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

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

rules can vary from one school district to the next. At my local school district, students have the right to appeal disciplinary decisions, and can take a matter to court - but the courts generally require that all in-school avenues be exhausted before getting into the legal system. In the case of a student suspension or expulsion, students have the right to a hearing at which they may be represented by counsel and cross-examine witnesses - but that's for suspension or expulsion from school - not sure about a sports- or activity-related matter.

I don't know if a kid can be suspended solely on another kid's say-so - as in "I saw Billy drinking at the party." But in that case, they would likely talk to other kids who were at the party to see if there is corroboration. I do know of a kid who was not allowed to go on a band-choir trip because someone found a picture of her on social media holding a beer. The mother tried to fight it but the school board upheld the administration's action. Which points out that kid's lives today are documented to a greater degree than ever on social media. in your example of a kid "egging" a house, odds are that someone has a picture or video of it these days.
 

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.

I suggest having an earnest conversation with people of all stripes and particularly some that may be more ah, “zealous” in their views - sometimes feigning agreement is helpful - it becomes clear the narrative or endgame is more important than a few broken eggs along the way. Most of the posts on these matters allude to this - it’s hard to prove sexual assault happened without witnesses, physical, or media evidence so therefore theoretically the burden of proof should change to zero.

When one’s goal, for example, is to “burn the patriarchy to the ground” the ends justify the means.
 

I suggest having an earnest conversation with people of all stripes and particularly some that may be more ah, “zealous” in their views - sometimes feigning agreement is helpful - it becomes clear the narrative or endgame is more important than a few broken eggs along the way. Most of the posts on these matters allude to this - it’s hard to prove sexual assault happened without witnesses, physical, or media evidence so therefore theoretically the burden of proof should change to zero.

When one’s goal, for example, is to “burn the patriarchy to the ground” the ends justify the means.

Oh man, you absolutely nailed it. Well said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You are so right.

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

The EOAA is not a sham. It is an institutional response to the code of conduct of the University. It has every right to make an investigation, interview witnesses and to make a decision as to the penalty to be imposed on the students involved.

I am not making a judgement. I was not there either. But, I call into question your dismissal when there are other questions to be answered. Like why most of these accusations by women get put off and never FULLY investigated. I gave you some things to think about the police investigation and you dismissed it like it was unnecessary. That is the problem. The police failed to conduct a complete investigation and dropped it before completion. And, when they forwarded their report to the county attorney, the CA is only able to question the existing evidence before deciding to bring it to court or to drop it. Well, they dropped it not because their was guilt or innocence, but a lack of evidence presented to it.

I am saying the police failed to examine the situation competently. They failed in their duty and you then think it was perfectly acceptable to think that the evidence was insufficient. In that regard, we are in agreement. Beyond that, I think the police failed in their duty to actually investigate. They clearly swept it under the rug and let it go.

At least the U did a good enough job to collect testimony and make a decision on the facts they gathered. The county attorney would have done the public a stand up action if he condemned the U and Minneapolis police for effing up the works and failing to follow through.

The breath alcohol test is a simple test that takes about 30 seconds to accomplish. Important piece of evidence never gathered. And, very cheap to do.

Apparently the lack of evidence can be traced directly back to the police not properly investigating basic evidence.

Minnesota law states clearly that a woman cannot give consent properly while intoxicated. There are many other states with the same language, like Ohio, for example. But, who cares about the law. Certainly not the accused. Not you. Not the County Attorney. And, definitely not the police in this case. But, who counts on methodology these days? Nobody in power. Not the public.

Failed woman. Failed system. Failed society. Failed message board.
 

The EOAA is not a sham. It is an institutional response to the code of conduct of the University. It has every right to make an investigation, interview witnesses and to make a decision as to the penalty to be imposed on the students involved.

