Soucheray: U of M player of character would have cleared the building helped woman

CoMn said:

If 10 white guys did this I think the reaction would be the same....

Click to expand...

Spoofin said:

So theoretically, if there is group sex happening between a group of consensual adults should someone who disagrees with that action intervene and stop those doing it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

GoGophersUMN said:

If they actually enforced Section II. Guiding Principles. Paragraph B and punished anyone that didn't respect "welfare of students, faculty, staff, and guests", 99% of the students would be in trouble. Heck, half of the professors would be fired for harming student welfare by stressing us out from waiting so long to hear how we did on tests.

Yeah, some of the players messed up badly. But to say they deserve punishment for violating some abstract principle that isn't well defined or ever enforced is crazy.

Click to expand...

Dean S said:

I arrested a Colonel attempting to rape a sergeant at the age of 26. I was a 1st Lieutenant. Character matters. And, too many on this board want to "wait and see" the outcome before making a judgement. If you see 10 men around a single woman, the chances are it is not consent. Who consents to a lineup of unfamiliar men, of whom you do not know if they would stop if told, or if they are free of disease, or if they would practice a choke hold while in the act. A reasonable woman does not act irrationally and "consent" to these types of unknowns. STDs are acquired in most cases at this age group.

I have written about the arrest I made months before this incident came to light. What amazes me the most is the rather cavalier attitude toward potential guilt. What people are writing here is a testament toward their real attitudes of laisse faire that the world will sort itself out at some point in the future with an investigation, so do nothing. Make no opinions of the event during the event or afterward. Well, afterward is too late. Memory fades, evidence degrades, witnesses come and go and time acts corrosively on any chance of success in court if there was a crime. The time to have been a man was at the apartment when all it took was one person to declare the party to be over and to put himself in harms way.

It isn't a one in a million odd of somebody acting correctly here. When I arrested my Colonel, there first was another witness who came to me to assist him in ending the assault. To me, that person acted heroically. I was the second party on the scene. But, the groundwork of defending another soldier was laid on the initial report.

The language and attitudes of the members of this board and the members of the bar have been nothing short of disgraceful. And, I would add, that few members of this board have displayed any type of good character in what has been shared.

Here is how the culture of casual sex with this generation is fairing - chlamydia rose 6% per year, gonorrhea is up 13% per year, syphilis is up 19%. These are entering epidemic rates of change. Of chlamydia, there were 1.5 million NEW cases last year. Of those, the 20-24 year old age group accounted for 39% of all new cases. That means 585,000 young adults acquired the clamp in one year. There are about 20 million people in this age group, giving a ratio of 1:34 odds of acquiring the clamp in a random hookup. The more men in the pool of risk, the higher the odds of acquiring the STD. If I had a gun and player Russian roulette at those odds, I wouldn't pull the trigger.

Consent in group sex is not a usual consent and has complexities that go well beyond a reasonable person rule.

The second person up has the risk of 2 people for an STD, of which I doubt the second man bothered to ask the first man about his sexual history of STDs. Nor, did the 3rd man, or the 4th, etc. Because the woman acted as a reservoir of all previous activity, those men better hope the manufacturing process and the condoms held up for everybody and the failure rate was very low and the application was appropriately applied to the organ. Otherwise, all bets are off. Semen is not considered a sterile fluid for HIV and has been found to be an infectious fluid for transmission.

There is nothing normal about consent to multiple partners. And, lawyers who take a wait and see attitude and offering their opinions that consent is the issue are retarded mentally and probably should not be giving any advice on the issue whatsoever. And, the 20-24 year old group is the least competent to be giving advice on multiple partners as they are the ones getting each other sick with STDs at ever growing rates.

So, that really leaves it to old clinicians to dispense some tough love on the subject. Stop thinking this is normal. The woman could not have been well informed about the issues and she certainly had no opportunity to ascertain the level of health of every participant in a 40 to 50 minute window. Nor, was she trained in asking appropriate screening questions that may help prevent her potential acquisition of an STD and selecting a good actor in that morning.

Click to expand...

Vandy said:

Far too many people have chosen to disregard that this entire episode may have been consensual (it is the crux of the matter, in addition to the committee's "investigation"process), and have moved forward to condemnation and penalties.

