All Things EOAA, Investigation, Suspension, Overturned Etc. Thread: UPDATED 1 Thread

[Spoofin]

The authorities did not determine there was consent. Officers who watched a short video thought it appeared as if she was playful and enjoying herself or some words like that. The Hennepin County Attorney determined that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime committed so they did not charge anyone.

This narrative needs to stop. If we follow this logic, anyone ever accused of any crime isn't really not guilty, they just couldn't prove they were guilty.
How about someone who stands trial and is found not guilty... do you walk around saying, "all that means is they couldn't prove it?"
Everyone else that has been accused of a crime, but not charged.... do you also put them in the "just couldn't prove it" camp?
What if I accused you of robbing my house last night- of course they wouldn't charge you as there would be no proof. Are you OK being labeled a robber now and that you are only free because the police "just couldn't find enough proof?"
There is a reason we set up our legal system the way we do. Innocent until proven guilty and if not proven guilty you are assumed innocent. Sad that some pick the "no, they are probably guilty - the police just couldn't prove it" approach. You live in the wrong part of the world dude.

You can also stop the "they couldn't prove it <b>beyond a reasonable doubt</b> nonsense. That is the burden of proof in court. The burden of proof to charge the players was far lower than that - in fact, it was lower than the burden of proof the U had to prove.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TruthSeeker]

The authorities did not determine there was consent. Officers who watched a short video thought it appeared as if she was playful and enjoying herself or some words like that. The Hennepin County Attorney determined that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime committed so they did not charge anyone.

Mike Freeman and his assistant prosecutors and the Minneapolis Police Department determined that there was not probable cause to charge or arrest any of the players with a crime. That's an even lower threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Please compose your assertions more accurately.

 

[BleedGopher]

AP: Lawyer for Minnesota players says lawsuits being discussed

per the AP:

An attorney representing a group of Minnesota football players says several are still considering bringing a federal lawsuit for what he says was a lack of due process during a Title IX investigation into allegations of sexual assault.

Ryan Pacyga, who represented Antoine Winfield Jr. during the proceedings and has since been brought on by Lee Hutton to help with representation of the other nine players involved, said Saturday that "everything is on the table."

The university's appeals panel on Friday upheld the recommended punishments for five players (expulsions for Dior Johnson, Tamarion Johnson, KiAnte Hardin and Ray Buford and a one-year suspension for Mark Williams), wiped out the punishments for four others (one-year suspensions for Winfield, Seth Green and Kobe McCrary, and probation for Antonio Shenault) and reduced the recommended punishment for one more (dropping an expulsion to a one-year suspension for Carlton Djam).

"I think the process needs to be overhauled," Pacyga said. "It was greatly concerning and any parent ought to be concerned if their student is accused of a Title IX violation, and especially sexual misconduct at the University of Minnesota."

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...gophers-players-says-lawsuits-being-discussed

Go Gophers!!

 

[TruthSeeker]

It is laughable and pathetic at the same time that many of the GopherHole posters who object to the Title IX procedures for holding students accountable for sexual violence and harassment on campus couldn't care less about the rights of the accused in America's state and federal criminal justice system. They are silent and look the other way when the read and hear about people who have been abused and mistreated by cops, and wrongly imprisoned by corrupt prosecutors and judges in every state in America. And those very same posters never miss an opportunity to vote for politicians who have made it their life's work to fight crime by passing laws that take away long standing protections for those who have been accused of crimes. The hypocrisy of these posters have no bounds. We all know who they are.

Disgusting post that should get you permanently banned. What you say here isn't even remotely true. Many people here care about all of these things that you say we don't.

You're a dishonest and despicable person.

 

[minny01]

Disgusting post that should get you permanently banned. What you say here isn't even remotely true. Many people here care about all of these things that you say we don't.

You're a dishonest and despicable person.

Completely agree. The more that he or she opens their mouth, the more they look like a complete moron.

 

[rugger14]

Mike Freeman and his assistant prosecutors and the Minneapolis Police Department determined that there was not probable cause to charge or arrest any of the players with a crime. That's an even lower threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Please compose your assertions more accurately.

Please understand that the system does not always work that way. In a case with no arrest, they are far more deliberate and far less likely to charge on a case that they don't think they can win in court. So while it is possible to be charged at the PC threshold it is highly unlikely in a case like this.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

It is laughable and pathetic at the same time that many of the GopherHole posters who object to the Title IX procedures for holding students accountable for sexual violence and harassment on campus couldn't care less about the rights of the accused in America's state and federal criminal justice system. They are silent and look the other way when the read and hear about people who have been brutalized and sometimes murdered by cops, and wrongly imprisoned or executed by corrupt prosecutors and judges in every state in America. And those very same posters never miss an opportunity to vote for politicians who have made it their life's work to fight crime by passing laws that take away long standing protections for those who have been accused of crimes. The hypocrisy of these posters have no bounds. We all know who they are.