I am not making a judgement. I was not there either. But, I call into question your dismissal when there are other questions to be answered. Like why most of these accusations by women get put off and never FULLY investigated. I gave you some things to think about the police investigation and you dismissed it like it was unnecessary. That is the problem. The police failed to conduct a complete investigation and dropped it before completion. And, when they forwarded their report to the county attorney, the CA is only able to question the existing evidence before deciding to bring it to court or to drop it. Well, they dropped it not because their was guilt or innocence, but a lack of evidence presented to it.

I am saying the police failed to examine the situation competently. They failed in their duty and you then think it was perfectly acceptable to think that the evidence was insufficient. In that regard, we are in agreement. Beyond that, I think the police failed in their duty to actually investigate. They clearly swept it under the rug and let it go.

At least the U did a good enough job to collect testimony and make a decision on the facts they gathered. The county attorney would have done the public a stand up action if he condemned the U and Minneapolis police for effing up the works and failing to follow through.

The breath alcohol test is a simple test that takes about 30 seconds to accomplish. Important piece of evidence never gathered. And, very cheap to do.

Apparently the lack of evidence can be traced directly back to the police not properly investigating basic evidence.

Minnesota law states clearly that a woman cannot give consent properly while intoxicated. There are many other states with the same language, like Ohio, for example. But, who cares about the law. Certainly not the accused. Not you. Not the County Attorney. And, definitely not the police in this case. But, who counts on methodology these days? Nobody in power. Not the public.

Failed woman. Failed system. Failed society. Failed message board.

Wasn't going to wade into this but for your post. Your last line was the kicker. You state earlier you are not making a judgement and then proceed to do just that in virtually every subsequent sentence. I can't take you seriously on this subject. The County Attorney's office looked at it twice, including the University's report, and declined to process both times.
 


The breath alcohol test is a simple test that takes about 30 seconds to accomplish. Important piece of evidence never gathered. And, very cheap to do.

I don’t recall for certain, but I don’t think she reported the incident until the next morning. That doesn’t make her claim any less, but IIRC it could explain the lack of a breathalyzer claim you keep drumming. Either way, you still have no evidence she was drunk other than her word. I’d still consider the police’s investigation more credible (although as I said, not definitive).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I don’t recall for certain, but I don’t think she reported the incident until the next morning. That doesn’t make her claim any less, but IIRC it could explain the lack of a breathalyzer claim you keep drumming. Either way, you still have no evidence she was drunk other than her word. I’d still consider the police’s investigation more credible (although as I said, not definitive).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought this was the case as well
 

The EOAA is not a sham. It is an institutional response to the code of conduct of the University. It has every right to make an investigation, interview witnesses and to make a decision as to the penalty to be imposed on the students involved.

I am not making a judgement. I was not there either. But, I call into question your dismissal when there are other questions to be answered. Like why most of these accusations by women get put off and never FULLY investigated. I gave you some things to think about the police investigation and you dismissed it like it was unnecessary. That is the problem. The police failed to conduct a complete investigation and dropped it before completion. And, when they forwarded their report to the county attorney, the CA is only able to question the existing evidence before deciding to bring it to court or to drop it. Well, they dropped it not because their was guilt or innocence, but a lack of evidence presented to it.

I am saying the police failed to examine the situation competently. They failed in their duty and you then think it was perfectly acceptable to think that the evidence was insufficient. In that regard, we are in agreement. Beyond that, I think the police failed in their duty to actually investigate. They clearly swept it under the rug and let it go.

At least the U did a good enough job to collect testimony and make a decision on the facts they gathered. The county attorney would have done the public a stand up action if he condemned the U and Minneapolis police for effing up the works and failing to follow through.

The breath alcohol test is a simple test that takes about 30 seconds to accomplish. Important piece of evidence never gathered. And, very cheap to do.

Apparently the lack of evidence can be traced directly back to the police not properly investigating basic evidence.

Minnesota law states clearly that a woman cannot give consent properly while intoxicated. There are many other states with the same language, like Ohio, for example. But, who cares about the law. Certainly not the accused. Not you. Not the County Attorney. And, definitely not the police in this case. But, who counts on methodology these days? Nobody in power. Not the public.