Click to expand...

minny01 said:

Couldn't agree more. This topic has really put some strange bedfellows together. You have the far right and the far left teaming together, who already have the case closed with a conviction, against the middle ground who wants the facts to play out (consent?) and wait for due process to be determined fairly.

Click to expand...

Bob_Loblaw said:

These far left zealots are blind to how fascist they are acting.

It really is becoming 1984.

Click to expand...

UpnorthGo4 said:

If the middle ground really wanted the facts to play out (consent?) and wait for due process to be determined fairly then they would allow the U to proceed with their Student Code of Conduct disciplinary process without pre-judging it as the have been doing since last Friday.

Click to expand...

MennoSota said:

Indeed, any man or woman of character would not have been involved in this orgy. Neither the woman nor the men stand for people of high character on that night. Shall we kick every person out of the University for having low character? That would remove about 50% of the student body. Let's not kid ourselves about the moral character on display at the U of M from faculty down to freshman.

Click to expand...

UpnorthGo4 said:

Far right zealots are also blind to how fascist they are acting.

It really is becoming 1932.

Click to expand...

MennoSota said:

Or as a means for the elite to be racist and cover it up.
10 black men accused of acting inappropriately with a white woman. Shall we get out the ropes? Racism is alive and well at the U.

Click to expand...

Class_of_99 said:

If you are viewing this differently than a case of a 1 guy and 1 girl rape allegation that centers on consent - you are already biased against the players. Food for thought.

Click to expand...

short ornery norwegian said:

So now, the $64,000 question - would a 19-year-old Joe Soucheray, put in that same position, have acted the way he calls for in his column? I'm willing to say no bleepin' way.

Click to expand...

UpnorthGo4 said:

The only students who are kicked out of the U have violated the Student Code of Conduct. Every institution and organization in America has standards of conduct for their members. If a member violates those standard of conduct they get kicked out. Right wingers love holding people accountable for their behavior except when the don't want to hold people accountable for their behavior.

Click to expand...

Dean S said:

I arrested a Colonel attempting to rape a sergeant at the age of 26. I was a 1st Lieutenant. Character matters. And, too many on this board want to "wait and see" the outcome before making a judgement. If you see 10 men around a single woman, the chances are it is not consent. Who consents to a lineup of unfamiliar men, of whom you do not know if they would stop if told, or if they are free of disease, or if they would practice a choke hold while in the act. A reasonable woman does not act irrationally and "consent" to these types of unknowns. STDs are acquired in most cases at this age group.

I have written about the arrest I made months before this incident came to light. What amazes me the most is the rather cavalier attitude toward potential guilt. What people are writing here is a testament toward their real attitudes of laisse faire that the world will sort itself out at some point in the future with an investigation, so do nothing. Make no opinions of the event during the event or afterward. Well, afterward is too late. Memory fades, evidence degrades, witnesses come and go and time acts corrosively on any chance of success in court if there was a crime. The time to have been a man was at the apartment when all it took was one person to declare the party to be over and to put himself in harms way.

It isn't a one in a million odd of somebody acting correctly here. When I arrested my Colonel, there first was another witness who came to me to assist him in ending the assault. To me, that person acted heroically. I was the second party on the scene. But, the groundwork of defending another soldier was laid on the initial report.

The language and attitudes of the members of this board and the members of the bar have been nothing short of disgraceful. And, I would add, that few members of this board have displayed any type of good character in what has been shared.

Here is how the culture of casual sex with this generation is fairing - chlamydia rose 6% per year, gonorrhea is up 13% per year, syphilis is up 19%. These are entering epidemic rates of change. Of chlamydia, there were 1.5 million NEW cases last year. Of those, the 20-24 year old age group accounted for 39% of all new cases. That means 585,000 young adults acquired the clamp in one year. There are about 20 million people in this age group, giving a ratio of 1:34 odds of acquiring the clamp in a random hookup. The more men in the pool of risk, the higher the odds of acquiring the STD. If I had a gun and player Russian roulette at those odds, I wouldn't pull the trigger.

Consent in group sex is not a usual consent and has complexities that go well beyond a reasonable person rule.

