Gophers star Reggie Lynch recommended for expulsion in third sexual assault allegatio

Suggestion from my wife . If Lynch is somehow found not guilty, then expell the female student/s that filed the false charges.. Perhaps could balance the scales of justice.

The first report wasn’t found false. The police didn’t have enough evidence to charge.

Reggie was cleared with the EOAA in the first report because it was found that he thought the event was consensual, while the woman did not.

It’s not like the woman was actively lying.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The first report wasn’t found false. The police didn’t have enough evidence to charge.

Reggie was cleared with the EOAA in the first report because it was found that he thought the event was consensual, while the woman did not.

It’s not like the woman was actively lying.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She was drunk, and later decided there was no way she would have had sex while drunk. Of course, she was intoxicated so...nobody has ever done something out of the ordinary while under the influence. Specious reasoning on her part and if the EOAA cleared him one must conclude there were texts or VMs or other evidence supporting consensual contact despite her claim. # equals.
 

I will take the judgement of the U's EOAA any day of the week over the average cop in every city in America. Why do I say this? Because I believe most people who serve on EOAA's in every college in America are inherently more trustworthy and have less of an agenda than cops. Oh, and by the way, my brother whom I love dearly is a cop. The criminal justice system in America is drenched in corruption. There is no denying it. Justice doesn't happen for large segments of society. If colleges and universities leave it up to local prosecutors and police departments to enforce law and order and keep students safe there is zero chance of it actually happening.


Why Police Lie Under Oath

THOUSANDS of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, “Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying.”

But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.

That may sound harsh, but numerous law enforcement officials have put the matter more bluntly. Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”

The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. “But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”

Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html

Wow, no agenda here.
 

Both the accuser and the accused are protected so we won’t know what the specific actions were that occurred unless the report is leaked like the football situation. That’s how it should be.

My guess is students aren’t typically expelled for unwanted ass grabbing.

Agree. What I saw in the policy was sexual assault definition unless I missed something else. I didn't see misconduct defined. I don't know any more than what is reported which could be entirely wrong too and maybe both are considered assault. Who knows. Seems like He said, she said without police involvement to me. I'll withhold judgment or expectations until all is settled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Both the accuser and the accused are protected so we won’t know what the specific actions were that occurred unless the report is leaked like the football situation. That’s how it should be.

My guess is students aren’t typically expelled for unwanted ass grabbing.

Lynch's attorney said in his press conference yesterday that one allegation is forced intercourse and the other is digital penetration.
 


bottom line - take college-age students + booze and you are going to have sexual behavior. some people may sober up the next day and regret what they did - assuming they remember it. some people may only have a fuzzy memory at best.

some people may genuinely believe there was consent, while the other person(s) involved believe there was no consent.

And - the key - unless the encounter was recorded in some fashion, there is no way to prove what happened. It's entirely possible that Lynch honestly believes he did nothing wrong, while the women believe they were taken advantage of and violated. So, how does any 3rd party decide after the fact what happened? it all comes down to this: who do you believe?

I think there is at least some evidence to suggest that the EOAA is more likely to believe the woman's account over the man's account. That certainly seemed to be the case in the football situation, which ended with several of the EOAA's recommendations being overturned.

But, given the fact that Lynch's reputation is now shot, I suspect that he is not going to be exonerated, unless some contemporary evidence turns up that clearly proves his version of events.
 







bottom line - take college-age students + booze and you are going to have sexual behavior. some people may sober up the next day and regret what they did - assuming they remember it. some people may only have a fuzzy memory at best.

some people may genuinely believe there was consent, while the other person(s) involved believe there was no consent.

And - the key - unless the encounter was recorded in some fashion, there is no way to prove what happened. It's entirely possible that Lynch honestly believes he did nothing wrong, while the women believe they were taken advantage of and violated. So, how does any 3rd party decide after the fact what happened? it all comes down to this: who do you believe?

I think there is at least some evidence to suggest that the EOAA is more likely to believe the woman's account over the man's account. That certainly seemed to be the case in the football situation, which ended with several of the EOAA's recommendations being overturned.

But, given the fact that Lynch's reputation is now shot, I suspect that he is not going to be exonerated, unless some contemporary evidence turns up that clearly proves his version of events.

Or maybe, in some cases, you believe both. Lynch may well have thought he was within bounds, while the young woman wakes up with remorse thinking he was not.

Two years after the fact Lynch is basically defenseless, just as his attorney said. And that's why this process is so dangerous. With a process like this one could ruin any public figure at any time, with or without cause.
 

Smart players + good culture can help you on and off the court. I fully support what coach Fleck is doing with the football program. Recruit wisely and make the off-field behavior expectations clear to kids coming in & you don't get bit by off court incidents that have NOTHING to do with basketball. You may also OVERachieve on the court like Wisconsin bball does every single year.

+1
You got that right. Don't care if he's innocent or not, why have we recruited players who put the program in that position to begin with?
 

I think there is at least some evidence to suggest that the EOAA is more likely to believe the woman's account over the man's account. That certainly seemed to be the case in the football situation, which ended with several of the EOAA's recommendations being overturned.

But, given the fact that Lynch's reputation is now shot, I suspect that he is not going to be exonerated, unless some contemporary evidence turns up that clearly proves his version of events.

From Pacega's Q&A, At Roughly the 31:00 Minute mark, a reporter ask if there was a police report in either case.

Pacega says there was and that it contradicts the statement she made to EOAA. Pacega says this is explicitly stated in the EOAA report, Even still, despite that admission, the EOAA explicitly states they are ignoring the contradiction and taking her word over his....

Not sure if this proves his version, but it certainly shows serious reason to doubt his culpability.
 



Or maybe, in some cases, you believe both. Lynch may well have thought he was within bounds, while the young woman wakes up with remorse thinking he was not.

Two years after the fact Lynch is basically defenseless, just as his attorney said. And that's why this process is so dangerous. With a process like this one could ruin any public figure at any time, with or without cause.

Good post.

I think we cannot ignore cognitive dissonance too. If those alleging Lynch believe the rumors, and believe their are more victims, they'll also believe they were victims if told (whether objectively true or not).

And lest we forget the same goes for Lynch. He could very well believe something for the same reasoning.
 






Top Bottom