Failed woman. Failed system. Failed society. Failed message board.

Wow.

Regarding the bolded statements: you seem absolutely certain that the police failed to do their jobs properly. Do you have any concrete reasons for believing this? If so, I'd like to read them.
 

This is the first time I've also heard any claims of police incompetence on this topic.

If it was that obvious I would have expected to have heard it before now... did some new news come out or something?
 



Wow, when did this all happen? I have not anything heard about it before.... You would think that there would have been about 100 threads on this and everyone would have come to a consensus on the topic.

Agree, stupid idea to get involved in a documentary. The producers and makers of it are just looking for a topic to get attention, not to actually help anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Wow, when did this all happen? I have not anything heard about it before.... You would think that there would have been about 100 threads on this and everyone would have come to a consensus on the topic.

Agree, stupid idea to get involved in a documentary. The producers and makers of it are just looking for a topic to get attention, not to actually help anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I'm a football player the proper response is:

Hey we're doing a documentary sexu---- hey why are you running away?!?!?
 

Dean - I think we are arguing two different points here.

No one is disputing that a clearly intoxicated person is legally unable to give consent.

the issue is that the accuser says she was intoxicated - the players say she was not - and there is no way to prove who is correct. as you note, a blood alcohol test could have provided that evidence - but since the incident was not reported until the next day, there is no way to go back and run a retro-active test for BAC.

It is still a he-said, she-said case.

In the end, I guess I want to believe the players, because I want to believe that Gopher athletes would not take advantage of a drunk woman in this way. I realize that puts me in the position of not wanting to believe the accuser. that is my bias. other people may have a bias that makes them want to believe the accuser. but at this point, there is no way to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, unless new evidence is discovered, or someone changes their story.

In general, if one person tells one version of a story, and multiple people tell a different version, you would tend to believe the story that is told by multiple people. Of course, all of them could be lying and telling a pre-arranged story.
 

Dean - I think we are arguing two different points here.

No one is disputing that a clearly intoxicated person is legally unable to give consent.

the issue is that the accuser says she was intoxicated - the players say she was not - and there is no way to prove who is correct. as you note, a blood alcohol test could have provided that evidence - but since the incident was not reported until the next day, there is no way to go back and run a retro-active test for BAC.

It is still a he-said, she-said case.

In the end, I guess I want to believe the players, because I want to believe that Gopher athletes would not take advantage of a drunk woman in this way. I realize that puts me in the position of not wanting to believe the accuser. that is my bias. other people may have a bias that makes them want to believe the accuser. but at this point, there is no way to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, unless new evidence is discovered, or someone changes their story.

In general, if one person tells one version of a story, and multiple people tell a different version, you would tend to believe the story that is told by multiple people. Of course, all of them could be lying and telling a pre-arranged story.


That's an interesting point. I understand what you're saying.

But for me, it isn't a matter of "wanting to believe" one side or the other at all.

In my view, the real concern is for a clear, unbiased due process. A presumption of innocence. The burden of proof lies with the accuser. These have been among the most ancient foundations of western society. They aren't perfect, but they have endured.

I know, I know... some people here believe that these things are only applicable in a court of law.

I strongly disagree. I do not approve of kangaroo courts, whether they occur in an actual courtroom or are conducted by some committee. True justice has seldom been served up by people carrying torches and pitchforks.
 



That's an interesting point. I understand what you're saying.

But for me, it isn't a matter of "wanting to believe" one side or the other at all.

In my view, the real concern is for a clear, unbiased due process. A presumption of innocence. The burden of proof lies with the accuser. These have been among the most ancient foundations of western society. They aren't perfect, but they have endured.

I know, I know... some people here believe that these things are only applicable in a court of law.

I strongly disagree. I do not approve of kangaroo courts, whether they occur in an actual courtroom or are conducted by some committee. True justice has seldom been served up by people carrying torches and pitchforks.

