but I am human. They don't deserve to raped or murdered but I am going to have less sympathy. It's a natural human response.

I don't see any reason to value this young woman less than the average human being. All I know about her is that she is in college and she has drank and had sex at least once in her life.

My less sympathy also means that I can make a logical connection between belonging to a gang and getting shot at by another gang. One caused the other. Its stupid beyond all reason but the connection is there. I'm also making the assumption that the gang he belongs to has committed some sort of action against the shooter's gang. I can also see the logical connection between shouting "God hates homos" during a soldier's funeral and getting a bottle thrown at you. Your action that you did to somebody caused them to do something back. Its not right. Person who threw the bottle still needs to be held accountable. But I am going to have less sympathy.

Here, there is no logical connection. Being drunk and consenting to sex with someone else is in no way connected to a person raping you. The young woman did nothing to provoke her own rape.

TAMU - On these matters you routinely assume things as facts that haven't been established as such. It has not been established that there was a rape or that the alleged victim is being totally truthful. The DA (at this point anyway) believes there is enough doubt not to bring charges, but you want me to react (and feel) as if it's an open and shut case. Because of some poor decisions on her part it's unlikely we'll ever know for sure if she's telling the truth. Whose fault or responsibility do you deem that to be?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 21, 2016, 05:44:52 PM
TAMU - On these matters you routinely assume things as facts that haven't been established as such. It has not been established that there was a rape or that the alleged victim is being totally truthful. The DA (at this point anyway) believes there is enough doubt not to bring charges, but you want me to react (and feel) as if it's an open and shut case. Because of some poor decisions on her part it's unlikely we'll ever know for sure if she's telling the truth. Whose fault or responsibility do you deem that to be?

I'm not assuming anything. I have read the report in its entirety and agree with the university's findings. I have as much information as possible without physically being present at the scene.

I have not once asked you to assume anything as fact. At the beginning I was very intentional and said assuming everything that is being reported is true,  what would your thoughts be. I wasnt saying that they were true, I was asking what your thoughts would be if they were. Later I stopped using that line because by then I had read the report.

In fact in my most recent posts I repeatedly said that if you doubt the facts of the case I understand. I have no issue with that. The issue was with the comment about her "reckless behavior that put her in harms way."

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 21, 2016, 06:03:50 PM
I'm not assuming anything. I have read the report in its entirety and agree with the university's findings. I have as much information as possible without physically being present at the scene.

I have not once asked you to assume anything as fact. At the beginning I was very intentional and said assuming everything that is being reported is true,  what would your thoughts be. I wasnt saying that they were true, I was asking what your thoughts would be if they were. Later I stopped using that line because by then I had read the report.

In fact in my most recent posts I repeatedly said that if you doubt the facts of the case I understand. I have no issue with that. The issue was with the comment about her "reckless behavior that put her in harms way."

I confess I haven't read the report. Honestly, with work, Christmas, kids and grandchildren underfoot I probably won't for some time. To the extent that her account proves (at least to me) to ring true or untrue my meter will slide in either direction. Given the presence of a videotape only an indictment and conviction will totally convince me. And whether you like it or not, her admission that she was drunk and had consensual sex with "those guys" but not "those guys" makes her case more difficult to prove. You may think that's unfair, bigoted, sexist or whatever, but my guess is that's the reason the prosecutor has been reluctant to indict up until now. The last word is yours - Merry Christmas.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 21, 2016, 02:36:12 PM
Benny and Lenny, please think about what you have posted in the last day. To make your point, you have compared an 18 year old rape victim to a gangbanger and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Really think about that. The young woman in this case is not the gangbanger or WBC member from your examples. She is the sister or band member.

Wrong.  I have no dog in this hunt, and I've made no such analogy.  I merely pointed out the fact that most people do sympathize differently with victims of crime/violence depending upon the circumstances.  Apparently, you do understand that now.  You're welcome.  But what you're still failing to grasp is that you can have varying feelings without assessment of whether or not it was deserved.

You want to build strawmen, go right ahead; but I'm the owl watching over your barn, not the crow eating your corn.

Quote from: Benny B on December 22, 2016, 11:38:26 AM
Wrong.  I have no dog in this hunt, and I've made no such analogy.  I merely pointed out the fact that most people do sympathize differently with victims of crime/violence depending upon the circumstances.  Apparently, you do understand that now.  You're welcome.  But what you're still failing to grasp is that you can have varying feelings without assessment of whether or not it was deserved.

You want to build strawmen, go right ahead; but I'm the owl watching over your barn, not the crow eating your corn.

The conversation I was having was never about whether or not you could have differing levels of sympathy for different victims of the same crime. The conversation was about whether or not less sympathy was warranted for this specific victim and why. I assumed your comment was about that conversation, not the one that was happening with a different poster. My apologies.

http://deadspin.com/how-two-investigations-into-minnesotas-sexual-assault-s-1790211835

Tough read.