ESPN: Arizona fires Rich Rodriguez amid sexual harassment allegation

I wasn't talking about the legitimacy or chance of success of a civil suit.

Guilty until proven innocent only has context in the eyes of the law.

Regular people are free to believe that someone is guilty, sans hard evidence, and they often do, and that has been true since forever.
 

If an employee at my company was accused of sexually harassing an employee and it was a credible complaint he would be let go. Think Garrison Keillor or others.
 

Guilty until proven innocent only has context in the eyes of the law.

Regular people are free to believe that someone is guilty, sans hard evidence, and they often do, and that has been true since forever.
I didn't say people weren't free to believe that.
 

Guilty until proven innocent only has context in the eyes of the law.

Regular people are free to believe that someone is guilty, sans hard evidence, and they often do, and that has been true since forever.
You remind me a lot of a banned poster named Cruze....
 

If an employee at my company was accused of sexually harassing an employee and it was a credible complaint he would be let go. Think Garrison Keillor or others.

I think a lot of people have jumped to conclusions of guilt before they had credible proof. They see a headline and assume guilt. I'm sure many of the people that get accused are guilty but it's important to keep in mind that there are many accused that are innocent.

It's also important to keep in mind that just because a company fires someone due to an accusation, that does not prove it's true. It just proves it was plausible enough for them to not want to take the chance of keeping that employee.
 


I think a lot of people have jumped to conclusions of guilt before they had credible proof. They see a headline and assume guilt. I'm sure many of the people that get accused are guilty but it's important to keep in mind that there are many accused that are innocent.

It's also important to keep in mind that just because a company fires someone due to an accusation, that does not prove it's true. It just proves it was plausible enough for them to not want to take the chance of keeping that employee.

Well said and I agree.
 

I think a lot of people have jumped to conclusions of guilt before they had credible proof. They see a headline and assume guilt. I'm sure many of the people that get accused are guilty but it's important to keep in mind that there are many accused that are innocent.

It's also important to keep in mind that just because a company fires someone due to an accusation, that does not prove it's true. It just proves it was plausible enough for them to not want to take the chance of keeping that employee.

Yep. It also seems that in this case, Arizona firing head football coach Rich Rodriguez, rather than in ASU firing Todd Graham, Coach Rodriguez had little to no support in Tucson.

Kind of a dictator with an explosive temper. A guy who tried to get the South Carolina job 2 years ago and refused to talk about it back in Tucson.

The allegations could be true or not. In this case doesn't many AZ fans may not care one way or another.

They just wanted him gone.
 


In civil suits, the bar is set significantly lower than beyond reasonable doubt. And this is a civil suit. All she and her litigation team need to do is convince a panel of folks who weren't clever enough to get out of jury duty that it is more likely than not that the allegations are true.

Blah Blah. Regardless of the burden necessary to 'prove' guilt, one is still innocent until proven guilty. That distinction is ignored by far too many and it is sad.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



If an employee at my company was accused of sexually harassing an employee and it was a credible complaint he would be let go. Think Garrison Keillor or others.

Having first hand knowledge regarding Keillor I would say that's a bad comparison. Franken? Lauer (probably too extreme). But agree with what your saying.
 

I didn't say people weren't free to believe that.

If true, then you wouldn't have said "the amount of people that in the last year that seem to believe in guilty until proven innocent is frightening."

Clearly, you think people should not believe that and that they are wrong to believe it.


I think a lot of people have jumped to conclusions of guilt before they had credible proof.

It's a natural conclusion to jump to, given the times we live in.


one is still innocent until proven guilty.

In the context of the law, yes.

You seem to want it to be that context everywhere, though. Not true
 

Gentleman, the sooner you realize we are now living in an age where these actions are enough to get pitchfork nation upset, the better off you'll be.

It's probably good advice to have a witness with you at all times with someone of the opposite sex unless it's your wife. Then 24/7 surveillance cameras should be adequate.

Of course, if you're some poor folk with nothing to lose, people probably couldn't care less about what you do. If you have anything to lose however, you could be a target of pitchfork nation for something you did at a college party one night.
 

Gentleman, the sooner you realize we are now living in an age where these actions are enough to get pitchfork nation upset, the better off you'll be.

It's probably good advice to have a witness with you at all times with someone of the opposite sex unless it's your wife. Then 24/7 surveillance cameras should be adequate.

Of course, if you're some poor folk with nothing to lose, people probably couldn't care less about what you do. If you have anything to lose however, you could be a target of pitchfork nation for something you did at a college party one night.

This is particularly rich coming from someone who brings up the "scandal" as much as you do.
 



Enough from the wannabe lawyers.

1. At the beginning of a civil court case, the defendant will be at a slight advantage. That’s because legally they don’t have to say or do anything. The defendant has nothing to prove. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit, so the burden is on the plaintiff to prove their case. The defendant participates by countering the evidence the plaintiff offers and possibly by presenting some of their own. Basically, it's not the same as a presumption of innocence, but the burden is still on the plaintiff to prove that they were harmed in some way. So, in some ways the defendant does have somewhat of a presumption of innocence -- if both parties walk into court and say absolutely nothing the case is getting dismissed which basically means the defendant wins.

2. Most civil trials are decided by a judge not a jury. Because juries get too wrapped up in the emotions while judges are better at applying the law. So, no, it most likely would not end up in the hands of someone who wasn't "clever enough" to get out of jury duty.

3. I think the point most people are trying to make, and that some who aren't seeing the big picture are missing is this (and it happens often in high profile civil trials) -- one party puts out a bunch of salacious details for which they may or may not have proof and people who read about it in newspapers get wrapped up in those details and form a strong opinion about the case. Meanwhile, the other party doesn't bother trying the case in the media, because they know that A) there is no point because the other side's story is already ingrained in some people's minds, and B) they only need to convince the judge (because it's likely not going in front of a jury) who will understand how to consider facts and relevant evidence vs headline-worthy details for which there is zero proof.

4. The law firm hired by the U of A to investigate these sexual harassment claims came up with nothing. To the people who think this doesn't matter, let me point this out to you -- they really WANTED to find something. The athletic department could have saved $6M if they did. This wasn't a sham investigation just so they could say they looked into it and found nothing so they could keep their coach. No, they wanted to fire him already and would have LOVED to do it with cause. And if you've read the notice of claim (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4343302/Notice-of-Claim-vs-Rich-Rodriguez.pdf) you would know that many of the things claimed in it could easily be proven up to a level sufficient to fire someone with cause. Cell phone records and corroboration by witnesses would have been enough to fire Rich Rod with cause, yet this law firm apparently couldn't that even though the university really wanted them to.

5. ANYTIME someone stops cooperating with a non-criminal investigation and then files a civil suit demanding a great deal of money you should be very suspicious of them. I'm not saying this means the woman is lying, I am just saying that is an absolute classic move of someone who plans to file a big lawsuit and then settle it for a decent chunk of money.

6. Seriously, read the notice of claim. Parts of it are hard not to laugh at.

"Melissa’s prior marriage ended over ten years ago; she was both cheated upon and physically abused.

Understandably, this left her with trust issues that kept her from getting close to anyone until she met Jason. But shortly after the two were married, Rodriguez began to drive a wedge between them using his position of ultimate authority to make Melissa his servant. Melissa’s trust issues from her prior marriage resurfaced and she tried to weather the storm by putting up a wall to protect herself. But the same wall kept Jason away, at least temporarily. Time will tell if a fresh start for both of them can heal the damage that has been done.

Jason, a former Marine and DEA agent, feels emasculated by what Rodriguez has done to his wife. For as long as he can remember, Jason has seen himself as a protector of the innocent and helpless who was always willing to put himself in harm’s way to save those who couldn’t save themselves. He didn’t realize that Melissa needed saving, until it was too late. When he sees what has happened to Melissa, he sees it as his own failure to be a man. Rodriguez has taken this away from Jason, perhaps forever."


That is from an actual legal document filed with the state of Arizona, but I swear I've read something very similar on the back of one of those romance novels near the checkout line at the grocery store.
 

If true, then you wouldn't have said "the amount of people that in the last year that seem to believe in guilty until proven innocent is frightening."

Clearly, you think people should not believe that and that they are wrong to believe it.

People can think what they want. It can still frighten me that they think that way. Stop telling people what they are thinking.
 

2. Most civil trials are decided by a judge not a jury.

Even if this is technically correct, plaintiffs in civil trials have the constitutionally protected right to request a trial by jury.


People can think what they want. It can still frighten me that they think that way.

Why would it frighten you?? All kinds of people think all kinds of crazy things, every day. Far more concerning that believing a likely guilty person is guilty, without hard evidence that can almost never exist.
 

Even if this is technically correct, plaintiffs in civil trials have the constitutionally protected right to request a trial by jury.

Only in federal court. This was filed in state court. And even if a jury trial is requested it doesn't mean one will be granted -- the other party and the judge get a say as well.
 

My wife (a ferocious - and genuine- feminist and a match for any man) has almost total disdain for these emotionally fragile women; in this case and many of the instances in the news. Nobody chained her to the desk AFAIK.

The excerpt from the complaint is pitiful.

Melissa’s prior marriage ended over ten years ago; she was both cheated upon and physically abused.

Understandably, this left her with trust issues that kept her from getting close to anyone until she met Jason. But shortly after the two were married, Rodriguez began to drive a wedge between them using his position of ultimate authority to make Melissa his servant. Melissa’s trust issues from her prior marriage resurfaced and she tried to weather the storm by putting up a wall to protect herself. But the same wall kept Jason away, at least temporarily. Time will tell if a fresh start for both of them can heal the damage that has been done.

Jason, a former Marine and DEA agent, feels emasculated by what Rodriguez has done to his wife. For as long as he can remember, Jason has seen himself as a protector of the innocent and helpless who was always willing to put himself in harm’s way to save those who couldn’t save themselves. He didn’t realize that Melissa needed saving, until it was too late. When he sees what has happened to Melissa, he sees it as his own failure to be a man. Rodriguez has taken this away from Jason, perhaps forever."
 




Top Bottom