WTF are you talking about?

We don't talk about it because it has nothing to do with the issue. I think you'd also be pretty surprised by the political ideological breakdown of the people that think you're a creepy rambling ass.

If you wanted to talk about these wholly separate issues, you should start a post about it on the off-topic board and you can find out where people really stand on those issues rather than simply guessing.

As far as you, you're one of those extremely weird far left crazies who is actually so far left that you're a borderline nazi. You've implied that group sex is wrong, regardless of if it's consensual. You've said that you'll believe the victim over a bunch of football players.

Well, where do you think these great injustices that you're talking about come from? They come from that exact same way of thinking. You get to decide what people should do in the privacy of their bedroom. You can make a snap judgement on a situation just knowing the background of the people involved. That's the birthplace of legal corruption and the miscarriage of justice, POS like you.

You've defended everything about the Title IX hearings (to a point where it feels like you want blood) and have categorized them by saying they are just trying to "hold students accountable for sexual assault". Well, don't you think the same people who defend every action by the cops would use THE EXACT ARGUMENT??

You have the audacity to call other people hypocrites. Wow.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Really? I thought the social injustice was the 40% chance of an STD, or the ten-fold increase in the risk of suicide to the woman; or, the billions of dollars in cost to society. The threshold of "justice" for women doesn't exist. Estimates of reported rape are so small because the chance of prosecution on he said/she said cases is near zilch. Yet, women suffer damage to their vagina, anus, thighs, arms, neck, head, breasts, etc. and nothing is done for them.

The U of M did a study on the cost of being a rape victim. Average cost: $110,000. Eleven percent of rape victims become pregnant.

Social costs to the victim

Cost of the initial exam, treatment for STDs, pregnancy, chronic conditions (headaches, panic attacks, sexual dysfunction), suicide attempts, chemical abuse, PTSD, dissociation, depression, anxiety, fear, blame, helplessness, legal costs (evidentiary exams, trial readiness, impact statements, legal costs), academic impacts (reduced class attendance, performance, skills-abilities, job, position), DNA testing, etc.

When due process is discussed, it seems to be in a Constitutional vacuum. When the players were discussed, it was in the vacuum of life long costs to the players. Yet, in the grand calculus, the woman was always ignored as having a lifelong cost. Constitutional norms apply to everyone involved, including the woman. The social long term costs need to be recognized as it applies to the woman, any and all women.

This is a good example of the emotional argument quagmire so many get lost in. Because there are costs associated being a true victim, any element of fairness or appropriate due process should be thrown out for those accused of said crimes. Ought we to apply this thought process to all crimes? We could clean up the streets lickity split.

 

[rugger14]

This narrative needs to stop. If we follow this logic, anyone ever accused of any crime isn't really not guilty, they just couldn't prove they were guilty.
How about someone who stands trial and is found not guilty... do you walk around saying, "all that means is they couldn't prove it?"
Everyone else that has been accused of a crime, but not charged.... do you also put them in the "just couldn't prove it" camp?
What if I accused you of robbing my house last night- of course they wouldn't charge you as there would be no proof. Are you OK being labeled a robber now and that you are only free because the police "just couldn't find enough proof?"
There is a reason we set up our legal system the way we do. Innocent until proven guilty and if not proven guilty you are assumed innocent. Sad that some pick the "no, they are probably guilty - the police just couldn't prove it" approach. You live in the wrong part of the world dude.

You can also stop the "they couldn't prove it <b>beyond a reasonable doubt</b> nonsense. That is the burden of proof in court. The burden of proof to charge the players was far lower than that - in fact, it was lower than the burden of proof the U had to prove.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not even close to the same thing. If I was at your house last night and I was the only one there. If I admitted I was there and looking at your antique stamp collection, and then when you got up this morning it was gone, I would be questioned by the police but unless they found the stamps at my house or something I would most-likely not be charged.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Please understand that the system does not always work that way. In a case with no arrest, they are far more deliberate and far less likely to charge on a case that they don't think they can win in court. So while it is possible to be charged at the PC threshold it is highly unlikely in a case like this.

If they thought there was a case here, it would have been an absolute perfect one to charge and make arrests. These kinds of cases are usually solved by arresting the group and making them turn on each other.

It is EXTREMELY likely that they would have charged them with PC. Even if it is not PC, they certainly would have charged before reaching BARD.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

No, they were punished because they broke the student code of conduct.

Huh? That is like saying "he was arrested for sexual assault" and you chiming in and saying "no, they were arrested for breaking the law."

