Rumors tonight of Lynch no longer on Gopher team...

As for my semi drunk thing people didn't get, if this is second case where the support the victim crowd thinks that the punishments weren't handed out correctly, shouldn't their anger be directed at forcing the administration out? I'm not a fan of Kaler or Coyle for how they punished the football players despite it seeking like there was zero truth from cheerleaders story to punish the players, then maybe there's common ground in wanting them to fire them. Don't give a **** who the Abby chick is unless she's one pressing charges against Reggie. Anyone who wants to see the guy suspended can make up whatever they want with anonymous sources, no reason she has credibility
 

And off this quote

The University's published standard for inappropriate sexual conduct is stricter than the criminal standard - a student must be able to show that his/her partner gave positive consent to any relations that happened, not simply that "nobody said no." The University is entitled to have stricter standards than criminal courts as long as punishment does not impact the legal rights of the student involved.

That seems fully backwards that the accused has to prove positive consent. It should be on the accuser to prove negative consent since they're the ones accusing of a crime, not the accused to have to defend on that, which good luck proving positive consent if the chick says there wasn't any and you don't have a source within the bedroom. No reason for dude to have to defend himself until chick has legitimate physical evidence or first hand witness proof against him
 

And off this quote

The University's published standard for inappropriate sexual conduct is stricter than the criminal standard - a student must be able to show that his/her partner gave positive consent to any relations that happened, not simply that "nobody said no." The University is entitled to have stricter standards than criminal courts as long as punishment does not impact the legal rights of the student involved.

That seems fully backwards that the accused has to prove positive consent. It should be on the accuser to prove negative consent since they're the ones accusing of a crime, not the accused to have to defend on that, which good luck proving positive consent if the chick says there wasn't any and you don't have a source within the bedroom. No reason for dude to have to defend himself until chick has legitimate physical evidence or first hand witness proof against him
Would you consider texts, pictures and witnesses as indications and or proof. I want Reggie to be treated fairly. Unfortunately he has likely played his last game. Only player om the team for months with a curfew everyday. This is now a cluster on so many levels. There are multiple victims. The women if it is true, Reggie if it is not, the team and University either way.
 

And off this quote

The University's published standard for inappropriate sexual conduct is stricter than the criminal standard - a student must be able to show that his/her partner gave positive consent to any relations that happened, not simply that "nobody said no." The University is entitled to have stricter standards than criminal courts as long as punishment does not impact the legal rights of the student involved.

That seems fully backwards that the accused has to prove positive consent. It should be on the accuser to prove negative consent since they're the ones accusing of a crime, not the accused to have to defend on that, which good luck proving positive consent if the chick says there wasn't any and you don't have a source within the bedroom. No reason for dude to have to defend himself until chick has legitimate physical evidence or first hand witness proof against him

So far, the U has followed their established process, which appears fair, so I'm not trying to blame anyone other than perpetrator.

I think it's fair to question whether positive or negative consent is the proper standard. There are plenty of consensual acts that take place without positive consent, so I agree it could seem unreasonable at times. However, there are times, for whatever reason, that individuals are unable or unwilling to say no, but do not want the act to take place.

In other words, you can't win with either definition. I'd say to be safe, people should condition themselves to obtain some type of positive consent. It does seem to be the definition we are moving towards, anyhow.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 

I'm just speechless at this point. It's a miracle anyone continues to support this school after all the times fans have been kicked in the gut.
 


I just finished a conversation with Abby H.

I'm thinking her point is that Lynch should have been suspended when accusation #2 was filed in October, even though there was a finding of no responsibility for the other accusation.
 

Sorry if this has already been covered, but is there any word on how the Pioneer Press got a hold of the findings of the investigation?

It seems that since it's confidential, the only people who should have access to it are the accuser, the accused (Lynch), and university employees who were involved in the process of compiling it.

If Lynch leaked it out to the press, I'd assume that would be against university rules as he'd be providing confidential information about his accuser. I doubt this is the case though as we probably would have heard if it was him considering he's a public figure and it changes the story.

If Lynch's accuser leaked it, I'd also assume that's against university rules as she'd be providing confidential information about Lynch. Which, if it turns out that Lynch did what he is accused of, is nowhere near as bad as what Lynch did, but would still be worthy of investigation and punishment. I also don't think this is likely because she went through the formal process rather than just going public about it earlier.


If a university employee leaked it, they should be fired. If a university employee associated with the EOAA leaked it, the entire EOAA should be investigated.

With the football incident there were so many people involved but here, it seems that it has to be one of these three possibilities, all of which are bad and the person responsible deserves punishment. With two high profile incidents like this about a year apart where the report was leaked to the press within a day, why isn't the university investigating who is leaking confidential information? Given the situation and the repeated nature, the most logical explanation seems to be that someone other than the accusers is responsible, which is very concerning considering the process is amended by individuals leaking information.

The accuser is not even a student at the U, so they can't exactly punish her for leaking it. It also begs the question of how this policy is applied. Scott Korzo has been making this point on Twitter. That if the point of the policy is to protect students and she is not a student, why should this apply. It should have been handled by the police.
 

I just finished a conversation with Abby H.

I'm thinking her point is that Lynch should have been suspended when accusation #2 was filed in October, even though there was a finding of no responsibility for the other accusation.

So basically under her wishes, even though he was cleared, he was never really innocent? Kinda defeats the purpose of actual investigations if the court of public opinion is all that matters
 

I'm just speechless at this point. It's a miracle anyone continues to support this school after all the times fans have been kicked in the gut.

It’s just not fun anymore. Even though 90% of these kids are great student athletes, the poor performance on the field/court and constant scandals suck all enjoyment out of following these teams for me.

I’ll be glued to the tv on Saturday watching the game, I just honestly don’t know why anymore.
 



So basically under her wishes, even though he was cleared, he was never really innocent? Kinda defeats the purpose of actual investigations if the court of public opinion is all that matters

This way of thinking is actually extremely troubling. So in essence, any simple sexual assault accusation - even if proven to be NOT sexual assault after investigation - should be used as an indicator of guilt in any future incidents? I'm pretty sure - and for damn good reason - there is great justification why the world - outside of social media - DOES NOT operate this way. Christ
 

The accuser is not even a student at the U, so they can't exactly punish her for leaking it. It also begs the question of how this policy is applied. Scott Korzo has been making this point on Twitter. That if the point of the policy is to protect students and she is not a student, why should this apply. It should have been handled by the police.
I believe the U Code of Conduct applies to students and staff regardless of who the victim is. When they punished students for rioting, some of that took place off campus. Even if I'm wrong, if it took place on the U campus, it's certainly in their jurisdiction.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 

So basically under her wishes, even though he was cleared, he was never really innocent? Kinda defeats the purpose of actual investigations if the court of public opinion is all that matters
I don't think he was cleared. Even if he was, he shouldn't be. Lack of evidence doesn't prove something didn't happen.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 

I think her point is that if you have substantial smoke, it is incumbent on the U to take some type of action.

I agree with that in concept, but don't know how you define thresholds that warrant the university being more proactive.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 



I don't think he was cleared. Even if he was, he shouldn't be. Lack of evidence doesn't prove something didn't happen.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk

I think you're mistaken. From the Strib article: http://www.startribune.com/what-we-...-his-sexual-assault-investigations/468169263/

"In May 2016, a month later, he was arrested for an alleged sexual assault in a campus apartment. A 19-year-old woman claimed Lynch raped her that night and Lynch was jailed and released two days later. The Gophers suspended Lynch but reinstated him after the Hennepin County’s attorney’s office declined to press charges, citing insufficient evidence. The University’s Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA) office also investigated the woman’s claim and cleared Lynch. "

We all know by now that the EOAA doesn't hold back on tossing out punishments AND has a much lower burden of proof, so if the EOAA investigation "cleared" him, I take that to mean he was cleared.
 

Well, unless we have the report, which I don't think we do, I think it was sloppy wording from the writer. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen proceedings where someone is declared innocent.

That said, if it is accurate, touche.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 

Also, we would have to define cleared - does it mean proven innocent, or is it equivalent to not guilty (insufficient evidence to prove guilt.)

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 

Well, unless we have the report, which I don't think we do, I think it was sloppy wording from the writer. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen proceedings where someone is declared innocent.

That said, if it is accurate, touche.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk

Another article from today read that it was found that "Lynch had sufficient reason to believe the sex was consensual."
 

Also, we would have to define cleared - does it mean proven innocent, or is it equivalent to not guilty (insufficient evidence to prove guilt.)

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk

This is total BULLSH*T. So basically if you're ever unfortunate enough to have a sexual assault accusation tossed at you, there is no way to get out from under it?
 

So a black athlete is suspended on the word of another non-student despite any police report (much less any police investigation or any call to the police) for something that supposedly happened 18 months ago despite any evidence that it actually happened, if it happened at all and if whatever happened was actually illegal.

String him up.
 

This is total BULLSH*T. So basically if you're ever unfortunate enough to have a sexual assault accusation tossed at you, there is no way to get out from under it?

It appears that way.

Low bar to mess up someones life...

Like to hear how manyd students have had this happen to them at U.

Nothing about these situations should be sealed, you cannot go and accuse someone then send rhem before a secret court and punish them. It goes against everything this country wad founded on...
 

Another article from today read that it was found that "Lynch had sufficient reason to believe the sex was consensual."
Ah, I did see that too. Yeah, that articulates innocence.

I think that was a tough situation, because it seems she truly believes she was assaulted, but doesn't recall the entire encounter. I hope it's a rare scenario, but in a situation like that it is possible to give positive consent and have all the trauma associated with being a victim.

At what point is one too intoxicated to consent, and at what point ought someone be legally required to make that determination?

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 

Universities (e.g. EOAA) need to get out of the sexual assault investigation business.

Not saying Lynch has no culpability; sounds like potentially major issues with his treatment of women. However, I have problems with a university committee getting involved in such a serious matter (for both parties).
 

Ah, I did see that too. Yeah, that articulates innocence.

I think that was a tough situation, because it seems she truly believes she was assaulted, but doesn't recall the entire encounter. I hope it's a rare scenario, but in a situation like that it is possible to give positive consent and have all the trauma associated with being a victim.

At what point is one too intoxicated to consent, and at what point ought someone be legally required to make that determination?

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk

From what I can tell, university policy requires affirmative consent, which it defines as "freely and affirmatively communicated words or actions given by an informed individual that a sober reasonable person under the circumstances would believe communicate a willingness to participate in the sexual contact." Not very specific, especially when the "sober reasonable person" making that decision is in a job where they frequently see cases like this and are likely biased. To a student, the policy leaves a lot of grey area.

Minnesota state law says "A person who is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless as defined by this section cannot consent to a sexual act" and defines mentally incapacitated as ""Mentally incapacitated" means that a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person's agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact". That doesn't seem to be the case here, although the University can suspend him for lawful behavior that is against university rules.

Still, the law isn't very clear. Even if someone read the law, they likely wouldn't know where the line is, and I'm guessing most people just rely on common sense and haven't read the law.
 

It’s just not fun anymore. Even though 90% of these kids are great student athletes, the poor performance on the field/court and constant scandals suck all enjoyment out of following these teams for me.

I’ll be glued to the tv on Saturday watching the game, I just honestly don’t know why anymore.

My wife: "I turned on the TV and all they're talking about is the Gopher basketball player. I'm sick of it."
Me: "I know."
My wife: Why would any man go to that school anymore? It's one sex scandal followed by another."
Me: I know, right?

Gold Vision, I agree. I'm a grad school alum and have been a die hard Gopher fan for years, but I'm getting seriously tired of the constant scandals. My enjoyment of each season has been dwindling. I'm not sure why, but our culture here in MN and at the University seems to be a toxic mix for many young males. Is it a bad combination of undisciplined young men being exposed to culturally promiscuous young women and then amplified with a well-meaning but seriously flawed progressive agenda? I don't know the answer to that...but I definitely agree that the enjoyment is being sucked out of following these teams.
 

My wife: "I turned on the TV and all they're talking about is the Gopher basketball player. I'm sick of it."
Me: "I know."
My wife: Why would any man go to that school anymore? It's one sex scandal followed by another."
Me: I know, right?

Gold Vision, I agree. I'm a grad school alum and have been a die hard Gopher fan for years, but I'm getting seriously tired of the constant scandals. My enjoyment of each season has been dwindling. I'm not sure why, but our culture here in MN and at the University seems to be a toxic mix for many young males. Is it a bad combination of undisciplined young men being exposed to culturally promiscuous young women and then amplified with a well-meaning but seriously flawed progressive agenda? I don't know the answer to that...but I definitely agree that the enjoyment is being sucked out of following these teams.

I've got bad news for you and your wife. Sexual assault and misconduct isn't more likely to happen at the University of Minnesota.

I'm proud to have gone to a University that takes it seriously. I can name a former Wisconsin basketball star who wasn't punished for repeated sexual misconduct.
 

From what I can tell, university policy requires affirmative consent, which it defines as "freely and affirmatively communicated words or actions given by an informed individual thata sober reasonable person underthe circumstances would believe communicate a willingness to participate in the sexual contact." Not very specific, especially when the "sober reasonable person" making that decision is in a job where they frequently see cases like this and are likely biased. To a student, the policy leaves a lot of grey area.

Minnesota state law says "A person who is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless as defined by this section cannot consent to a sexual act" and defines mentally incapacitated as ""Mentally incapacitated" means that a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person's agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact". That doesn't seem to be the case here, although the University can suspend him for lawful behavior that is against university rules.

Still, the law isn't very clear. Even if someone read the law, they likely wouldn't know where the line is, and I'm guessing most people just rely on common sense and haven't read the law.

From what I can tell, university policy requires affirmative consent, which it defines as "freely and affirmatively communicated words or actions given by an informed individual thata sober reasonable person underthe circumstances would believe communicate a willingness to participate in the sexual contact." Not very specific, especially when the "sober reasonable person" making that decision is in a job where they frequently see cases like this and are likely biased. To a student, the policy leaves a lot of grey area.

Minnesota state law says "A person who is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless as defined by this section cannot consent to a sexual act" and defines mentally incapacitated as ""Mentally incapacitated" means that a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person's agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact". That doesn't seem to be the case here, although the University can suspend him for lawful behavior that is against university rules.

Still, the law isn't very clear. Even if someone read the law, they likely wouldn't know where the line is, and I'm guessing most people just rely on common sense and haven't read the law.

Thanks for pulling that together. It doesn't give great guidance, but at least provides the context under which the U acts, and criminal law acts.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 

I believe the U Code of Conduct applies to students and staff regardless of who the victim is. When they punished students for rioting, some of that took place off campus. Even if I'm wrong, if it took place on the U campus, it's certainly in their jurisdiction.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk

I understand the code of conduct applying off-campus. That's not the issue here. I guess the question is why this applies in this case. Can anyone who's not a student accuse someone who is a student of violating the honor code? And if so, to what end? How does getting someone banned from campus rectify the situation if the other party is not also a student?
 

I understand the code of conduct applying off-campus. That's not the issue here. I guess the question is why this applies in this case. Can anyone who's not a student accuse someone who is a student of violating the honor code? And if so, to what end? How does getting someone banned from campus rectify the situation if the other party is not also a student?

If I commit some type of theft or fraud, I would be fired by my company. It doesn't have to be against the company or it's employees to pose a risk to the organization. By keeping him off campus, it helps to protect the students and faculty who are on campus. Obviously the U can't control what is off of campus.

I don't think the alleging part has much bearing on the punishment.

What confuses me is how he can practice if he's banned from campus.

Sent from my 2PZC5 using Tapatalk
 

So a black athlete is suspended on the word of another non-student despite any police report (much less any police investigation or any call to the police) for something that supposedly happened 18 months ago despite any evidence that it actually happened, if it happened at all and if whatever happened was actually illegal.

String him up.

What if the accuser is also a person of color?

Also, in the current state of the world any man is a fool to even think the media will have any sort of sympathy when allegations such as these appear. It's like others stated about the press conference, it's like who can outdo the other with more outlandish claims in an effort to gain click bait. There is no real journalism there.

Regardless Reggie needs to go from the sounds of it.
 

Sounds like he walked the line between consent and assault during the first incident. He has to be a god damn idiot to not learn from that.

What's the line between consent and assault? Either you have consent or it is rape isn't it?
 




Top Bottom