Amen. Well said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Wow.

Regarding the bolded statements: you seem absolutely certain that the police failed to do their jobs properly. Do you have any concrete reasons for believing this? If so, I'd like to read them.

This is the first time I've also heard any claims of police incompetence on this topic.

If it was that obvious I would have expected to have heard it before now... did some new news come out or something?

You guys are missing the point - Dean isn’t making any judgements. He is simply pointing out the police should have used their time machine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You guys are missing the point - Dean isn’t making any judgements. He is simply pointing out the police should have used their time machine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dean is trolling, like usual. He's not serious.
 

Tsk tsk. tsk. Pompous.

You’ve already disqualified yourself by stating it’s rape and consent is impossible if alcohol is involved. It’s 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 wasn’t close to incapacitated.

Trained BS sniffers? Cops? Most likely the cops are very poor at sniffing out incapacitate due to alcohol intoxication. The courts certainly don't think cops can sniff that out without actual evidence, like a breath alcohol test. I brought that up before, you must have missed that point.

No BAT, no evidence. You run the test for two reasons: to prove consumption or to prove the lack of consumption of alcohol. It is not good police investigative technique to write down in a report that no alcohol was evident without a BAT test with "Evidence tape" over the test result, taped to the report. Might as well flip a coin to come to a conclusion without that test.

As for the test, it takes about 20 seconds to administer and costs less than 50 cents. But, what the hell do we expect in the world of justice with cops acting like uncalibrated breath alcohol test machines with their brilliant intuition and superstition as their legal basis of crime solving. God help us all if you ever are seated as a juror.
 


Trained BS sniffers? Cops? Most likely the cops are very poor at sniffing out incapacitate due to alcohol intoxication. The courts certainly don't think cops can sniff that out without actual evidence, like a breath alcohol test. I brought that up before, you must have missed that point.

No BAT, no evidence. You run the test for two reasons: to prove consumption or to prove the lack of consumption of alcohol. It is not good police investigative technique to write down in a report that no alcohol was evident without a BAT test with "Evidence tape" over the test result, taped to the report. Might as well flip a coin to come to a conclusion without that test.

As for the test, it takes about 20 seconds to administer and costs less than 50 cents. But, what the hell do we expect in the world of justice with cops acting like uncalibrated breath alcohol test machines with their brilliant intuition and superstition as their legal basis of crime solving. God help us all if you ever are seated as a juror.

Is this test still valid if administered the morning after? I only ask because there seems to be a hot rumor that that's when she reported the incident: the next day.
 

Is this test still valid if administered the morning after? I only ask because there seems to be a hot rumor that that's when she reported the incident: the next day.

Time machines. Quite making excuses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Is this test still valid if administered the morning after? I only ask because there seems to be a hot rumor that that's when she reported the incident: the next day.

found a few things on alcohol and testing: from a website called "Medical news today." seems fairly legit.

The concentration of alcohol in the blood, or BAC, helps to determine how long alcohol stays in the system.

In general, alcohol is eliminated at 0.015 per hour. For example, someone who has a BAC Of 0.08, which is when it becomes illegal to drive, will take around 5.5 hours to flush the alcohol out of their body.

It is important to know that someone who drinks a lot or on an empty stomach may still have alcohol in their system the next day, making it illegal to drive a vehicle even then.

Urine
How long alcohol is detectable in the urine will depend on the test used, as some urine tests are far more sensitive than others.

Currently, there is a test that can detect alcohol use up to 80 hours, or 3 to 4 days, after the last drink a person had.

Breath
Frequently checked as part of routine breathalyzer testing, alcohol can be detected in the breath for up to 24 hours after the last drink.
 

found a few things on alcohol and testing: from a website called "Medical news today." seems fairly legit.

The concentration of alcohol in the blood, or BAC, helps to determine how long alcohol stays in the system.

In general, alcohol is eliminated at 0.015 per hour. For example, someone who has a BAC Of 0.08, which is when it becomes illegal to drive, will take around 5.5 hours to flush the alcohol out of their body.

It is important to know that someone who drinks a lot or on an empty stomach may still have alcohol in their system the next day, making it illegal to drive a vehicle even then.

Urine
How long alcohol is detectable in the urine will depend on the test used, as some urine tests are far more sensitive than others.

Currently, there is a test that can detect alcohol use up to 80 hours, or 3 to 4 days, after the last drink a person had.

Breath
Frequently checked as part of routine breathalyzer testing, alcohol can be detected in the breath for up to 24 hours after the last drink.

I have no doubt that the woman consumed alcohol that night, and I'm sure alcohol use can be detected as late as the next day.

But could a test, administered the next day, tell police accurately how much alcohol the woman in question had had the night before?

And, if administered the day after the incident, would the test be useful in determining exactly when she had consumed the alcohol? What if, say, she had gone home after the incident and then consumed alcohol? Or if she'd had a drink (or several) immediately after having sex with the players? Any alcohol consumed at that point would have had no bearing on claims that she was too intoxicated at the time of the incident to give consent.
 

I have no doubt that the woman consumed alcohol that night, and I'm sure alcohol use can be detected as late as the next day.

But could a test, administered the next day, tell police accurately how much alcohol the woman in question had had the night before?

And, if administered the day after the incident, would the test be useful in determining exactly when she had consumed the alcohol? What if, say, she had gone home after the incident and then consumed alcohol? Or if she'd had a drink (or several) immediately after having sex with the players? Any alcohol consumed at that point would have had no bearing on claims that she was too intoxicated at the time of the incident to give consent.

A BAC Test tells your condition at that moment. Reliably. To use it to estimate someone’s condition at some point in the past is simply that - an estimate. Based on statistical averages for a person’s sex, weight, etc. and an assumption on when the last drink was taken, etc. As you pointed out.

A great idea to detect alcohol in the system for someone who by law can’t drink at all, but not to try and gage someone’s condition at a particular point the previous evening.

A time machine was still the best option here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

A BAC Test tells your condition at that moment. Reliably. To use it to estimate someone’s condition at some point in the past is simply that - an estimate. Based on statistical averages for a person’s sex, weight, etc. and an assumption on when the last drink was taken, etc. As you pointed out.

A great idea to detect alcohol in the system for someone who by law can’t drink at all, but not to try and gage someone’s condition at a particular point the previous evening.

A time machine was still the best option here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And of course, even if you could have taken her BAC at the time of the incident, it couldn’t tell you definitively her state of mind. Different people react differently to alcohol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

And of course, even if you could have taken her BAC at the time of the incident, it couldn’t tell you definitively her state of mind. Different people react differently to alcohol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, I've seen alcoholics walk into the hospital at higher than 0.6%.
 

Trained BS sniffers? Cops? Most likely the cops are very poor at sniffing out incapacitate due to alcohol intoxication. The courts certainly don't think cops can sniff that out without actual evidence, like a breath alcohol test. I brought that up before, you must have missed that point.

No BAT, no evidence. You run the test for two reasons: to prove consumption or to prove the lack of consumption of alcohol. It is not good police investigative technique to write down in a report that no alcohol was evident without a BAT test with "Evidence tape" over the test result, taped to the report. Might as well flip a coin to come to a conclusion without that test.

As for the test, it takes about 20 seconds to administer and costs less than 50 cents. But, what the hell do we expect in the world of justice with cops acting like uncalibrated breath alcohol test machines with their brilliant intuition and superstition as their legal basis of crime solving. God help us all if you ever are seated as a juror.

this is incorrect. all of it.
 



Multiple times. My favorite though was the 5'2" 110lb younger chick that was at 0.52, you could tell she was drunk but she just seemed like a little drunk. She was perfectly coherent still. That was some impressive alcoholism right there.
 





Top Bottom