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I honesty don't understand Djam's penalty being reduced to the one year suspension. Not only did he participate in a supposed consensual threesome with a 17 year old recruit, but I can't imagine he wasn't present for the activities that led to the expulsion of the four players. I doubt he'll be allowed back on the team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You believe a consensual threesome, even if a recruit was involved (Djam was < 3 yrs older I believe) ought to result in expulsion, loss of ability to attend college, and damages ranging possibly up into the millions of dollars?

Put the pitchfork down, and back away slowly.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Perpetrators of murder, child abuse, etc. are brought to "justice" probably tenfold, is my guess, more times than rape. Also, murder, child abuse, etc. aren't really simmering problems on college campuses, but rape is. Therefore wouldn't you agree that there is at least some sort of extra attention that needs to be paid to sexual assault on college campuses? Campus codes of law have been around for centuries and they have been rarely complained about this much. IMO half of the uproar is about legitimate problems with how this was handled and how it should change, but the other half isn't much more than "OMG my favorite team won't be able to tackle good next year".
It sounds like you have a problem with "uppity" white women.

The best statistics show rape is no more common on campus and likely less common. Sexual assault, if defined as a stolen kiss, etc or being made to feel uncomfortable in any broad number of ways is a broad definition of assault that led to the "rape culture" label assignation on a few surveys. That doesn't excuse the real rapes that happen or the rapists but unless better numbers show up it is not a campus-specific problem.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Please understand that the system does not always work that way. In a case with no arrest, they are far more deliberate and far less likely to charge on a case that they don't think they can win in court. So while it is possible to be charged at the PC threshold it is highly unlikely in a case like this.

Here's how the system usually works. The cops get evidence of a crime, once they have the evidence they determine if an arrest should be made. After they've made the arrest, they continue to gather more facts and interrogate the person under arrest. Based on what comes from the interrogation and facts gathered, they then either bring charges or a grand jury is called to bring charges. Arresting somebody makes it easier to prove a crime was committed because of the opportunity to interrogate.

What you're stating does happen in rare circumstances, but you're purely speculating if that's what occurred here. So, either way, your characterization of what happened is based off of your internal bias and not known facts. So essentially, you've got nothing.

 

[PitinoFan]

5 Punishments Upheld, 4 Cleared, 1 Reduced in Gopher Football Player Sexual Misconduc

.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Yeah, it is strange they never brought charges. After reading all the reports it seems clear to me the police felt this girl and her squirrelly story were horribly inconsistent and it was more likely than not nothing outwardly nefarious occurred. Perhaps a misunderstanding or lack of "affirmative consent" but that's not a crime under the elements laid out in the criminal code.

 

[rugger14]

Here's how the system usually works. The cops get evidence of a crime, once they have the evidence they determine if an arrest should be made. After they've made the arrest, they continue to gather more facts and interrogate the person under arrest. Based on what comes from the interrogation and facts gathered, they then either bring charges or a grand jury is called to bring charges. Arresting somebody makes it easier to prove a crime was committed because of the opportunity to interrogate.

What you're stating does happen in rare circumstances, but you're purely speculating if that's what occurred here. So, either way, your characterization of what happened is based off of your internal bias and not known facts. So essentially, you've got nothing.

That's how it works on TV.

 

[Spoofin]

That's how it works on TV.

Right. In the real world people trained to investigate run a transparent investigation and determine there isn't probable cause to charge a crime, but a University committee that isn't impartial or experienced or trained in such things runs a non-transparent investigation ignoring certain constitutional rights and can label kids with a criminal act at the end of it. Oh, and pitchfork nation and ignorant internet posters support it under the "where there is smoke, there must be fire" notion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rugger14]

If they thought there was a case here, it would have been an absolute perfect one to charge and make arrests. These kinds of cases are usually solved by arresting the group and making them turn on each other.

It is EXTREMELY likely that they would have charged them with PC. Even if it is not PC, they certainly would have charged before reaching BARD.

Not even close to how it works.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Not even close to how it works.

Yeah, it is.

I worked as a county district attorney for 2 years after law school, I literally did this stuff.

So you tell me, when the police have a crime that is a conspiracy, how do they get the group to turn on themselves?

 

[PitinoFan]

5 Punishments Upheld, 4 Cleared, 1 Reduced in Gopher Football Player Sexual Misconduc

You believe a consensual threesome, even if a recruit was involved (Djam was < 3 yrs older I believe) ought to result in expulsion, loss of ability to attend college, and damages ranging possibly up into the millions of dollars?

Put the pitchfork down, and back away slowly.

No pitchfork. Just surprised that four would be expelled, while the guy who started the whole mess gets off relatively easy. Is that a problem?

The other day, I stated that all of them should be exonerated, due to the inconsistencies of the woman's statements. I still feel that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

No pitchfork. Just surprised that four would be expelled, while the guy who started the whole mess gets off relatively easy. Is that a problem?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By all accounts, everything that happened with him, the alleged victim and the recruit (if you want to blame that on Djam too), was consensual though.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Huh? That is like saying "he was arrested for sexual assault" and you chiming in and saying "no, they were arrested for breaking the law."

