[Cracked Sidewalks] Marquette's PR Nightmare

[ChicosBailBonds]

LOL.  With the way posts sometimes "disappear" around here...ghosts in the machine...please.  Just in the last few weeks there are posts that were made that will never appear in any search because the mods took them away.  If you aren't able to find something, does that mean it was never posted or is it because it no longer remains here?  Especially true back in the day with political discussions here (when they were allowed) and knowing all the mods here are certainly not going to be confused for Ronald Reagan, there were posts that some didn't agree with that somehow vanished into the ether. 

[rocky_warrior]

LOL.  With the way posts sometimes "disappear" around here...ghosts in the machine...please.  Just in the last few weeks there are posts that were made that will never appear in any search because the mods took them away.  If you aren't able to find something, does that mean it was never posted or is it because it no longer remains here?  Especially true back in the day with political discussions here (when they were allowed) and knowing all the mods here are certainly not going to be confused for Ronald Reagan, there were posts that some didn't agree with that somehow vanished into the ether. 

Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

[Hards Alumni]

Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

first!

[Hards Alumni]

LOL.  With the way posts sometimes "disappear" around here...ghosts in the machine...please.  Just in the last few weeks there are posts that were made that will never appear in any search because the mods took them away.  If you aren't able to find something, does that mean it was never posted or is it because it no longer remains here?  Especially true back in the day with political discussions here (when they were allowed) and knowing all the mods here are certainly not going to be confused for Ronald Reagan, there were posts that some didn't agree with that somehow vanished into the ether. 

I'd hate for the mods here to be confused with a no-nothing actor who masqueraded as a politician and set the country back 30 years and counting.

*takes a bow*

[ATL MU Warrior]

Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

THANK YOU!!!!

Is 84 next?  He fits the above to a "T" as well although I don't recall him ever being such a douche to the guys that run the site. 

[MUMac]

Are you equating the two?

Yeah, I am equating the two.  

For you, this comment probably needed teal, for others, no.

[MUMac]

THANK YOU!!!!

Is 84 next?  He fits the above to a "T" as well although I don't recall him ever being such a douche to the guys that run the site. 

+1000000

[Gato78]

Which crime are you suggesting that Chisholm refused to prosecute?

1. I am only trying to point out that if Chishiolm had all of the evidence the Tribune writer describes, he probably should have prosecuted since he purportedly had physical evidence corroborating the accuser's version of the he said/she said. The point being that if the MU haters are willing to accept the accuser's version, aren't their slings and arrows misdirected? Shouldn't Chisholm be the target if the Trib's version is to be believed?

2. The point about underage drinking is not meant to be an equivalence argument. Rather, as originally stated, an easy example of how MU and Milwaukee's law enforcement agencies work together. MPD prefers MU handles things without MPD's involvement where possible. Think in terms of MU Public Safety staffing levels and having to replace that with MPD cops. MPD is happy to work with MU's cops. They have been doing this for decades.

3. I cannot recall a prosecution or defense of a case in my career where a private security force is involved. However, in most cases there is a social work involvement either before or shortly after the allegations are made--much like MU's procedures before the mandatory reporting. Often police forces will have a female officer who is the sexual assault expert doing the initial interview--some departments rely on outside social workers to do the initial interview especially where children are involved. So MU's prior procedures are not out of the norm. The only question is when does the private agency need to report. It is quite clear there is discretion vested in the private police agency--there is no requirement that everything must be reported. In MU's case, the question is whether MU Public Safety abused that discretion.

4. Posters continue to assert that MU admits it "broke the law". Yet, there is no direct quote from anyone at MU saying that. The "broke the law" comments are opinions of writers and others. No one from MU has said this.

[brewcity77]

1. I am only trying to point out that if Chishiolm had all of the evidence the Tribune writer describes, he probably should have prosecuted since he purportedly had physical evidence corroborating the accuser's version of the he said/she said. The point being that if the MU haters are willing to accept the accuser's version, aren't their slings and arrows misdirected? Shouldn't Chisholm be the target if the Trib's version is to be believed?

