The percent of women is very small but the occurrence of this type of thing in college campuses isn't....only takes a few girls. I never partook but I was privy to a girl doing multiple guys on numerous occasions....and no....I don't think any of the parties involved in those consensual acts should be expelled from school. I knew girls who got a rush out of doing multiple guys and they were well known around the frats and athletic dorms. Rather shocked anyone would believe the parties should be expelled.
Briles as OC?
- Thread starter RealTUTypical
- Start date
The idiot football team is boycotting the suspensions pending January proceedings. No one has been expelled yet.
Read the report. It's not normal.
As a bonus, there's a recruit centrally involved too.
Minn president has issued another statement not backing down.
Read the report. It's not normal.
As a bonus, there's a recruit centrally involved too.
Minn president has issued another statement not backing down.
Whether they should be expelled depends on the circumstances which we don't know in detail. But I wouldn't think it's on its face an inappropriate response. I could certainly see it being appropriate depending on the circumstances. I don't think they would have to be charged to expel.
And I suspect if you took the number of guys who say they've had group sex and divided it by 10, rounded down,and divided by 10 again, you'd be more in line with reality.
If there's any doubt I personally think it's more important to protect the right of women to be free from sexual assault than to protect the right of guys to participate in videorecorded group sex.
Last edited:
They weren't charged. Look I don't know what occurred either just the statement from the investigator who saw the tape.
A rough guess would be 5 to 10 percent of the guys I knew in college with participated in such an activity. I know this for a fact not based on their word. There were well known girls who would make the rounds. Not saying it's moral. Simply not something which they should have been expelled for.
How exactly would you know that for a fact? I think that number is wildly high for the general population.
I think people should have the right to have group sex if they really want, it's just that the number who really want that (especially women) is very small. So the standard for consent is very high. And if there's doubt, we should err on the side of safety. Guys should understand that and should understand that most women really don't want that, and should know that they need to be really, really sure.
Last edited:
I knew the girls and guys. I had a GF most of my time at college so I generally had condoms in my room. When one of the girls would come over the guys would be at my door for protection. Guys at other frats and athletes had similar stories with the same girls. It was only a handful of girls but they made the rounds and were well known.
There are always guys and girls that like with multiple partners at the same time but at any point anyone says they're done, it's over.
After that, any sex that occurs is rape.
No disagreement here. The problem is when the girl claims she said no after the second or third guy and the guy's say she didn't.
The standard on that campus isn't the lack of saying no. Frankly shouldn't be the standard in 2016 in the population at large either. If the absence of a drunk girl screaming no is your standard, you deserve expulsion.
Read the 80 page university report.
Willfully obtuse.
Read the 80 page university report.
Willfully obtuse.
Page 55: Statement from Accused A12:
"RS saw A12 and then said, "I don't want to" and "this is too many people" and "don't send people in here." RS repeatedly said that she was in pain. A5 did not respond by stopping or changing his activities... "A12 ultimately concluded that "it didn't feel right , .. Sometimes it didn't seem like she was into it." A12 left the bedroom after about twenty seconds."
The boycotting players are doing so because the university has suspended the players even though they were not criminally charged. They're also upset because the admin is not sharing their findings, which they legally cannot under FERPA. The university has to make sure their investigation and punishments protect the accusing student's Title IX rights. I've said it many times, university proceedings and punishments are separate from anything criminal and they may or may not match
The boycotting players look like aholes dying on a worthless hill.
That certainly implicates A5 and to an extent A12. The fact that the board decided not to view the actual 90 second footage of the incident is highly distributing imo. The people doing the criminal investigation seemed to indicated this was the one piece of evidence they relied most on as it was the actual footage and collaborated various witness testimony. I'm not sure why RS would have to be present while it was viewed which was their reasoning for not watching it. Any ideas? You have an alleged sexual assault on video but decide not to watch it before making your decision as to what occurred?
From what I could tell, it was police evidence and it would have had to have had her and/or the DAs permission be released.
Are you going to make me copy and paste all 82 pages?
Page 24:
"EOAA was unable to obtain the 90-second video taken by A2. A2 lawyer Lee Hutton reported that he has the video and offered to provide it with RS written consent. Mr. Hutton reported that he obtained the video through a forensic investigation of A2's cellphone. RS refused to consent because she has never seen the video, and feared that it would be too painful. EOAA obtained a redacted version of the Minneapolis Police Department's description of the video."
Thanks for posting. That raises all kinds of questions. 1). Why would RS have be present during its viewing. 2). Why does it matter if she's seen it or not? She's accused others of sexual assault. Surely she doesn't have the right to conceal a known video of the assault. "I'm accusing you of sexual assault. There's a video of said assault but I'm not going to allow the board to view it".
The person who took the video could authenticate it of the problem is evidentiary
The person who took the video could authenticate it of the problem is evidentiary
How can she prevent the actual tape from being viewed by the board? How do the accused not have the right to compel its viewing. It is after all the video of the incident. How can her wishes not to have what occurred viewed supersede the rights of those accused?
There can be no more persuasive and objective evidence than a tape of the act.
I understand. My question was how do the accused who are facing expulsion not have the right to have the tape of the incident for which they are accused viewed? They are wanting to produce the tape as evidence. How can the accuser block their right to have what actually occurred seen? This not only makes zero sense but violates every due process and ones right to defend oneself I've ever seen.
A accuses B of assault. B has the tape of the incident. The fact finder refuses to view the tape of the incident because A doesn't want them to see it. B has no rights to produce said tape to show their innocence. WTH?
Surely this can't be real?
This is not going away soon or easily. Did she consent to have the video shot? If not there's a big issue there. Even if she doesn't consent to the university seeing the video, the accused could sue for that right especially if the believe it is evidence in clearing their names. I can tell you that is where the boundary between university discipline and legal proceedings really gets muddy. FERPA also muddied things as most of the information in discipline proceedings could never be used as evidence as it is protected, much like a doctor or a priest have the privilege of maintaining privacy.
I understand FERPA. However, we have a video which the authorities believes seem to exonerate the accused. The accused have possession of said video and want to present it as proof of their innocence. The accuser under these guidelines is able to prevent them from producing evidence showing their innocence. How does this not violate the rights of the accused? How does this equate to privilege? The evidence is the property of the accused.
My example above about the assault is dead on. Surely you can see the issue with this standard and the rights of the parties involved. When we take away the rights of the accused to defend themselves with evidence which has been demonstrated to place into question the accuser's allegations then what kind of system have we endorsed? Doesn't this go against our long history of giving the accused every opportunity to defend themselves?
My example above about the assault is dead on. Surely you can see the issue with this standard and the rights of the parties involved. When we take away the rights of the accused to defend themselves with evidence which has been demonstrated to place into question the accuser's allegations then what kind of system have we endorsed? Doesn't this go against our long history of giving the accused every opportunity to defend themselves?
Everybody's rights cannot be protected in cases like this. The law is highly inadequate in this type of situation. You just hope too many people's rights don't get trampled on repetitively. That is probably too high of expectations.
I am going to have to side with the 'victim' here. But she won't be the only victim. I'm sure there is at least one male who will get worse treatment than he deserves. But she took the worst of it for sure.
The sad thing though is that not one male saw what was happening and stood up for her. I am sure that at least one male realized what was going on. I am also sure that he/they feel incredible guilt everyday that he let peer pressure hold him back from speaking out.
I am going to have to side with the 'victim' here. But she won't be the only victim. I'm sure there is at least one male who will get worse treatment than he deserves. But she took the worst of it for sure.
The sad thing though is that not one male saw what was happening and stood up for her. I am sure that at least one male realized what was going on. I am also sure that he/they feel incredible guilt everyday that he let peer pressure hold him back from speaking out.
I'm more concerned about the precedent being set here. Again...,my example:
A accuses B of assault and brings an action to have B expelled. B has a video tape of the incident along with evidence that said tape will help clear B. A blocks B from submitting said tape to the fact finder.
Question: How can any fair minded person support such a system? Doesn't prohibiting the accused from presenting a tape of the incident severely prejudice their right to defend against the accuser? Is there any equivalent to this type of restrictions against the accused in existence in any other system outside of maybe the Middle East or third world countries? These restrictions are unheard of even in civil cases where there is no accusation of criminal wrongdoing.
Imagine the frustration of being accused of something as serious and with the stigma of sexual assault. You claim its consensual and have the encounter on tape. The accuser is able to prevent you from presenting the one piece of evidence which can conclusively proof your innocence. Hypothetical fact pattern and not intended to reflect the current case.
A accuses B of assault and brings an action to have B expelled. B has a video tape of the incident along with evidence that said tape will help clear B. A blocks B from submitting said tape to the fact finder.
Question: How can any fair minded person support such a system? Doesn't prohibiting the accused from presenting a tape of the incident severely prejudice their right to defend against the accuser? Is there any equivalent to this type of restrictions against the accused in existence in any other system outside of maybe the Middle East or third world countries? These restrictions are unheard of even in civil cases where there is no accusation of criminal wrongdoing.
Imagine the frustration of being accused of something as serious and with the stigma of sexual assault. You claim its consensual and have the encounter on tape. The accuser is able to prevent you from presenting the one piece of evidence which can conclusively proof your innocence. Hypothetical fact pattern and not intended to reflect the current case.
You have an entirely fallacious opinion of this video.
I'm certain you've read the 80 page university document at this point? And the police report?
I literally hate myself for even responding anymore. You are the only person left on the interwebs even pretending to play devils advocate.
I'm certain you've read the 80 page university document at this point? And the police report?
I literally hate myself for even responding anymore. You are the only person left on the interwebs even pretending to play devils advocate.
Read my last paragraph. I'm speaking in hypotheticals and not this particular case. It's the precendent which concerns me. I personally think these boys were in the wrong after reading the 80 pages. That however doesn't change what I see as a flawed and dangerous system. If you can't see and understand the danger then we have nothing more to discuss
Go easy BBjunkie, you don't know what male on this board has been wrongly accused of rape and had their reputation soiled for some time. I guarantee you there is at least one.
For the third time, I'm not talking about this specific case. I'm talking about the apparent right of an accuser to be able to prevent the accused (IN ANY HEARING UNDER THIS SYSTEM) from presenting video evidence in their possession which may clear them of the accusation.
Are you purposely trying to be dense? I stated that after reading the report that I believe the boys to be in the wrong. I'm speaking in the abstract. Do you understand what that means?
In this particular case, the players named aim to take the team down with them.
http://deadspin.com/report-minnesota-football-players-plan-to-boycott-bowl-1790167029
http://deadspin.com/report-minnesota-football-players-plan-to-boycott-bowl-1790167029
Because after reading the report I believe the boys have done what was accused. What else do we need to discuss about this specific fact pattern? The real discussion at this point going forward is the process which I've been trying to discuss for the last page. Distance yourself from this fact pattern. Surely you can see the issues with a system where an accuser can block the accused from presenting evidence which can possibly clear them? Especially when the stakes are expulsion and the charges are serious.
Gmoney, don't go there. There isn't some false accusation conspiracy among females and I'd rather not think harder about situations where I should have advised friends differently in your run of the mill one on one activity. People are getting away with it infinitely more than people are being falsely accused.
Be 1000% certain in casual sex encounters. Tell your sons to be that sure. Tell your daughters they have to make their consent that clear. In 2016 there's no excuse for anything less, star athletes or not.
Be 1000% certain in casual sex encounters. Tell your sons to be that sure. Tell your daughters they have to make their consent that clear. In 2016 there's no excuse for anything less, star athletes or not.
I wasn't saying it was a false accusation. What I was getting at is that if a person has been falsely accused of rape, and suffered a great deal from it, then emotions for that person are going to get high on a subject like this.
It is possible some on this board might have been legally involved with someone accused of rape and the thought of this standard of evidence exclusion scares the hell out of them for the accused and the search for justice and the truth. Afterall, the truth and justice for all parties involved should always be our end goal in these tough, messy and personal situations. Rapist should certainly be punished to the fullest extent.
The assault example is completely different - having a bunch of strangers view a video of you being beat up doesn't really impact your privacy. Having a bunch of strangers watch a woman engage in intercourse, especially if nonconsensial, is an egregious violation of her privacy - by having people watch the video, you make the crime much worse, which simply isn't the case with assault. Completely different. And knowing that if a woman reports it, she'll have to have strangers watch it will absolutely chill reporting so many women won't report it. That's not true with assault. It's really difficult to overstate how awful it would be for the victim to have this video watched by a bunch of random administrative strangers.
In a non-criminal, non-civil setting like this, it's important to balance the rights of the accused against the rights of the victim not to have the system further abuse her, and not to turn the system into an accomplice in the crime. These issues don't exist with assault. So that analogy really doesn't work.
It's not a search for the truth. It's not a process for assigning blame. Read what Title IX really requires schools to do. It's balancing compliance with federal and law against protecting the image, marketing, and income of the school.
If students on either side of the accusations get hurt, that's a purely secondary consideration in the new media era.
If students on either side of the accusations get hurt, that's a purely secondary consideration in the new media era.
The problem with your argument is that even if the accused can present proof that the video will show that the sex was consensual and may clear him of the accusation the accused can still block him from presenting it. Surely you can appreciate the fact that someone falsely accusing another of sexual assault would always block a video proving the innocence of the accused. Likewise, if the accused is guilty they would rarely want to present a video of the assault as it would prove guilt. If truth is what we are after then this exclusion is shear lunacy as it encourages the opposite.