For as many times as you play lawyer on this site, I'd hope you've read what they broke in the student code of conduct by now. Much different than just whether the sex was consensual or not.

 

[TruthSeeker]

That's how it works on TV.

Your ignorance is showing.

You're actually debating about how the system works with Bob and me. We're both attorneys, and you think you know better than us. You can't make this stuff up folks.

 

[ethomasp31]

You see the irony in this statement right?

No one gave any speculation as to the facts of the sex between the recruit and the alleged victim. They both admit it happened, it just isn't Statutory Rape. There is ZERO speculation going on there. It's literally one of the few issues in this entire case that requires ZERO speculation.

Now to the crime that SPECULATED may have happened. We would have to know the content of the tapes to know whether or not it would rise to the level of child porn. You said you wanted to talk about it, I talked about it and you changed the subject again. There would have to be footage of the recruit naked or having sex for it to rise to the level of child porn. I have no idea what was on the tapes, apparently you wanted to SPECULATE on that, so go ahead.

Now. . . you've changed the subject again. LOL.

So you want the EoAA's report to be about a violation of team rules regarding drinking? Lol. You really will not rest until these people get punished will you? The school/team is free to punish them for the drinking issues. That wouldn't be part of a sexual assault investigation by the EoAA. Do you think we should expel or suspend for a year every student caught breaking this rule?

As to your last point, yep, it's how I figured this would end. You have no interest in discussing the actual alleged infractions, group sex is just icky to you and someone must pay for making you think of icky things. Great way to go through life!

You keep on misrepresenting the thoughts of those who think what the expelled players did something wrong....for most of us it has nothing to do with them having group sex. It's about using someone who has been put into a position that you have power over. I'm not saying she didn't make poor choices, but that isn't an excuse for the actions. I read the report in full, and some of the players even admitted that she seemed to want it to stop and it didn't. She wrapped herself up in a blanket to try and get away from it. Reading that didn't make your skin crawl?

The DA not prosecuting this case doesn't mean the expelled players are innocent....it only means they didn't think there was enough evidence to be proven guilty. I'm glad many of the players were cleared. Hopefully they can continue their careers at the "U" without any bias shown towards them.

 

[CentralGopher]

No pitchfork. Just surprised that four would be expelled, while the guy who started the whole mess gets off relatively easy. Is that a problem?

The other day, I stated that all of them should be exonerated, due to the inconsistencies of the woman's statements. I still feel that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#coacheslivesmatter

 

[Pompous Elitist]

No pitchfork. Just surprised that four would be expelled, while the guy who started the whole mess gets off relatively easy. Is that a problem?

The other day, I stated that all of them should be exonerated, due to the inconsistencies of the woman's statements. I still feel that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A year suspension from school is a pretty big deal, in addition to the suspensions already served, and the public notoriety. If he recorded her without her consent and distributed then he could face charges for that but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

You keep on misrepresenting the thoughts of those who think what the expelled players did something wrong....for most of us it has nothing to do with them having group sex. It's about using someone who has been put into a position that you have power over. I'm not saying she didn't make poor choices, but that isn't an excuse for the actions. I read the report in full, and some of the players even admitted that she seemed to want it to stop and it didn't. She wrapped herself up in a blanket to try and get away from it. Reading that didn't make your skin crawl?

The DA not prosecuting this case doesn't mean the expelled players are innocent....it only means they didn't think there was enough evidence to be proven guilty. I'm glad many of the players were cleared. Hopefully they can continue their careers at the "U" without any bias shown towards them.

The last part of your post re: the DA has already been addressed ad nauseum but you choose not to believe it, for whatever reason. Despite the EOAA "evidence" I bolded above per Hutton the players said at the hearing they never said such things and the investigator never recorded the interviews! Now, why would she do that?

Why would an investigator with an obvious agenda not record her interviews? it boggles the mind and illustrates how amateurish and biased the EOAA office at the U is. Reformation needs to start now.

 

[rugger14]

Right. In the real world people trained to investigate run a transparent investigation and determine there isn't probable cause to charge a crime, but a University committee that isn't impartial or experienced or trained in such things runs a non-transparent investigation ignoring certain constitutional rights and can label kids with a criminal act at the end of it. Oh, and pitchfork nation and ignorant internet posters support it under the "where there is smoke, there must be fire" notion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good points. I have never claimed to think that the EOAA system is a great one.

 

[rugger14]

Your ignorance is showing.

You're actually debating about how the system works with Bob and me. We're both attorneys, and you think you know better than us. You can't make this stuff up folks.

This is a funny post.