2. The point about underage drinking is not meant to be an equivalence argument. Rather, as originally stated, an easy example of how MU and Milwaukee's law enforcement agencies work together. MPD prefers MU handles things without MPD's involvement where possible. Think in terms of MU Public Safety staffing levels and having to replace that with MPD cops. MPD is happy to work with MU's cops. They have been doing this for decades.

3. I cannot recall a prosecution or defense of a case in my career where a private security force is involved. However, in most cases there is a social work involvement either before or shortly after the allegations are made--much like MU's procedures before the mandatory reporting. Often police forces will have a female officer who is the sexual assault expert doing the initial interview--some departments rely on outside social workers to do the initial interview especially where children are involved. So MU's prior procedures are not out of the norm. The only question is when does the private agency need to report. It is quite clear there is discretion vested in the private police agency--there is no requirement that everything must be reported. In MU's case, the question is whether MU Public Safety abused that discretion.

4. Posters continue to assert that MU admits it "broke the law". Yet, there is no direct quote from anyone at MU saying that. The "broke the law" comments are opinions of writers and others. No one from MU has said this.

Thanks for the expert input, Gato.

[GGGG]

Gato, I very much appreciate your expertise and your level-headedness when it came to this discussion.  This is where I am going to end my comments on this topic, and focus on the upcoming season.

[Pakuni]

Oh, great.
Now how are we going to inject Tom Crean and Indiana into every thread.

(See how I just did that?)

[🏀]

Oh, great.
Now how are we going to inject Tom Crean and Indiana into every thread.

(See how I just did that?)

Ban him!

[HouWarrior]

1. I am only trying to point out that if Chishiolm had all of the evidence the Tribune writer describes, he probably should have prosecuted since he purportedly had physical evidence corroborating the accuser's version of the he said/she said.

The only question is when does the private agency need to report. It is quite clear there is discretion vested in the private police agency--there is no requirement that everything must be reported. In MU's case, the question is whether MU Public Safety abused that discretion.
4. Posters continue to assert that MU admits it "broke the law". Yet, there is no direct quote from anyone at MU saying that. The "broke the law" comments are opinions of writers and others. No one from MU has said this.

Let me try to understand your points, in reverse order to your quoted portions above.
On your point 4...Facing potential civil liability, one would never expect MU to publically acknowledge a law violation...as such would risk/expose it to potential strict negligence liability.

On Point 3...Weighing the "discretion" to report, implies there must be some level when the discretion is abused, or does not exist. Based on those citing the Wisc. statute (to which we're deferring to your jusidictional license)

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf
"Any unlicensed private security person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."
...it appears the statute is "shall notify" ...meaning no discretion is present when MU security had before it probable cause evidence--right?

As the evidence you first allude to, in your point 1, apparently met the higher than mere probable cause standard required for prosecuting...and that you say (based on the Trib)this was either something that should have been...or was a real close call to prosecution.....

Wouldnt such necessarily imply , and answer (again...if you beleive solely the Trib, as the only source)

...that on scene security found, or should have found on reasonable mans standard...probable cause.

ie,.. If one says the case was prosecutable, or even a close call to prosecution...shouldnt the on scene folks reasonably have found probable cause(at which time discretion ceases,and "shall notify" statutory language requires security reporting of the facts to the police). Your initial premise, in point 1,pre answers the reporting question, as a yes to having to report, by the statute's terms.

Where I diverge is in any animis to Chisolm's non-charging decision, or any belief and reliance, solely on the Trib version.The extraneous, non Trib references run quite counter to any error, or abuse of discretion, in the prosecution decision.
In fact,Chisolm's press quotes say nothing close to them having evidence sufficient to prosecute...I think he was truthful and honest, to that point.

Accordingly,I also reopen the doubts/duty on Security reporting question...believing we dont know if facts supported : i) any prosecution, or even close to one; or even ii) probable cause mandating reporting.

My question back to you then is--We dont know in the two incidents whether on site facts supported probable cause, or whether such still left campus security in the sub probable cause, discretion zone--agreed?

Alternatively, if you believe there should have been prosecution, which very strongly implies on scene probable cause (which, in turn triggers the above statutory, non discretionary, "shall notify"), are you saying judgment/discretion as to the level of crime, allows less than to the letter enforcement of the reporting statute against MU, ie the letter of the statute wasnt met, but due to the minor crime, its related reporting violation by MU is overlooked, at times?

Choose either--they're both reasonable...or tell me where Ive missed something. Thanks Gato

[Skatastrophy]

Ok then, I'll take this thread in a different direction.  You're now banned for life, because for a second summer in a row you've proved that you only want to argue.  I'm done with it.  And now everyone else can be too.  Let they joyousness in the thread prevail....don't worry...these posts won't be ghosts in any machine as you like to claim so often.

Banning after midnight?  Did the power of being an Admin go to your head after a couple drinks or is this permanent?

I'm not trying to make jokes, it's just that I've been known to rescind my own post-midnight bannings more often than not

Please don't ban me

[Hoopaloop]

4. Posters continue to assert that MU admits it "broke the law". Yet, there is no direct quote from anyone at MU saying that. The "broke the law" comments are opinions of writers and others. No one from MU has said this.

That's lawyer speak in my opinion.  You seem to be saying then that the Chicago Tribune is lying with their story.  As is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  They both stated Marquette admitted to breaking the law to them and they printed it, but you are hiding behind no one officially is mentioned in the article.  Come on.   Shouldn't MU sue the Tribune and MJS for printing such malicious lies?  You know you don't believe that.  MU broke the law, admitted it to the press and you're hiding behind this idea they didn't come out at a podium and say it.  Of course they won't, just as politicians and many business leaders don't.  That doesn't mean they didn't.  The Tribune and MJS got it right.

One could argue Father Wild himself admitted it in his email to university employees.  I invite you to read his email:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search?q=sexual+assault

[Pakuni]

Let me try to understand your points, in reverse order to your quoted portions above.
On your point 4...Facing potential civil liability, one would never expect MU to publically acknowledge a law violation...as such would risk/expose it to potential strict negligence liability.

On Point 3...Weighing the "discretion" to report, implies there must be some level when the discretion is abused, or does not exist. Based on those citing the Wisc. statute (to which we're deferring to your jusidictional license)

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf
"Any unlicensed private security person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."
...it appears the statute is "shall notify" ...meaning no discretion is present when MU security had before it probable cause evidence--right?

Gato, of course, can answer for himself, but I think the discretion of which he speaks lies in the phrase "has reasonable grounds to believe." The "shall notify" portion of the statute is conditioned upon the DPS officer having "reasonable grounds."
MU has wisely chosen to do away with that discretion, deciding its better to report every sex assault claim, regardless of the officer's determination. But clearly there is some discretion there and that, I think, is what Gato has addressed.

ie,.. If one says the case was prosecutable, or even a close call to prosecution...shouldnt the on scene folks reasonably have found probable cause(at which time discretion ceases,and "shall notify" statutory language requires security reporting of the facts to the police). Your initial premise, in point 1,pre answers the reporting question, as a yes to having to report, by the statute's terms.

Again, Gato will speak for himself, but I think his point here is that there was much more (or perhaps less, in a way) to the evidence in this case than what's been reported by the Tribune, hence Chisholm's decision not to prosecute. Had the totality of the evidence been as reported by the Tribune, then Chisholm should have prosecuted - or at least it would have been a close call. The fact he chose not to prosecute tends to indicate authorities know more about the situation than what's been reported.
I don't believe Gato has any animus toward Chisholm's decision. Rather, he's pointing out that Chisholm very likely made his decision with more information about the incident than has been reported by the Tribune.
FWIW ... I don't necessarily blame the Tribune for that. They're going on what their source - the accuser and (likely) her attorneys - are telling them and seem not be getting the other side of the story from MU and the accused ... both of which have very good reasons not to speak publicly about the evidence.

[MUMac]

I'd hate for the mods here to be confused with a no-nothing actor who masqueraded as a politician and set the country back 30 years and counting.

*takes a bow*

Wouldn't you be one of the first to b!tch about keeping politics off the board if similar comments were made about Clinton, Obama or Carter?  If those comments are not to be tolerated, why is this?  Keep your political opinions to yourself.  

[Hoopaloop]

Houston Warrior, a lawyer had a differing view than Gato, a lawyer.   You two are arguing and should be banned for life, or at least for a half hour.

[rocky_warrior]

Banning after midnight?  Did the power of being an Admin go to your head after a couple drinks or is this permanent?

It was 11:20 my time.  I did have a couple drinks.  But my decision stands.

[MUMac]

It was 11:20 my time.  I did have a couple drinks.  But my decision stands.

And the board erupts into loud and sustained applause!!!! 

[🏀]

It was 11:20 my time.  I did have a couple drinks.  But my decision stands.

[HouWarrior]

Gato, of course, can answer for himself, but I think the discretion of which he speaks lies in the phrase "has reasonable grounds to believe." The "shall notify" portion of the statute is conditioned upon the DPS officer having "reasonable grounds."

This part is not discretion...its the common language term used to define probable cause.

Probable cause, defined,  is when one has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed. Thats objective, not subjective.
So, to recast the statute terms...

"Any unlicensed private security person who has probable cause  shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."

Because probable cause is a standard measured objectively, see:
http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2011/2010ap000999.htm

..its existence or absence is measurable, ..its there or its not...and its not subjective, or ever theoretically, discretionary...even though if a cop hadnt looked the other way once on me as a kid, I'd have had an arrest on my record. lol
There, the existence of probable cause objectively exisisted, But the cop "discretionarily" chose not to act on it. Even though this statute isnt discretionary, once probable cause exists, one cant doubt its ignored at times, both by security folks, and in its enforcement against them.
I think you and I agree thats just fine. I think Gato is implying the same in the underage drinking area...also, on which I agree to the enforcement latitude.
Fouls happen in many games which dont get called---they still occur. None of us have an issue with it--I dont either.

CONUNDRUM: Whats problematic is anyone believing a prosecution should have been pursued(a higher evidence standard), almost always defacto implies the on scene folks had probable cause facts before them(the automatically included, lesser evidence standard). If there should have been a prosecution, there was probable cause, and shall notify was violated.
With MUs shift I and you, look forward to the moving on (this gets boring-quickly-lol), but if Gato wants to clarify the conundrum, we'll read. If not. Im off to the watch the WCsoceer.

[augoman]

I'd hate for the mods here to be confused with a no-nothing actor who masqueraded as a politician and set the country back 30 years and counting.

*takes a bow*

Hards, you obviously forgot the teal.

[Pakuni]

This part is not discretion...its the common language term used to define probable cause.

Probable cause, defined,  is when one has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed. Thats objective, not subjective.
So, to recast the statute terms...

I'd venture to guess that if the Wisconsin state legislature wanted to use the legal term probable cause when writing the statute, that's exactly what they would have done. They instead chose to use the non-legal phrase "reasonable grounds." I suspect they did this because the law applies to people who are not attorneys or trained in the particulars of probable cause, as would be the case with a licensed police officer.

Also, it seems to me that the probable cause issue you cite below deals with whether a police officer had probable cause to make an arrest. I don't see that as analogous/applicable to a discussion of when or whether a private security officer has "reasonable grounds" to report a complaint to a certified law enforcement agency.

[HouWarrior]

Houston Warrior, a lawyer had a differing view than Gato, a lawyer.   You two are arguing and should be banned for life, or at least for a half hour.

lol lol
So right---I am truly sorry for all the word barf...advocacy training makes responding an irresistable impulse...one I should have suppressed, and not bored y'all with. As I said to Pakuni...Im moving on...back to the BB talk.
Basketball is life...nothing else much matters. lol