[Cracked Sidewalks] Marquette's PR Nightmare

[HouWarrior]

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.

I dont agree, and I can walk you through this, and the case cite too....but the digresions wont stop unless I stop. So I am just stopping. Bye

[Jay Bee]

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.

No.  Probable cause must be looked at objectively in that it should be based on a reasonable, prudent person's view, and not from the subjective perspective of a certain individual(s).  However, ultimately whether probable cause exists in a certain matter becomes subjective.  

That is, the measurement of probable cause is objective, but that is a determination made based on the opinion of what a reasonable, prudent person would think based on the totality of the facts and circumstances - and that determination can differ depending on who you're talking to.  Thus, it's subjective.  It's not "there or it's not".

[HouWarrior]

No.  Probable cause must be looked at objectively in that it should be based on a reasonable, prudent person's view, and not from the subjective perspective of a certain individual(s).  However, ultimately whether probable cause exists in a certain matter becomes subjective.  

That is, the measurement of probable cause is objective, but that is a determination made based on the opinion of what a reasonable, prudent person would think based on the totality of the facts and circumstances - and that determination can differ depending on who you're talking to.  Thus, it's subjective.  It's not "there or it's not".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

[Jay Bee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Well golly gee, let's consult wikipedia!  yeee haw, that's where I got learned!

[Gato78]

HouWarrior: We do not disagree. The legal standard is as you have cited.The question is whether there was PC triggering the reporting requirement. Hard to discern because there are many different versions--though one version of the October incident describes no actual physical contact. The February incident is entirely uncertain because the Trib facts leads one to believe charges should have issued, so I am very skeptical of the Trib version. Chisholm is generally a pretty good prosecutor of solid reputation. I cannot believe he had the Trib facts and decided not to prosecute.

[HouWarrior]

Well golly gee, let's consult wikipedia!  yeee haw, that's where I got learned!

As I posted above...I am trying to move on, this has become far too digressive...I just was thinking it easier to give you someting to read. Obviously you didnt.
Feel free to research better sources on your own... there are cases cited hear you 'll enjoy for self edification.
http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2011/2010ap000999.htm

[HouWarrior]

HouWarrior: We do not disagree. The legal standard is as you have cited.The question is whether there was PC triggering the reporting requirement. Hard to discern because there are many different versions--though one version of the October incident describes no actual physical contact. The February incident is entirely uncertain because the Trib facts leads one to believe charges should have issued, so I am very skeptical of the Trib version. Chisholm is generally a pretty good prosecutor of solid reputation. I cannot believe he had the Trib facts and decided not to prosecute.

Thanks, so much for your insights. Regretably, Im now having trouble shaking off the posts of the lay cuadrilla who joined in. As we understand it the same, the cuadrilla points can go on, on their own...off to the WCup.

[Hoopaloop]

HouWarrior: We do not disagree. The legal standard is as you have cited.The question is whether there was PC triggering the reporting requirement. Hard to discern because there are many different versions--though one version of the October incident describes no actual physical contact. The February incident is entirely uncertain because the Trib facts leads one to believe charges should have issued, so I am very skeptical of the Trib version. Chisholm is generally a pretty good prosecutor of solid reputation. I cannot believe he had the Trib facts and decided not to prosecute.

You may have missed the question earlier.  Are you saying the Chicago Tribune and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel lied about Marquette admitting to them that they broke the law?  You keep stating that there is no official word as if back channel confirmations from the press don't happen all the time, but we know they do. 

Could you please answer for us why the Tribune, MJS and others stated that MU officials admitted to them that the law was broken.  If they didn't, shouldn't the school sue those news outlets?  Why would the Tribune make this up?  Why would the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel make this up?  Or is it possible that officials did admit to breaking the law but you don't want to admit it and you are using lawyerese to say no one officially stated it?   

Thanks so much for your insights as I'd really like to understand the discrepancies in your argument and what was published in multiple news stories.

[Gato78]

Neither the JS nor the Tribune quoted anyone from Marquette. Each time that was printed it was either writer's opinion or it was not attributed to a source. I cannot believe anyone from MU would say that. I have laid down the challenge on both boards to show me where anyone from MU said that but no such quote has been produced. This is a real good example of how repating a half truth in the media becomes gospel. Again, show me the quote.

[Hoopaloop]

Neither the JS nor the Tribune quoted anyone from Marquette. Each time that was printed it was either writer's opinion or it was not attributed to a source. I cannot believe anyone from MU would say that. I have laid down the challenge on both boards to show me where anyone from MU said that but no such quote has been produced. This is a real good example of how repating a half truth in the media becomes gospel. Again, show me the quote.

First off, that is wrong.  It was not the writer's opinion.  The writers stated that Marquette admitted to violating state law.  Where do you believe it was the writer's opinion?  "The university now acknowledges that failing to notify police was a violation of state law".  That's a writer's opinion?  Of course it isn't.  They are repeating what they were told.  Now you're going to say it wasn't attributed to a source.  So what.  That means it wasn't stated.  HOLY CRAP.  There are news stories every day about government, businesses, etc that are based on unnamed sources.  You have to be kidding all of us here if you are hanging your legal expertise on a journalist not naming a source.  That is as bizarre an excuse as exists.  How would reporters be able to do their jobs if it weren't for unnamed sources?  They wouldn't.

What you are ultimately saying that the Chicago Tribune and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel made it up or lied.  This is why there is so much skepticism with your claims.  This is why Sultan, 84, 07, Chico's, myself and others do not believe what you and others are saying about this as it relates to breaking the law.   It doesn't matter if YOU don't believe anyone from MU said it, someone did and it made it into multiple press stories.  If you truly believe no one at MU said it, you must then believe both those papers, plus WTMJ, WISN and others all lied and made it up.  What other answer do you have? 

Apparently there is a vast conspiracy against Marquette in this and they're now making up comments from MU administrators.  See how insane that sounds, but that is how you are coming across.

Why isn't Marquette suing these news outlets for lying about MU breaking the law?  This idea of a direct quote that you are looking for is preposterous.  Did Timothy Geither come out and admit he didn't pay back taxes?  Therefore it's not true because there is no quote?  Why did he pay the back taxes then?  We could come up with millions of examples where a business, a school, the government doesn't come right out and admit something but through back channels reporters talk to those involved and report it because it's true. 

We all love Marquette, but for you to be hanging on to a direct quote and essentially saying these fine news organizations must be lying (what other conclusion is there?) is really out there.  It is angles, and I do mean angles, like these that you are taking that leave people with an ugly taste about lawyers because they just don't have the ability to give a straight answer when the evidence is overwhelming.

If you want a quote, read Father Wild's own words to faculty and staff in an email:  http://www.jsonline.mobi/topstories/124379168.htm

"The university has publicly acknowledged that we made mistakes in dealing with these incidents. We worked quickly and proactively to correct those procedures, both to be sensitive to victims and to comply with Wisconsin state law. We now refer any reported incident of sexual assault to the Sensitive Crimes Unit of the Milwaukee Police Department. We have also added a victim advocate to the staff of our Student Health Service and have more tightly restricted who on campus has access to reports from the Department of Public Safety."

Correcting procedures to comply with state law.  You don't correct procedures to be in compliance with state law UNLESS you were not compliant with state law.

Then he says, "we now refer any reported incident of sexual assault to the Sensitive Crimes Unit of the Milwaukee Police Department".  WE NOW REFER.  WE NOW REFER.  WE NOW REFER.  That's because prior, they did NOT REFER and WE NOW REFER is a result of the change of procedures.

Those are your money quotes straight from Father Wild to the faculty and employees of Marquette University.  It's ok Gato, our beloved university is capable of making mistakes and even more capable of fixing them.  Continually covering for them with bizarre excuses like the press is making stuff up or quotes weren't directly attributable to a specific person goes beyond a sense of reality.

Marquette broke the law.  Marquette admitted to breaking the law.  Marquette has changed procedures so they no longer break the law again.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

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

Rocky for President 2012.

[jmayer1]

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.

Great news!!!!!

[Gato78]

Hey Hoopaloop, which law are you referring to?

[Litehouse]

Then he says, "we now refer any reported incident of sexual assault to the Sensitive Crimes Unit of the Milwaukee Police Department".

I think the key word in that quote is ANY.  As in, we now refer ANY reported incident, as opposed to previously using their judgement and only refering incidents in which they had a reason to believe a crime was committed.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

[GGGG]

I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

+1

[HouWarrior]

I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.

I agree.

[4everwarriors]

Ya think if we took it to the streets, we can get Chicos back?

[🏀]

I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

It's only fair, but I believe those posters have to be on notice as well.

The entire situation needed to be addressed. It's ridiculous when every thread turns into their personal circle jerk.

[MUfan12]

I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

I'd agree with you if he wasn't constantly setting himself up to play martyr after provoking those same people.

[Dr. Blackheart]

God gave me a human filter. With the ignore feature, the Mods gave me a radio dial. While this board must be a beatch to police, a variety of topics make it into our community, and are not hidden away. Chicos added a lot of insight on a variety of topics...of his posts, almost 10% were topic starters--he, like others who argued with him, are truly in the industry or field or scene. Do they often go too far?  Yes

While I often disagreed, and more often got tired of the repetition of some of the arguments (and many more I am sure I never saw or was aware of), we all have our own thinking and therefore posting styles. Often times we go over the top, get too emotional, pedantic, geeky, verbose, personal, over analytic, overblown, one-sided, sarcastic, snarky, too humorous, too linear.

One thing Chicos did was lay it out there, for better or worse. Giving him a perm is an overall loss for the board. That said, I do appreciate the owners and mods of this site.  They have volunteered thousands of hours and headaches, and scratch--to feed our addictions.

[Henry Sugar]

I know that mine will be a minority opinion on this board, but I think this is a load of crap.  Hopefully the posters whose entire shtick seemed to be trying to pick fights with Chicos (we all know who they are) will also get kicked out.  Both sides constantly contributed to the crap.

I believe the difference is that Chicos spent more time complaining about his unfair treatment by the mods, leading up to the proverbial straw.  The moderators have been pretty damn tolerant on a lot of things, topics, and arguments.  I find their fuse has consistently been a slow burn.

Would I have banned Chicos?  Doesn't really matter, because I don't run the message board.  None of us have to put up with that headache except the mods.

[Hards Alumni]

I believe the difference is that Chicos spent more time complaining about his unfair treatment by the mods, leading up to the proverbial straw.  The moderators have been pretty damn tolerant on a lot of things, topics, and arguments.  I find their fuse has consistently been a slow burn.

Would I have banned Chicos?  Doesn't really matter, because I don't run the message board.  None of us have to put up with that headache except the mods.

Bolded part exactly.  He was warned plenty of times, and still wanted to be the pariah.  I understand banning is a fine line, but Chicos still didn't want to play by the rules, so he shall deal with the consequences.

He can still read the board, I'm sure... as a guest?

[StillAWarrior]

God gave me a human filter. With the ignore feature, the Mods gave me a radio dial. While this board must be a beatch to police, a variety of topics make it into our community, and are not hidden away. Chicos added a lot of insight on a variety of topics...of his posts, almost 10% were topic starters--he, like others who argued with him, are truly in the industry or field or scene. Do they often go too far?  Yes

While I often disagreed, and more often got tired of the repetition of some of the arguments (and many more I am sure I never saw or was aware of), we all have our own thinking and therefore posting styles. Often times we go over the top, get too emotional, pedantic, geeky, verbose, personal, over analytic, overblown, one-sided, sarcastic, snarky, too humorous, too linear.

One thing Chicos did was lay it out there, for better or worse. Giving him a perm is an overall loss for the board. That said, I do appreciate the owners and mods of this site.  They have volunteered thousands of hours and headaches, and scratch--to feed our addictions.

I agree with this entirely.

[StillAWarrior]

I believe the difference is that Chicos spent more time complaining about his unfair treatment by the mods, leading up to the proverbial straw.

And my initial post was to point out that the selective bannination suggests that maybe he had a legitimate gripe.