The second person up has the risk of 2 people for an STD, of which I doubt the second man bothered to ask the first man about his sexual history of STDs. Nor, did the 3rd man, or the 4th, etc. Because the woman acted as a reservoir of all previous activity, those men better hope the manufacturing process and the condoms held up for everybody and the failure rate was very low and the application was appropriately applied to the organ. Otherwise, all bets are off. Semen is not considered a sterile fluid for HIV and has been found to be an infectious fluid for transmission.

There is nothing normal about consent to multiple partners. And, lawyers who take a wait and see attitude and offering their opinions that consent is the issue are retarded mentally and probably should not be giving any advice on the issue whatsoever. And, the 20-24 year old group is the least competent to be giving advice on multiple partners as they are the ones getting each other sick with STDs at ever growing rates.

So, that really leaves it to old clinicians to dispense some tough love on the subject. Stop thinking this is normal. The woman could not have been well informed about the issues and she certainly had no opportunity to ascertain the level of health of every participant in a 40 to 50 minute window. Nor, was she trained in asking appropriate screening questions that may help prevent her potential acquisition of an STD and selecting a good actor in that morning.

Click to expand...

Dean S said:

I arrested a Colonel attempting to rape a sergeant at the age of 26. I was a 1st Lieutenant. Character matters. And, too many on this board want to "wait and see" the outcome before making a judgement. If you see 10 men around a single woman, the chances are it is not consent. Who consents to a lineup of unfamiliar men, of whom you do not know if they would stop if told, or if they are free of disease, or if they would practice a choke hold while in the act. A reasonable woman does not act irrationally and "consent" to these types of unknowns. STDs are acquired in most cases at this age group.

I have written about the arrest I made months before this incident came to light. What amazes me the most is the rather cavalier attitude toward potential guilt. What people are writing here is a testament toward their real attitudes of laisse faire that the world will sort itself out at some point in the future with an investigation, so do nothing. Make no opinions of the event during the event or afterward. Well, afterward is too late. Memory fades, evidence degrades, witnesses come and go and time acts corrosively on any chance of success in court if there was a crime. The time to have been a man was at the apartment when all it took was one person to declare the party to be over and to put himself in harms way.

It isn't a one in a million odd of somebody acting correctly here. When I arrested my Colonel, there first was another witness who came to me to assist him in ending the assault. To me, that person acted heroically. I was the second party on the scene. But, the groundwork of defending another soldier was laid on the initial report.

The language and attitudes of the members of this board and the members of the bar have been nothing short of disgraceful. And, I would add, that few members of this board have displayed any type of good character in what has been shared.

Here is how the culture of casual sex with this generation is fairing - chlamydia rose 6% per year, gonorrhea is up 13% per year, syphilis is up 19%. These are entering epidemic rates of change. Of chlamydia, there were 1.5 million NEW cases last year. Of those, the 20-24 year old age group accounted for 39% of all new cases. That means 585,000 young adults acquired the clamp in one year. There are about 20 million people in this age group, giving a ratio of 1:34 odds of acquiring the clamp in a random hookup. The more men in the pool of risk, the higher the odds of acquiring the STD. If I had a gun and player Russian roulette at those odds, I wouldn't pull the trigger.

Consent in group sex is not a usual consent and has complexities that go well beyond a reasonable person rule.

The second person up has the risk of 2 people for an STD, of which I doubt the second man bothered to ask the first man about his sexual history of STDs. Nor, did the 3rd man, or the 4th, etc. Because the woman acted as a reservoir of all previous activity, those men better hope the manufacturing process and the condoms held up for everybody and the failure rate was very low and the application was appropriately applied to the organ. Otherwise, all bets are off. Semen is not considered a sterile fluid for HIV and has been found to be an infectious fluid for transmission.

There is nothing normal about consent to multiple partners. And, lawyers who take a wait and see attitude and offering their opinions that consent is the issue are retarded mentally and probably should not be giving any advice on the issue whatsoever. And, the 20-24 year old group is the least competent to be giving advice on multiple partners as they are the ones getting each other sick with STDs at ever growing rates.

So, that really leaves it to old clinicians to dispense some tough love on the subject. Stop thinking this is normal. The woman could not have been well informed about the issues and she certainly had no opportunity to ascertain the level of health of every participant in a 40 to 50 minute window. Nor, was she trained in asking appropriate screening questions that may help prevent her potential acquisition of an STD and selecting a good actor in that morning.

Click to expand...

jovs said:

The difference here is that the women does not claim consent, if there was force used or school rules broken then those people should be punished accordingly, but no one should be accused of something and suffer the consequences without due process and the ability to defend oneself.

Click to expand...

Dean S said:

I arrested a Colonel attempting to rape a sergeant at the age of 26. I was a 1st Lieutenant. Character matters. And, too many on this board want to "wait and see" the outcome before making a judgement. If you see 10 men around a single woman, the chances are it is not consent. Who consents to a lineup of unfamiliar men, of whom you do not know if they would stop if told, or if they are free of disease, or if they would practice a choke hold while in the act. A reasonable woman does not act irrationally and "consent" to these types of unknowns. STDs are acquired in most cases at this age group.

I have written about the arrest I made months before this incident came to light. What amazes me the most is the rather cavalier attitude toward potential guilt. What people are writing here is a testament toward their real attitudes of laisse faire that the world will sort itself out at some point in the future with an investigation, so do nothing. Make no opinions of the event during the event or afterward. Well, afterward is too late. Memory fades, evidence degrades, witnesses come and go and time acts corrosively on any chance of success in court if there was a crime. The time to have been a man was at the apartment when all it took was one person to declare the party to be over and to put himself in harms way.

It isn't a one in a million odd of somebody acting correctly here. When I arrested my Colonel, there first was another witness who came to me to assist him in ending the assault. To me, that person acted heroically. I was the second party on the scene. But, the groundwork of defending another soldier was laid on the initial report.

The language and attitudes of the members of this board and the members of the bar have been nothing short of disgraceful. And, I would add, that few members of this board have displayed any type of good character in what has been shared.

Here is how the culture of casual sex with this generation is fairing - chlamydia rose 6% per year, gonorrhea is up 13% per year, syphilis is up 19%. These are entering epidemic rates of change. Of chlamydia, there were 1.5 million NEW cases last year. Of those, the 20-24 year old age group accounted for 39% of all new cases. That means 585,000 young adults acquired the clamp in one year. There are about 20 million people in this age group, giving a ratio of 1:34 odds of acquiring the clamp in a random hookup. The more men in the pool of risk, the higher the odds of acquiring the STD. If I had a gun and player Russian roulette at those odds, I wouldn't pull the trigger.

Consent in group sex is not a usual consent and has complexities that go well beyond a reasonable person rule.

The second person up has the risk of 2 people for an STD, of which I doubt the second man bothered to ask the first man about his sexual history of STDs. Nor, did the 3rd man, or the 4th, etc. Because the woman acted as a reservoir of all previous activity, those men better hope the manufacturing process and the condoms held up for everybody and the failure rate was very low and the application was appropriately applied to the organ. Otherwise, all bets are off. Semen is not considered a sterile fluid for HIV and has been found to be an infectious fluid for transmission.

There is nothing normal about consent to multiple partners. And, lawyers who take a wait and see attitude and offering their opinions that consent is the issue are retarded mentally and probably should not be giving any advice on the issue whatsoever. And, the 20-24 year old group is the least competent to be giving advice on multiple partners as they are the ones getting each other sick with STDs at ever growing rates.

So, that really leaves it to old clinicians to dispense some tough love on the subject. Stop thinking this is normal. The woman could not have been well informed about the issues and she certainly had no opportunity to ascertain the level of health of every participant in a 40 to 50 minute window. Nor, was she trained in asking appropriate screening questions that may help prevent her potential acquisition of an STD and selecting a good actor in that morning.

Click to expand...

Pompous Elitist said:

I'm actually glad we have nuts like Upnorth and Dean and the like posting here to illustrate just how mentally screwed up the human race is. I see it every day and it is often difficult to explain to people that don't deal with a wide swath of the general public on a daily basis. Up is down, left is right, obliteration of civil rights = "due process" (it's a process dontcha' know?! It's a process!). Yes, asking for a fair hearing and legal process and protections (for all individuals) with purpose to determine if a crime occurred certainly sounds like 1932 Germany.

Click to expand...

Some Day...Maybe said:

Ya, that's what it was Spoofy, GROUP sex between consenting ADULTS. A GROUP of 4-7 guys with some spectators and A girl. Is that the way you have your group sex?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

UpnorthGo4 said:

Far too many posters in GopherHole have refused to consider <b>evidence </b>that the alleged victim withdrew her consent after first two players through the door.

Click to expand...

UpnorthGo4 said:

If the middle ground really wanted the facts to play out (consent?) and wait for due process to be determined fairly then they would allow the U to proceed with their Student Code of Conduct disciplinary process without pre-judging it as thet have been doing since last Friday.

Click to expand...

jovs said:

I remember being at a few parties long long ago when I was this age, a girl and a guy would disappear into a room, maybe a half hour later the guy would come out and another guy would go in, maybe 3 or 4 total guys. At the end of the night the girl would quietly head out to her car and head home for the night.

Good Catholic guys and girl. I can guarantee you it was consensual, is it something I would have participated in, no, would I have watched, no (I'm sure the participants would not have allowed that), normal, probably not, but who cares, as long as it is consensual and people don't get hurt why is that important. It is really weird that you want instill your idea of normality on others, if they don't conform to your beliefs then they are bad people.

The difference here is that the women does not claim consent, if there was force used or school rules broken then those people should be punished accordingly, but no one should be accused of something and suffer the consequences without due process and the ability to defend oneself.

Click to expand...

UpnorthGo4 said:

Right wingers love to complain about the use of the race card except wheb they use it themselves.

Click to expand...

UpnorthGo4 said:

If you are viewing this differently than a case of the U enforcing their Student Code of Conduct you are already biased in favor of the players. Food for thought.

Click to expand...

Face The Facts said:

Some of the people on here are idiots.

"Well, what if the train of people was consensual".

For the dare i say "average" person with a conscience, walking into a room with a woman wrapped in only a blanket whom you don't know her last name or age is not "normal" and you would expect that having sex with her at that point might be "unusual" and that if other people are watching you might consider that the girl might be in a situation she is no longer asking for.

A "gentleman", rather than just line up to have sex, a "gentleman", who understood the code of conduct, a "gentleman" who maybe lived in the real world and valued the health of others around them, a "gentleman" with maybe a conscience, would instead stop, maybe talk with the girl for a minute or two and realize that she's had enough and help her get out of the situation.

There were no gentleman around her. This is evident.


The behavior again is sickening, and the defense of it is to this point beyond amusing because defending this as consensual is so off the charts ignorant, I can not help but laugh believe that those who are posting such crap are only doing so to get a rise out of those who can think straight.


Oh, and by the way. Claeys should be fired.
NO coach should be running a University program where this can be considered as "normal" behavior.
If this is the culture that exists, it's sickening.

It's indefensible.

Click to expand...

ethomasp31 said:

I agree totally. How could you have read the report, and then think that the group sex is what is bothering people? Seriously?!?! Are people that obtuse? As a teacher and coach it makes me sick that we have taught these young men so little about respect and integrity. Part of being a man is understanding how to treat a women with respect and dignity. These guys failed to meet that code.

Click to expand...

MennoSota said:

Fine, they don't meet your code. I assume neither does the woman who had 6 shots of vodka and invited multi-partners to have sex with her before she allegedly said "no more."
Neither does the thousands of sexual encounters by students at the U...or student/faculty at the U. If there is going to be enforcement, fine. Enforce the code on all persons, equally, and continue to bring the suspensions and expulsions before due process can take place. Expell every student who breaks a code and invite them in later to appeal their case, after the punishment has been given. That is equal and fair treatment.
However, there are 10 black men being removed with no due process until after the judgment has come down.
This is an unfair system of judgment and it deserves to be reviewed and reformed to give every student a means of due process...before judgment is enforced. The U has this system set up @$$ backward.

Click to expand...

Dean S said:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg96035/pdf/CHRG-114hhrg96035.pdf

Click to expand...