Ex-Baylor OL BJ Autry recent visit to Minnesota??

Donate To GopherHole
dpodoll68 said:
What incident? I honestly haven't seen anything about anything, which is why I'm sincerely asking. The only thing I've seen is that he wanted to leave Baylor, did so, and then was suspended for it.
Click to expand...

Based on what Ryan Burns has said that appears to be correct.
 

dpodoll68 said:
What incident? I honestly haven't seen anything about anything, which is why I'm sincerely asking. The only thing I've seen is that he wanted to leave Baylor, did so, and then was suspended for it.
Click to expand...
This one with Jeremey Faulk
In the OTL report, Faulk claimed he had consensual sex with a woman in April, while the female has a different story as to what transpired; the alleged victim spoke to OTL and claimed that Faulk and another player, Autry, “forced me to do things that I didn’t want to do against my own consent.”

That alleged victim reported the incident to police May 5 but told them she did not want to pursue charges. The woman also didn’t want an investigation to be conducted by the school into her allegations, an investigation she was told was required when contacted by a BU Title IX official. “She said she is in counseling but is worried about retaliation and wants to move on,” OTL wrote.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...ther-disturbing-situation-surfaces-at-baylor/
 

If this is true, Autry won't be suiting up in Maroon & Gold anytime soon.
 

nsmike said:
This one with Jeremey Faulk
In the OTL report, Faulk claimed he had consensual sex with a woman in April, while the female has a different story as to what transpired; the alleged victim spoke to OTL and claimed that Faulk and another player, Autry, “forced me to do things that I didn’t want to do against my own consent.”

That alleged victim reported the incident to police May 5 but told them she did not want to pursue charges. The woman also didn’t want an investigation to be conducted by the school into her allegations, an investigation she was told was required when contacted by a BU Title IX official. “She said she is in counseling but is worried about retaliation and wants to move on,” OTL wrote.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...ther-disturbing-situation-surfaces-at-baylor/
Click to expand...

Thank you, this is actually something to have concern about.
 

nsmike said:
This one with Jeremey Faulk
In the OTL report, Faulk claimed he had consensual sex with a woman in April, while the female has a different story as to what transpired; the alleged victim spoke to OTL and claimed that Faulk and another player, Autry, “forced me to do things that I didn’t want to do against my own consent.”

That alleged victim reported the incident to police May 5 but told them she did not want to pursue charges. The woman also didn’t want an investigation to be conducted by the school into her allegations, an investigation she was told was required when contacted by a BU Title IX official. “She said she is in counseling but is worried about retaliation and wants to move on,” OTL wrote.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...ther-disturbing-situation-surfaces-at-baylor/
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is that the OTL report does not name Autry and, apparently, neither did the victim (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...r-says-get-fair-chance-clear-name-stay-school).
 


nsmike said:
This one with Jeremey Faulk
In the OTL report, Faulk claimed he had consensual sex with a woman in April, while the female has a different story as to what transpired; the alleged victim spoke to OTL and claimed that Faulk and another player, Autry, “forced me to do things that I didn’t want to do against my own consent.”

That alleged victim reported the incident to police May 5 but told them she did not want to pursue charges. The woman also didn’t want an investigation to be conducted by the school into her allegations, an investigation she was told was required when contacted by a BU Title IX official. “She said she is in counseling but is worried about retaliation and wants to move on,” OTL wrote.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...ther-disturbing-situation-surfaces-at-baylor/
Click to expand...

Off topic comment here. Note the technique the Colorado State player is using. Not very heads up. Eyes closed as well.
 

That's a very optimistic interpretation (Autry wasn't the other player) but I suppose it could be true. The guys could well be guilty as not charged, but weren't given their day in court. The rumors alone make these guys radioactive. It will be a risk for Claeys and the U to bring him on with the Title IX Gestapo in control.

Of course, if they are kicked off the Baylor campus without criminal charges they simply return to general society to allegedly continue their assaults. Student safety > non-students. Not in my backyard. Something stinks with all of this. Either charge them and put them in prison or clear their names. None of this quasi-"justice".
 

Pompous Elitist said:
That's a very optimistic interpretation (Autry wasn't the other player) but I suppose it could be true. The guys could well be guilty as not charged, but weren't given their day in court. The rumors alone make these guys radioactive. It will be a risk for Claeys and the U to bring him on with the Title IX Gestapo in control.

Of course, if they are kicked off the Baylor campus without criminal charges they simply return to general society to allegedly continue their assaults. Student safety > non-students. Not in my backyard. Something stinks with all of this. Either charge them and put them in prison or clear their names. None of this quasi-"justice".
Click to expand...

I agree with you, in theory. Unfortunately, that's just not the way the world works. Finding out the actual truth in a situation is extremely difficult and a prosecutor can't bring charges unless they believe that they can prove a suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are plenty of people who have done awful things that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So, those people don't really deserve their names "cleared".
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Little or no information? There is enough smoke to be moderately concerned and be diligent, which is what they are doing. Nothing wrong with that and exactly what they should do.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Remember we kicked two kids out off the team a few years ago and ruined their reputations and lives because they did absolutely nothing wrong. We've never let the facts stop us from making stupid decisions as an athletic department. Why start now. Because, you know if there is smoke, there is always fire. And that fire is always exactly as some pompus elitist understands it to be.
 




SelectionSunday said:
Can you refresh my memory? Which 2 players? Barker?
Click to expand...

Steven Watson and Mackenzy Toussaint. It was longer than a few years ago -- back in 2002. Charged, went to trial. Turns out, they didn't do anything. There were acquitted of all charges. I can't find the article that explained everything anymore, but the players were kicked out off the team and out of school -- trial proceeded and 5 years later the trial resulted in both of them being set free, and as I recall, the reason was that they actually didn't do it according to all parties involved. Rather than look into it, the U just kicked em out.
 

caliGopher said:
Steven Watson and Mackenzy Toussaint. It was longer than a few years ago -- back in 2002. Charged, went to trial. Turns out, they didn't do anything. There were acquitted of all charges. I can't find the article that explained everything anymore, but the players were kicked out off the team and out of school -- trial proceeded and 5 years later the trial resulted in both of them being set free, and as I recall, the reason was that they actually didn't do it according to all parties involved. Rather than look into it, the U just kicked em out.
Click to expand...

The case was a "he said/she said".

Keep in mind that Watson and Toussaint had some big guns as attorneys (Joe Friedberg and Earl Gray). The alleged incident took place in 2001 and they were acquitted in January of 2002, so it was only a few months. She didn't recant her testimony, there just wasn't enough evidence to convict either of the guys. I'm not saying that they did anything, I just am not entirely sure it's fair to say "Turns out, they didn't do anything". Part of the reason why they were not going to be allowed back on the football team is that the alleged victim was over at one of their apartments to write papers for them (both sides admitted this).
 

caliGopher said:
Steven Watson and Mackenzy Toussaint. It was longer than a few years ago -- back in 2002. Charged, went to trial. Turns out, they didn't do anything. There were acquitted of all charges. I can't find the article that explained everything anymore, but the players were kicked out off the team and out of school -- trial proceeded and 5 years later the trial resulted in both of them being set free, and as I recall, the reason was that they actually didn't do it according to all parties involved. Rather than look into it, the U just kicked em out.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I didn't know that story.
 



caliGopher said:
Yeah. Remember we kicked two kids out off the team a few years ago and ruined their reputations and lives because they did absolutely nothing wrong. We've never let the facts stop us from making stupid decisions as an athletic department. Why start now. Because, you know if there is smoke, there is always fire. And that fire is always exactly as some pompus elitist understands it to be.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I'm probably the biggest proponent of due process posting on this site. No, I am the strongest proponent of due process on this site. That said, the world the U inhabits is ruled by Title IX, not the rule of law or due process as we know it in the "real" world. It is risky to bring on players with checkered pasts, as Briles found out.

And, regarding my name...it's a joke aimed at some of the posters here. This just flies right by...maybe time to change the name.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I agree with you, in theory. Unfortunately, that's just not the way the world works. Finding out the actual truth in a situation is extremely difficult and a prosecutor can't bring charges unless they believe that they can prove a suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are plenty of people who have done awful things that can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So, those people don't really deserve their names "cleared".
Click to expand...

We never know the whole truth, ever. That's why we have a legal system set up to protect the innocent and set a high bar for conviction. If you want something else, plenty of places in the world that don't have due process. If we don't like the legal system we have, amend it don't end it.

For a guy like Autry, a scarlet letter from a Title IX reprimand/dismissal, or perhaps even rumors of wrongdoing these days, will prevent him from enrolling at any university and likely prevent him from going on to the NFL and possibly millions in income. He should have his day in court, if necessary. Get him in prison, or let him contribute to society and get an education.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I agree with you. <b>I'm probably the biggest proponent of due process posting on this site. No, I am the strongest proponent of due process on this site. </b>That said, the world the U inhabits is ruled by Title IX, not the rule of law or due process as we know it in the "real" world. It is risky to bring on players with checkered pasts, as Briles found out.

And, regarding my name...it's a joke aimed at some of the posters here. This just flies right by...maybe time to change the name.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest - your name fits perfectly with the bolded part. Seems you are one of those posters this 'joke' is aimed at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

caliGopher said:
Yeah. Remember we kicked two kids out off the team a few years ago and ruined their reputations and lives because they did absolutely nothing wrong. We've never let the facts stop us from making stupid decisions as an athletic department. Why start now. Because, you know if there is smoke, there is always fire. And that fire is always exactly as some pompus elitist understands it to be.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, Trevor Mbakwe.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I agree with you. I'm probably the biggest proponent of due process posting on this site. No, I am the strongest proponent of due process on this site. That said, the world the U inhabits is ruled by Title IX, not the rule of law or due process as we know it in the "real" world. It is risky to bring on players with checkered pasts, as Briles found out.

And, regarding my name...it's a joke aimed at some of the posters here. This just flies right by...maybe time to change the name.
Click to expand...
What a clever lawyer can prove(or an inadequate lawyer can't) in a court of law & the truth, are at times not the same thing. The CHARACTER(or lack thereof) of the student athletes in question, is the important thing.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

But I digress... what is the status on Mr. Autry as of now?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 


I was talking recruitment wise. I think you may have your favorite chat rooms mixed up. ; )

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 



Pompous Elitist said:
We never know the whole truth, ever. That's why we have a legal system set up to protect the innocent and set a high bar for conviction. If you want something else, plenty of places in the world that don't have due process. If we don't like the legal system we have, amend it don't end it.

For a guy like Autry, a scarlet letter from a Title IX reprimand/dismissal, or perhaps even rumors of wrongdoing these days, will prevent him from enrolling at any university and likely prevent him from going on to the NFL and possibly millions in income. He should have his day in court, if necessary. Get him in prison, or let him contribute to society and get an education.
Click to expand...


The legal system only applies to the legal system. It never assumed to dictate the truth. There are plenty of places that have a much lower standard than "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Just because one jury finds someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not does not mean that it's the end of the conversation. It is legally (usually). But the world exists outside the courtroom. OJ Simpson was a villain after he was found Not Guilty, and IMO, rightfully so. Those kids in Memphis who were convicted of murder for being fans of Metallica (West Memphis 3) were martyrs after being found Guilty of murder, and, IMO, rightfully so. Our legal system is the best that we have, but it's not perfect.

As far as Autry, yeah, if he doesn't get convicted of anything, he should be LEGALLY entitled to contribute to society and get an education. However, I can certainly see why a football program would pass on a kid if there is a lot of "smoke". I'm not saying there is with Autry, I'm just saying that the fact that charges haven't been brought is not and should not be the only thing that determines whether or not this situation is enough to make us want to avoid the kid.
 

I just hope Mr Autry hasn't read this thread...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Lordshawesome said:
I was talking recruitment wise. I think you may have your favorite chat rooms mixed up. ; )

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, the both have the same word in their name so it could happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Gopher hole & Go for hole, right? Hahaha

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Spoofin said:
Let's be honest - your name fits perfectly with the bolded part. Seems you are one of those posters this 'joke' is aimed at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, I am pompous at times. Are you?
 

Lordshawesome said:
What a clever lawyer can prove(or an inadequate lawyer can't) in a court of law & the truth, are at times not the same thing. The CHARACTER(or lack thereof) of the student athletes in question, is the important thing.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So now we are the character police? But we cannot judge the plaintiff's character, motives, or ability to recollect events?

You guys are grasping at straws to defend this.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom