Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 251
  1. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoofin View Post
    I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Guilt was not proven.
    Guilt was proven. They were found guilty of breaking the student code of conduct, and sentenced to expulsion.

    You either lack the brain power to grasp this, because you’re a simpleton who thinks that the much higher criminal burden of proof should supersede the U’s process.

    Or you’re a pudding brain ass___e who wants to make it so that frat boys can get away with raping drunk girls and the school can’t expel them unless charged with a crime.

    Either way, an awful look and you should be ashamed.


  2. #197

    Default

    Remember when G4L said when a poster resorts to calling you stupid it means they lost the argument. See post 196 where he calls someone stupid and lost the argument.
    Who hates iowa?

  3. #198

    Default

    The simpletons meet Thursdayís at Sallyís, 6pm. It makes sense to meet on Campus as a large percentage of us seem to be on GH and therefore Gopher fans.

    Not sure where the pudding brain ass___es meet, but it will be great to meet some new folks.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Broken now/Fixed in 2019/Comin' in 2020
    #RTB #ELITE #FAMILY #HYPRR #Culture #PayCut #Year0 #How #Happiness/Joy

  4. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gophers_4life View Post
    Or youíre a pudding brain ass___e who wants to make it so that frat boys can get away with raping drunk girls and the school canít expel them unless charged with a crime.
    I have actually asked people to take it easy on you as I figure you have enough challenges in life, but you continue to make that difficult.

    You do understand the bolded part above is a criminal accusation, correct?

    You do realize it is that exact criminal accusation that Dean and I were debating, right?

    You do understand the difference between that accusation and the code of conduct that the EOAA concluded the players violated, right?

    If this simpleton can understand that then you certainly can too.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Broken now/Fixed in 2019/Comin' in 2020
    #RTB #ELITE #FAMILY #HYPRR #Culture #PayCut #Year0 #How #Happiness/Joy

  5. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dean S View Post
    A failure to do proper police procedure over decades on rape cases is evident from the rape test kits not processed. It is also evident in the fact that few BATs were performed on the accused and the accusers. I can go on and on about procedure, but I have a few questions for you.

    1. Do you think women who drink heavily are appropriate sex pickup partners?

    2. Do you think drinking is an excuse for consent?

    3. Do you fully understand the cues women give for consent? And, what makes you an expert in this field?

    4. Have you participated in many social events where booze was a big part of the events?

    5. How many times in your life do you think you were led on by a drunk woman and were lied to when she refused your advances?

    Be careful what you answer because it can identify you as a serial rapist. I'll leave that up to you. But, your posts suggest that you have been involved in situations where alcohol and sex were involved. You defend the indefensible way too easily. Statistically, many men have been mistaken about what women want when they are drunk because of mistaken beliefs around alcohol and sex. And, I have no doubt that you fall or fell into that category and continue to defend those same stereotypes, all I have to do is read your junk on GH.

    In fact, most LAWYERS continue to hold those same mistaken beliefs on alcohol and women's sexual desire for sex and the cues they will send or not.

    I find it ironic what people think of as evidence because of mistaken stereotypes and their own history with booze and sex.
    Lol! Nerd alert!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bottlebass View Post
    Remember when G4L said when a poster resorts to calling you stupid it means they lost the argument.
    Didn’t call him stupid, but not surprised you didn’t understand that.
    Last edited by Gophers_4life; 05-18-2019 at 07:47 AM.

  7. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoofin View Post
    You do understand the difference between that accusation and the code of conduct that the EOAA concluded the players violated, right?
    Yet you want to make it so that a lack of criminal charges means the school can’t expel. That’s the entire kit and caboodle of this situation and discussion.

    So one way or another, you’re not being honest and/or are arguing in bad faith.

  8. #203
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Windom, MN
    Posts
    7,358

    Default

    While trying to stay out of the pi**ing match -

    Dean - with all due respect, from your posts, it appears you are proceeding from the assumption that the accuser is telling the truth.

    she may be - but, there is at least a possibility that she may not be telling the truth. She would not be the first woman who got involved in a situation, had second thoughts, and changed her story to make herself look like a victim - not like a willing participant.

    Again, I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.

    I am not saying the players are blameless. Even if they are all telling the truth, they made some questionable decisions. But I am not going to brand them as rapists without proof. And the authorities could not find enough proof to take the case to trial.

    this whole case is one big gray area. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe about it. That does not make your opinion a fact, or the truth.

    in the end, unless the players or the accuser change their stories, we will probably never know what happened with any degree of certainty.

  9. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by short ornery norwegian View Post
    While trying to stay out of the pi**ing match -

    Dean - with all due respect, from your posts, it appears you are proceeding from the assumption that the accuser is telling the truth.

    she may be - but, there is at least a possibility that she may not be telling the truth. She would not be the first woman who got involved in a situation, had second thoughts, and changed her story to make herself look like a victim - not like a willing participant.

    Again, I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.

    I am not saying the players are blameless. Even if they are all telling the truth, they made some questionable decisions. But I am not going to brand them as rapists without proof. And the authorities could not find enough proof to take the case to trial.

    this whole case is one big gray area. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe about it. That does not make your opinion a fact, or the truth.

    in the end, unless the players or the accuser change their stories, we will probably never know what happened with any degree of certainty.
    Just about everything in your post is wrong. A lot is known about what happened.

    1. Players were expelled from the U for sexual assault largely based on evidence provided by other players who were in the apartment that night. The first two or three players who had sex with the accuser were not charged with sexual assault because the girl was deemed to have consented to it. Information provided by other players persuaded the U that the girl never consented to sex or withdrew her consent for the players who were expelled.

    2. Players were suspended for sexual harassment largely based on admissions by those players or by evidence provided by other players who were eye witnesses. Among the actions that were deemed by the U to be sexual harassment were entering the bedroom to watch the sexual activity without the consent of the girl, and taking video of the sexual activity without her consent.

    3. Players were suspended for lying to EOAA investigators largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who were eye witnesses or had reliable information about what the suspended players did that night.

    4. Players were suspended for obstructing the EOAA investigation largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who had reliable information about what the suspended players did during the course of the investigation.
    Last edited by Cruze; 05-18-2019 at 10:33 PM.

  10. #205

    Default Accused ex-Gophers do documentary on the alleged gang rape, get ripped for smirking

    Quote Originally Posted by Cruze View Post
    Just about everything in your post is wrong. A lot is known about what happened.

    1. Players were expelled from the U for sexual assault largely based on evidence provided by other players who were in the apartment that night. The first two or three players who had sex with the accuser were not charged with sexual assault because the girl was deemed to have consented to it. Information provided by other players persuaded the U that the girl never consented to sex or withdrew her consent for the players who were expelled.

    2. Players were suspended for sexual harassment largely based on admissions by those players or by evidence provided by other players who were eye witnesses. Among the actions that were deemed by the U to be sexual harassment were entering the bedroom to watch the sexual activity without the consent of the girl, and taking video of the sexual activity without her consent.

    3. Players were suspended for lying to EOAA investigators largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who were eye witnesses or had reliable information about what the suspended players did that night.

    4. Players were suspended for obstructing the EOAA investigation largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who had reliable information about what the suspended players did during the course of the investigation.
    Actually Cruze, much of your post is wrong.

    First, you have neglected to mention the EOAA is a sham. The process it follows is being exposed and sued across the Country because it is a sham. They conduct what is essentially a criminal investigation without proper training on how to do it and in many cases outside the lines of what we as Americanís accept as fair - because they can and it supports their agenda. It is the very definition of a good idea gone terribly bad.

    Next, you have based all your reasoning on the EOAA report. It too is a sham. You have neglected that many of the things in that report have been disputed and accept them as fact. You have neglected to mention that the students were denied being allowed to have others (lawyers, parents, etc.) in these interviews, that these interviews were never recorded, and some of the most critical evidence the EOAA said was told to them - the players have denied saying. Additionally, the report itself in areas flat out says the EOAA is making assumptions on some things based on the fact they found the accuser more credible. Yeah, that seems like a good approach.

    Also, your first point is false. These other players were charged by the EOAA. See point one. It was the review boards that started unraveling much of this sham and removing charges from many players.

    In the end, you are in the same boat as SON (and all of us) of not knowing exactly what happened. The difference is SON (and many of us) acknowledge that and choose not to participate in a lynch mob. By using the EOAA (sham) report as your guide, all you have done is assume the accuser is telling the truth and the players have lied.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Spoofin; 05-19-2019 at 07:06 AM.
    Broken now/Fixed in 2019/Comin' in 2020
    #RTB #ELITE #FAMILY #HYPRR #Culture #PayCut #Year0 #How #Happiness/Joy

  11. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoofin View Post
    Actually Cruze, much of your post is wrong.

    First, you have neglected to mention the EOAA is a sham. The process it follows is being exposed and sued across the Country because it is a sham. They conduct what is essentially a criminal investigation without proper training on how to do it and in many cases outside the lines of what we as American’s accept as fair - because they can and it supports their agenda. It is the very definition of a good idea gone terribly bad.

    Next, you have based all your reasoning on the EOAA report. It too is a sham. You have neglected that many of the things in that report have been disputed and accept them as fact. You have neglected to mention that the students were denied being allowed to have others (lawyers, parents, etc.) in these interviews, that these interviews were never recorded, and some of the most critical evidence the EOAA said was told to them - the players have denied saying. Additionally, the report itself in areas flat out says the EOAA is making assumptions on some things based on the fact they found the accuser more credible. Yeah, that seems like a good approach.

    Also, your first point is false. These other players were charged by the EOAA. See point one. It was the review boards that started unraveling much of this sham and removing charges from many players.

    In the end, you are in the same boat as SON (and all of us) of not knowing exactly what happened. The difference is SON (and many of us) acknowledge that and choose not to participate in a lynch mob. By using the EOAA (sham) report as your guide, all you have done is assume the accuser is telling the truth and the players have lied.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    This is completely unrelated to this case as I share some similar concerns to you about this particular case....


    But I would like your thoughts...should public high schools be allowed to suspend kids without kids being able to cross examine witnesses? Have a lawyer present if they want one? Etc?
    I’m just curious

  12. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Some guy View Post
    But I would like your thoughts...should public high schools be allowed to suspend kids without kids being able to cross examine witnesses? Have a lawyer present if they want one? Etc? Iím just curious
    Iím not familiar with the rules around this. Generally speaking, my issue isnít the rules on why someone could be suspended, but by what process (or lack there of). If no proof other than an accusation then I would say no. If Jim says Billy threw eggs at the window and Billy says he didnít - and there are no cameras or proof, then I donít think Billy should be suspended.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Broken now/Fixed in 2019/Comin' in 2020
    #RTB #ELITE #FAMILY #HYPRR #Culture #PayCut #Year0 #How #Happiness/Joy

  13. #208
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    10,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dean S View Post
    Let's talk about alcohol toxicity and human performance for a minute. You said you could tell from the video that she wasn't drunk. Well, let's put that to the test with this scenario. A person becomes alcohol toxic, and motor skills are impaired. Can you tell the class the signs of motor impairment exhibited by a person with alcohol toxicity?

    Or, what are the signs of alcohol toxicity on speech?

    Decision making?

    Sexual desire?

    Alcohol toxicity on self perception and awareness?

    You talk about no evidence, but you haven't provided the class with your credentials or reasons either. So, fess up Sherlock! What makes you think you are right about the woman in the video not being drunk?
    Youíve already disqualified yourself by stating itís rape and consent is impossible if alcohol is involved. Itís astonishing how much ignorance there is on these topics, yet people are absolutely certain they are correct and shout it from the rooftops.

    The proof that trained bs sniffers viewed (law enforcement) indicated she wasnít close to incapacitated.

  14. #209
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    10,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cruze View Post
    Just about everything in your post is wrong. A lot is known about what happened.

    1. Players were expelled from the U for sexual assault largely based on evidence provided by other players who were in the apartment that night. The first two or three players who had sex with the accuser were not charged with sexual assault because the girl was deemed to have consented to it. Information provided by other players persuaded the U that the girl never consented to sex or withdrew her consent for the players who were expelled.

    2. Players were suspended for sexual harassment largely based on admissions by those players or by evidence provided by other players who were eye witnesses. Among the actions that were deemed by the U to be sexual harassment were entering the bedroom to watch the sexual activity without the consent of the girl, and taking video of the sexual activity without her consent.

    3. Players were suspended for lying to EOAA investigators largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who were eye witnesses or had reliable information about what the suspended players did that night.

    4. Players were suspended for obstructing the EOAA investigation largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who had reliable information about what the suspended players did during the course of the investigation.
    You realize she accused the first two of rape as well, right? The police disagreed. That was only the first hmmm moment. There would be more.

    The rest of your post is nothing but defense of rationalizations of an overzealous investigator and spineless school administration.

  15. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoofin View Post
    I’m not familiar with the rules around this. Generally speaking, my issue isn’t the rules on why someone could be suspended, but by what process (or lack there of). If no proof other than an accusation then I would say no. If Jim says Billy threw eggs at the window and Billy says he didn’t - and there are no cameras or proof, then I don’t think Billy should be suspended.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Excellent analogy.

    The idea that an accuser is always telling the truth and the accused always lying is chilling, to say the least.

    Fairness should be the goal, at all times, whether we're talking about judging in a court of law or enforcing 'rules' made up by some committee.
    Last edited by RememberMurray; 05-19-2019 at 10:21 AM.
    --------------

    "7 National Titles...

    ... But Let's Not Get Carried Away".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •