Where are the lawsuits?

Donate To GopherHole

dpodoll68 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Over what incident was the cause of Kaler being interviewed...or was that interview done in some sort of Twilight Zone vacuum?He's also said it in several newspaper interviews. Said that given the current situation, the U, despite the additional efforts focused on athletes, clearly needs to do a better job of educating on sexual assault because what's being done is not effective.
 

dpodoll68 said:
I've watched the interview several times, and he never says "victim". He says "victims" twice, and is speaking in generalities, as in, the players are standing up for victims of sexual assault by choosing to end the boycott. He doesn't reference the woman, directly or otherwise, and doesn't call her a victim, directly or implicitly.
Click to expand...

That was my take as well. Whether that has any legal consequences given the situation, I have no idea.
 

zman said:
That was my take as well. Whether that has any legal consequences given the situation, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Absolutely something he would not want to be deposed about, which any good attorney would make a point of focusing in on almost immediately.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Over what incident was the cause of Kaler being interviewed...or was that interview done in some sort of Twilight Zone vacuum?He's also said it in several newspaper interviews. Said that given the current situation, the U, despite the additional efforts focused on athletes, clearly needs to do a better job of educating on sexual assault because what's being done is not effective.
Click to expand...

He said that the boycott created the perception that the players don't care about sexual assault victims, and that by ending the boycott, they showed that isn't the case. Look, I get that hating Kaler's guts is the in thing now, but you guys are reading into things and constructing factors that aren't there.
 


dpodoll68 said:
He said that the boycott created the perception that the players don't care about sexual assault victims, and that by ending the boycott, they showed that isn't the case. Look, I get that hating Kaler's guts is the in thing now, but you guys are reading into things and constructing factors that aren't there.
Click to expand...

So he made the comment but doesn't consider her a victim? If so, why the comment?
 


Kaler has implicitly said the players of assault or har ass,eat, and the accuser is a victims. For the most recent example he recently said it was clear the player's training on sexual assault had failed.

If as a parent your child's teacher states her efforts at discipline had failed regarding an incident do you ask the teacher to clarify this involves your child or is it manifestly obvious what and who are being discussed?
 

dpodoll68 said:
I literally just said why.
Click to expand...

The players were boycotting because of this situation with this alleged victim.

Kaler said "that is what this is about, supporting victims of sexual assault". The only thing that "this" could be a reference to is the suspensions/boycott/etc.
 



dpodoll68 said:
I literally just said why.
Click to expand...

That's my point. If he didn't think she was a victim, there wasn't a sexual assault.

So what's the issue that needs addressing? The perception of the public that the team does not support sexual assault victims? Is that the issue?

He went on at length in the latest PioPress article about how the athletes get additional training but clearly the training is not working. Why would he think that if he didn't consider her a victim and there was no sexual assault?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
It's also incredibly unlikely that the players leaked the report. It was a report that made them look worse. It was the school or the girl.
Click to expand...

10 guys pissed off with friends and roommates but "incredibly unlikely?" You're all about legalities and then you go making assertions without any legal proof. You don't know, I don't know, and willing to bet nobody else on GH knows for certain.
 

Mulligan said:
10 guys pissed off with friends and roommates but "incredibly unlikely?" You're all about legalities and then you go making assertions without any legal proof. You don't know, I don't know, and willing to bet nobody else on GH knows for certain.
Click to expand...

Huh? I'm all about legalities?

We are guessing who leaked the report, there isn't much a legal discussion to be had with this. We are all throwing out hunches.

Nope, I don't know. I'd guess, logically, that it was the girl or the school. Why would the guys leak a report to the media that makes them look awful? They already had the police report in the public domain. What possible benefit to the players would it have been to leak a report written by a group they think is biased against them? I am just talking logically. I know I probably lost you there.

Like, do you think a lot of Democrats are going to leak investigations coming from Brietbart?

Another point, since the phrase "incredibly unlikely" pissed you off so much, that's not really an assertion. I am admitting that I don't know. I just am saying that anyone with a fully functioning brain would be super surprised if the players leaked the report.
 

So Kaler can be hated for many reasons. one i like to hate him for is the Teague experiment.

but as for lawsuits (AND I AM NOT A LAWYER) nor do i really think i know everything that is going on but

for any of the players to be found innocent would immediately open the U up for slander or defamation of character or at least something like this. So Putting their names out and labeling them as they did will have consequences.

my guess is there wont be many of the ten not guilty for this reason. and when i say guilty i mean by University levels not the Law. Then a legal issue will be harder to prove wrongful dismissal as the University has more room for their decision.
 



Bob_Loblaw said:
That is never what anyone means when they say "cleared" in a legal sense.

Courts never prove innocence.

You could argue that they were not "cleared" because they didn't go to trial and were never found "not guilty". Right now, they could still be charged and convicted (jeopardy has not been attached).

However, your definition of "cleared" of a crime is literally NEVER used.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I mean when I say cleared.

An example of cleared as the OP meant it,

Person A is accused of a crime that happened on January 1, 2017. It is learned that person A could not have committed the crime because he was incarcerated at Stillwater state prison on January 1st. The DA indicates that person A has be cleared of any wrongdoing in the matter.

Allow me to pose a question, if they were cleared in the matter, why did the county attorney announce that they would be reviewing the EOAA report? Were they cleared twice? How many times does a person need to be cleared before they are cleared?
 

U2Gopher said:
In addition to the lawsuits, I'd like to know when Kaler is getting fired. So many on here think there is no way he survives this. When does it happen???


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

Technically he won't be fired. His contract will not be renewed in May.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom