So many people r saying it was consensual, what about this?

Donate To GopherHole
Sportsfan24 said:
What happened here? It looks like consensual sex. What I do know is the players are being treated like they are guilty of something yet the U has not stated what that is.
Click to expand...

You have no basis to conclude that the sex was consensual. The police and DA never said that. They only thing they concluded is that they didn't have enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Other than the statements of the players who had many reasons to lie about their conduct, the only thing the cops had were three videos that didn't go on for more than a couple of minutes. It is my understanding the gang bang lasted 90 minutes. What do you think was happening during the rest of the time whe nthere was no video? If the entire thing was consensual what did the girl think she could accomplish by going to the police? The U based their investigation on the Student Code of Conduct and not the Minnesota criminal statutes. If you have ever read them you would know that the CofC covers a lot of behavior that is not a crime in Minnesota and wouldn't necessarily be related the actual sex that was going on. And, of course, the U only needs to prove their CofC cases by a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than the much higher standard in criminal cases of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
 

pregameatblarneys said:
Exactly. I have thought that she knew what she was doing, got caught up in the moment, instantly regretted it when it was over because it's unbecoming, and went through the steps to file sexual assault charges and when there wasn't enough evidence, kept up airs with the HRO, and didn't fight the appeal/pled the 5th so her, let's say untruths, weren't exposed.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's thinking like that, that got those kids into this situation. How about using common sense? People don't see things in hindsight as situations may appear at the time, so you have to think about how it may look. Or just have your head up your rear and assume it will all work out.
 

KillerGopherFan said:
It's thinking like that, that got those kids into this situation. How about using common sense? People don't see things in hindsight as situations may appear at the time, so you have to think about how it may look. Or just have your head up your rear and assume it will all work out.
Click to expand...
You're right, but any post act regrets doesn't make it a sexual assault, and by no means justify what she has done. I agree it wasn't the smartest of acts by all parties involved, but that doesn't mean anything illegal or against the CoC occurred.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24 said:
I accept your explanation. Rather than assume, I asked the question. You took the time to explain and it made sense to me so I accepted your explanation.

Now.....why are associating the word bang with black kids![emoji41]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Ok, we're good. I'd rather feel that I can talk about race frankly and honestly to get solutions rather than more division. But I really wasn't thinking anything about race when I commented.
 

This is why it is impossible to have a discussion about racism. People see where it doesn't exist. If anybody is bigoted on this thread, its Sportsfan, not me.
I'm not even implying, inferencing, or mentioning race, and its racism.
This is why Trump got elected. People are tired of the same old excuses.
This case is NOT about race.

In response this this, I did not think the "gang sex' comment was meant to be racist, I was only suggesting why some might not be comfortable with the classic term GangBang.

I think there is a very possible a racial angle to this whole case. Sportsfan24 is correct in many aspects of these case, including the lack of reality of sexual mores by some on the board. There is a reason the free sex sites show a lot of group sex videos, it is fairly mainstream.

I am not suggesting racism is the driving force, I think that is the PC Title IX 2011 interpretation, that assumes there is a huge "rape culture:, that might get rolled back as soon as 5 weeks from now or so, is the main culprit, but there is a huge racial component to this today, and in the years going forward if the U of M railroads these ten young men.

I might add, Ray Buford and Winfield II are very lucky to have the fathers they have. I think those two alone might make a difference in reversing this travesty.
 


UpnorthGo4 said:
You have no basis to conclude that the sex was consensual. The police and DA never said that. They only thing they concluded is that they didn't have enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Other than the statements of the players who had many reasons to lie about their conduct, the only thing the cops had were three videos that didn't for more than a couple of minutes. It is my understanding the gang band lasted 90 minutes. What do you think was happening during the rest of the time where there was no video? If the entire thing was consensual what did the girl think she could accomplish by going to the police? The U based their investigation on the Student Code of Conduct and not the Minnesota criminal statutes. If have ever read them you would know that the CofC covers a lot of behavior that is not a crime in Minnesota and wouldn't necessarily be related the actual sex that was going on. And, of course, the U only needs to prove their CofC cases by a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than the much higher standard in criminal cases of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Click to expand...

"In a redacted police report, police note the sexual encounter appeared consensual in three videos recorded during the act."

http://www.kare11.com/sports/10-u-of-m-football-players-suspended/369629769
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
You have no basis to conclude that the sex was consensual. The police and DA never said that. They only thing they concluded is that they didn't have enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Other than the statements of the players who had many reasons to lie about their conduct, the only thing the cops had were three videos that didn't for more than a couple of minutes. It is my understanding the gang band lasted 90 minutes. What do you think was happening during the rest of the time where there was no video? If the entire thing was consensual what did the girl think she could accomplish by going to the police? The U based their investigation on the Student Code of Conduct and not the Minnesota criminal statutes. If have ever read them you would know that the CofC covers a lot of behavior that is not a crime in Minnesota and wouldn't necessarily be related the actual sex that was going on. And, of course, the U only needs to prove their CofC cases by a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than the much higher standard in criminal cases of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Click to expand...

(1) The first bold statement is NOT true. You are confusing the burden needed to find guilt with a burden needed to bring criminal charges. I'll give you a hint, google "prosecutorial discretion", also google "grand jury". If you want to call it a burden, it is significantly less than BARD, probably less than a preponderance of the evidence.

(2) So you're dismissing the video, ok. You don't seem to have a vested interest in this at all.

(3) Are you implying that girls never lie about being raped?

(4) I know you feel smart when you keep bringing up "beyond a reasonable doubt", but you're missing it. I'll try to explain. . . OJ Simpson was found not guilty because the jury felt the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, charges were filed. Do you see how you're skipping a REALLY big step in criminal procedure.

For serious felonies, a prosecutor show "probable cause" to bring charges. Probable cause is a much lower standard than preponderance of the evidence.
 

Hates Monikers said:
Her story has changed throughout. Djam was consensual, then he wasn't. Kiondre Thomas was there, then he wasn't (and isn't even one of the extra five). There were four, then there were 12. How do we know what to believe? The police didn't know. But the U does.
Click to expand...

The U's punishment of the players may have had nothing to do with whether or not the sex was consensual. They probably used multiple provisions in the Student Code of Conduct to justify the punishment. And the players also might have violated Athletics Department or football team rules that night.

But, of course, the U might have also used the following U policy to justify the punishment of the players:

University of Minnesota Policy - Affirmative Consent (for Sex)

A determination about the existence of consent is a critical element in the investigation of a sexual assault. University policy requires affirmative consent between individuals engaging in sexual activity.

Affirmative consent is defined as “informed, freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in sexual activity that is expressed by clear and unambiguous words or actions.”

Clear and unambiguous words or actions are those that are freely and actively given by informed individuals that a reasonable person in the circumstances would believe communicate a willingness to participate in a mutually agreed upon sexual activity.

The following factors will be considered when determining consent:

It is the responsibility of each person who wishes to engage in the sexual activity to obtain consent.

A lack of protest, the absence of resistance and silence do not indicate consent.

The existence of a present or past dating or romantic relationship does not imply consent to future sexual activity.

Consent must be present throughout the sexual activity and may be initially given, but withdrawn at any time.

When consent is withdrawn all sexual activity must stop. Likewise, where there is confusion about the state of consent, sexual activity must stop until both parties consent again.

Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity.

Consent is not obtained where:

There is physical force, threats, intimidation or coercion.

There is incapacitation due to the influence of drugs or alcohol.

There is the inability to communicate because of a physical or mental condition

An individual is asleep, unconscious or involuntarily physically restrained.

An individual is unable to understand the nature or extent of the sexual situation because of mental or physical incapacitation or impairment.

One party is not of legal age to give consent pursuant to Minnesota state law.

https://policy.umn.edu/operations/sexualassault-appa
 

pregameatblarneys said:
You're right, but any post act regrets doesn't make it a sexual assault, and by no means justify what she has done. I agree it wasn't the smartest of acts by all parties involved, but that doesn't mean anything illegal or against the CoC occurred.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. I have only been talking about appearances, hindsight, and preventing kids from getting in these situations.
I hate the fact that women have the upper hand in accusations. We've seen numerous examples of fraudulent accusations. And that is precisely why young adult men have to be aware of the trouble that can occur, even in much less dubious situations.
The kid at Colorado-Pueblo got royalty screwed and watching the OTLs episode made me sick. The kid had consensual sex with his girlfriend and others got him kicked out. Ridiculous. But it;s the world we now live in. Men had the advantage for all of existence. That is in the process of flipping.
 



UpnorthGo4 said:
You have no basis to conclude that the sex was consensual. The police and DA never said that. They only thing they concluded is that they didn't have enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Other than the statements of the players who had many reasons to lie about their conduct, the only thing the cops had were three videos that didn't for more than a couple of minutes. It is my understanding the gang band lasted 90 minutes. What do you think was happening during the rest of the time where there was no video? If the entire thing was consensual what did the girl think she could accomplish by going to the police? The U based their investigation on the Student Code of Conduct and not the Minnesota criminal statutes. If have ever read them you would know that the CofC covers a lot of behavior that is not a crime in Minnesota and wouldn't necessarily be related the actual sex that was going on. And, of course, the U only needs to prove their CofC cases by a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than the much higher standard in criminal cases of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Click to expand...

Yes, the police concluded that the video evidence showed consensual sex. Wrong.

Also, your whole case seems to revolve around your feeling that men have an incentive to lie, and women have no reason to lie. I could find 10 examples where women did indeed lie, kangaroo courts at universities expelled, and the student sued and won. So your narrative fails.

The U can do what it wants but they'll pay a price for it. We all will. Very very sad. But you'll still get to be on your high horse with your "millions".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

This is a Lose-Lose situation for sure.
 

Section2 said:
Yes, the police concluded that the video evidence showed consensual sex. Wrong.

Also, your whole case seems to revolve around your feeling that men have an incentive to lie, and women have no reason to lie. I could find 10 examples where women did indeed lie, kangaroo courts at universities expelled, and the student sued and won. So your narrative fails.

The U can do what it wants but they'll pay a price for it. We all will. Very very sad. But you'll still get to be on your high horse with your "millions".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He thinks women are the equivalent of children.
 

Ewert86PC said:
What about the players who were included because they were simply in the same building where this occurred and the one who claimed to not be there at all, but was included because the committee thought that he was lying?

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Is everyone who was at the party, both male and female, being expelled from the University because they were in the same building? Just wondering.
 



He said, she said. Then He said "I've got video". After viewing it the cops said "no charges will be filed".
 

MennoSota said:
Is everyone who was at the party, both male and female, being expelled from the University because they were in the same building? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

I was there on a photo shoot. So far, I'm Good! :cool:
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
You have no basis to conclude that the sex was consensual. The police and DA never said that. They only thing they concluded is that they didn't have enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Other than the statements of the players who had many reasons to lie about their conduct, the only thing the cops had were three videos that didn't for more than a couple of minutes. It is my understanding the gang band lasted 90 minutes. What do you think was happening during the rest of the time where there was no video? If the entire thing was consensual what did the girl think she could accomplish by going to the police? The U based their investigation on the Student Code of Conduct and not the Minnesota criminal statutes. If have ever read them you would know that the CofC covers a lot of behavior that is not a crime in Minnesota and wouldn't necessarily be related the actual sex that was going on. And, of course, the U only needs to prove their CofC cases by a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than the much higher standard in criminal cases of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Click to expand...

And you have no basis to conclude it wasn't. What if after the fact, she felt pretty embarrassed and told her sister and her sister got angry and they decided that she was some how taken advantage of? So she concocted a story from whatever she could grasp and hoped that she could win back her dignity. Once the authorities got a hold of those videos, she pretty much backed down, and came to a settlement. You choose to ignore that part too right? And pleading the 5th on the stand, that part too? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Guess what? The authorities couldn't/wouldn't prove guilt. So they are innocent. What did these 10 do wrong to not live up to student conduct? What are they guilty of? Taking turns on a lady that, from all accounts that can be proven, was consenting?

Remember the group sex video issue the basketball team had last year? It wasn't a crime to have group sex, they were suspended for having a video of it leaked online, etc... but nothing came of it because the person being sex'd probably didn't come forward, or was of legal consenting age and said it was consensual.
 

oak_street1981 said:
UpNorthG4 posted that absurd U of M Affirmative Consent list again.

I will ask, UpNorthG4, when you have "relations' with your wife (or many years ago when you might have faint recollections of any sort of sex) do you follow that EOAA manifesto to a T?

When Joel Maturi bent his wife over the desk in Bierman during one of his 20 hour workdays between watching all the non-revenue sports (a devoted public servant has to fit in in at some point) and counting all the pencils and erasers; did our hero Ranger Joel follow the policy?
Click to expand...

They're called consent contract and they're serious. Also, the women must sign it in pen. If it is signed in pencil and she erases it . . . no consent.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
You have no basis to conclude that the sex was consensual. The police and DA never said that. They only thing they concluded is that they didn't have enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Other than the statements of the players who had many reasons to lie about their conduct, the only thing the cops had were three videos that didn't for more than a couple of minutes. It is my understanding the gang band lasted 90 minutes. What do you think was happening during the rest of the time where there was no video? If the entire thing was consensual what did the girl think she could accomplish by going to the police? The U based their investigation on the Student Code of Conduct and not the Minnesota criminal statutes. If have ever read them you would know that the CofC covers a lot of behavior that is not a crime in Minnesota and wouldn't necessarily be related the actual sex that was going on. And, of course, the U only needs to prove their CofC cases by a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than the much higher standard in criminal cases of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Click to expand...

You my man are making all kinds of assumptions. If I'm making assumptions it's the U's fault; in the mist of a sexual assault accusation the U responded by naming names and publicly suspending players thereby assigning guilt for what is assumed to be sexual assault.

While I can't speak to your experience I can certainly say that I'm very familiar with Big Ten administrations and how they arrive at their decisions in regard to athletes. Let me just say it's not well thought out or always in the best interest of athlete.
 

DeathClutch said:
"In a redacted police report, police note the sexual encounter appeared consensual in three videos recorded during the act."

http://www.kare11.com/sports/10-u-of-m-football-players-suspended/369629769
Click to expand...

The three videos lasted for no more than 2 or 3 minutes of the approximately 90 minutes of group sex. What was happening the rest of the time? The girl had the legal right to tell the players to stop at any time. How many posters believe that any of the players would have stopped if she asked them to stop?
 

Sportsfan24 said:
You my man are making all kinds of assumptions. If I'm making assumptions it's the U's fault; in the mist of a sexual assault accusation the U responded by naming names and publicly suspending players thereby assigning guilt for what is assumed to be sexual assault.

While I can't speak to your experience I can certainly say that I'm very familiar with Big Ten administrations and how they arrive at their decisions in regard to athletes. Let me just say it's not well thought out or always in the best interest of athlete.
Click to expand...

You would know better than I with regards to athletes, but in general, the Universities need to cower to these special interests groups. They have that much political power. Personally, I don't think this case has much to do with them being football players, except it put a giant spotlight on what has been an absolutely broken system.
 

I love that according to so many posters here, 90 seconds of a phone video that nobody has ever seen equates to whatever happened over the other 95% of the experience to have been consensual.
Mostly because these guys show so much potential as future upperclassman contributors on the team. Or because they are scared at the uncertain future of how men chase women, that is staring them in the face in 2016.
If these were 5 Joe Sixpack Human Geography majors, a vast swath of opinions would change. The partisanship here is crazy, there is so much grey area and unknown territory going on with this.
 

citywok said:
I love that according to so many posters here, 90 seconds of a phone video that nobody has ever seen equates to whatever happened over the other 95% of the experience to have been consensual.
Mostly because these guys show so much potential as future upperclassman contributors on the team. Or because they are scared at the uncertain future of how men chase women, that is staring them in the face in 2016.
If these were 5 Joe Sixpack Human Geography majors, a vast swath of opinions would change. The partisanship here is crazy, there is so much grey area and unknown territory going on with this.
Click to expand...

I love how you love that unsubstantiated statements by a proven liar and proven unreliable witness are taken at face value. Very sad. Look in the mirror FFS. You do not know what happened. Her statements are rubbish.
 

Also, LOL @ the group vs gang debate in this thread. Nice!
It wasn't group sex because our defensive backfield wasn't stroking each others' posts during the act (granted, an assumption I am making). Then, it seems gang bang is probably the right term.
 

It also seems odd to me that the accuser herself expressed that it is not her intention that anyone be punished. That seems like a strange thing to say after you were gang raped.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I love how you love that unsubstantiated statements by a proven liar and proven unreliable witness are taken at face value. Very sad. Look in the mirror FFS. You do not know what happened. Her statements are rubbish.
Click to expand...

This reads like a Trump tweet
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
You deserve to be punished like this for raping someone, not for being stupid.
Click to expand...

If you rape someone in a criminally provable way - you go to jail. If you hurt the brand of an 'employer' through pure stupidity, you should lose the right to represent that brand and institution - which is what has happened thus far.

That said - for the University or anyone else to use the term 'rape' or 'sexual assault' is just plain out wrong and they should be sued for this in the absence of a conviction. They should simply say that the students violated the honor code and tarnished the brand and leave it at that.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The three videos lasted for no more than 2 or 3 minutes of the approximately 90 minutes of group sex. What was happening the rest of the time? The girl had the legal right to tell the players to stop at any time. How many posters believe that any of the players would have stopped if she asked them to stop?
Click to expand...

That's a nice story. Unfortunately your imagination is not proof.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

csom_1991 said:
If you rape someone in a criminally provable way - you go to jail. If you hurt the brand of an 'employer' through pure stupidity, you should lose the right to represent that brand and institution - which is what has happened thus far.

That said - for the University or anyone else to use the term 'rape' or 'sexual assault' is just plain out wrong and they should be sued for this in the absence of a conviction. They should simply say that the students violated the honor code and tarnished the brand and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

And how did you prove that this actually happened? Do not forget that a few of the names listed for suspension, never even corresponded with the accuser, or were even in the vicinity of the accuser. So that throws this "investigation" out the window as it's obvious they didn't investigate hard enough to even know who was there and who wasn't.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The three videos lasted for no more than 2 or 3 minutes of the approximately 90 minutes of group sex. What was happening the rest of the time? The girl had the legal right to tell the players to stop at any time. How many posters believe that any of the players would have stopped if she asked them to stop?
Click to expand...

You don't even get it. What the video proves is that when she said the first guy wasn't consensual, then the videos proved she was lying, that throws all her testimony out as that makes her unreliable, and proven to be a liar.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom