More presumption of guilt

[RavenSky]

The morning following the sexual encounter, McLeod texted his accuser, saying...

"How were your 5 assignments that were due today as well as ur 4 exams ? Hahah"

Then he added: "What's ur name again?"

Shortly after 2 a.m. she and McLeod got in a cab together. She later testified that she believed the cab driver was taking her back to her dormitory. She recalled not wanting to argue with McLeod when the cab arrived at his Sigma Nu fraternity house, though she did make up an excuse about having four exams the following day.

So he fully acknowledges that she made several excuses not to have sex with him.

It appears to me that he was operating like a PUA

Ask any guy who’s banged a lot of girls and has had a lot of same-night lays, and he will surely regale you with tales of seemingly insurmountable resistance, conquered and slain by his resolve and unwavering horniness. It’s in the nature of beautiful women to resist, test, protest, sabotage and make your job of fucking them difficult. And of course, by the time you wrestle their panties off, they’re dripping wet.

Yet the conflict of interest is that the most reliable way to establish a strong male/female polarity is to bed a woman quickly (and well). In a word, she wants to be persuaded by your dominance, sexual potency and persistence. And she will test you and do everything she can think of to discourage you from having sex with her.

Here’s the main thing to consider: She can be saying ‘no’ with her words and even with her situational body language. But if you’ve been unmistakably clear about your sexual intent and then she comes to your room, she is open to being seduced. Otherwise, she wouldn’t be there. I’ve had hour or more long battles with a girl who had come to my room and then protested that she wasn’t going to have sex with me. Hell, it just happened again yesterday. In the end, of course, we got naked. And, she appreciated it after the fact. If a girl isn’t open to being seduced she will either not come in or will precipitate hastily from your room. Anything short of that is a green light.

http://www.returnofkings.com/26385/when-her-no-means-yes

 

[Loren Pechtel]

[He even says she changed her mind during the act.

Yeah, what is the world coming to when one cannot take the word of the accused that he/she is innocent?

The point is that prior to the sex everyone says nothing looked wrong--a normal hookup.

- - - Updated - - -

Because universities have the right to expel students for things which may or may not be crimes, like cheating on exams, harassing wildlife, refusing to bathe, and walking into class stark naked.

The police who investigated the complaint found insufficient grounds to charge McLeod with a crime - that does not mean there was no evidence a crime was committed, or that the police didn't believe the freshman. It does not mean there was insufficient evidence of rule breaking to convene a school disciplinary hearing. It does not mean there was insufficient grounds to expel McLeod.

The constant attempts to conflate university disciplinary hearings with criminal trials is getting pretty threadbare. If you don't think a university can expel a student for something that isn't a crime, or that they have to wait for a criminal trial to reach it's conclusion before they can remove a possible rapist from campus, you're thinking wrong.

The Indyweek article states that the university concluded that there was sufficient evidence that McLeod raped the freshman; therefore they concluded that he was guilty of a crime. They should not be allowed to do that when the police aren't willing to press charges.

You bring up the canard that unis can expel students for non-criminal acts. There is no such thing as non-criminal rape.

They expelled him for "sexual misconduct" not "rape"

But the alleged misconduct is rape.

- - - Updated - - -

Shortly after 2 a.m. she and McLeod got in a cab together. She later testified that she believed the cab driver was taking her back to her dormitory. She recalled not wanting to argue with McLeod when the cab arrived at his Sigma Nu fraternity house, though she did make up an excuse about having four exams the following day.

So he fully acknowledges that she made several excuses not to have sex with him.

It appears to me that he was operating like a PUA

That's *HER* testimony. Where does he acknowledge it??

 

[RavenSky]

You bring up the canard that unis can expel students for non-criminal acts. There is no such thing as non-criminal rape.

They expelled him for "sexual misconduct" not "rape"

From the article.

Duke's student affairs rulebook, the Community Standard in Practice, defines sexual misconduct as "any physical act of a sexual nature perpetrated against an individual without consent or when an individual is unable to freely give consent."

Lack of consent = rape.

They expelled him for "sexual misconduct" not "rape"

But the alleged misconduct is rape.

- - - Updated - - -

Shortly after 2 a.m. she and McLeod got in a cab together. She later testified that she believed the cab driver was taking her back to her dormitory. She recalled not wanting to argue with McLeod when the cab arrived at his Sigma Nu fraternity house, though she did make up an excuse about having four exams the following day.

So he fully acknowledges that she made several excuses not to have sex with him.

It appears to me that he was operating like a PUA

From the full Duke University definition of "Sexual Misconduct":

Sexual misconduct defined. Sexual misconduct is defined as any physical act of a sexual nature perpetrated against an individual without consent or when an individual is unable to freely give consent. Acts of a sexual nature include, but are not limited to, touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly; and/or rape, forcible sodomy, or sexual penetration (however slight) of another person’s oral, anal or genital opening with any object. Sexual misconduct also includes sexual exploitation (defined as taking non-consensual, unjust sexual advantage of another for one’s benefit or the benefit of another party), gender-based relationship violence, and gender-based stalking. These acts may or may not be accompanied by the use of coercion, intimidation, or through advantage gained by the use of alcohol or other drugs.

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly" or would you like to admit that Duke University' definition of "sexual misconduct" is a tiny bit broader than "rape"

- - - Updated - - -

So he fully acknowledges that she made several excuses not to have sex with him.

It appears to me that he was operating like a PUA

That's *HER* testimony. Where does he acknowledge it??

Um, no... those were HIS texts

 

[RavenSky]

From the Duke University website:

Sexual misconduct defined. Sexual misconduct is defined as any physical act of a sexual nature perpetrated against an individual without consent or when an individual is unable to freely give consent. Acts of a sexual nature include, but are not limited to, touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly; and/or rape, forcible sodomy, or sexual penetration (however slight) of another person’s oral, anal or genital opening with any object. Sexual misconduct also includes sexual exploitation (defined as taking non-consensual, unjust sexual advantage of another for one’s benefit or the benefit of another party), gender-based relationship violence, and gender-based stalking. These acts may or may not be accompanied by the use of coercion, intimidation, or through advantage gained by the use of alcohol or other drugs.

Consent defined. The university’s definition of sexual misconduct mandates that each participant obtains and gives consent in each instance of sexual activity. Consent is an affirmative decision to engage in mutually acceptable sexual activity given by clear actions or words. It is an informed decision made freely and actively by all parties. Relying solely upon non-verbal communication can lead to miscommunication. It is important not to make assumptions; if confusion or ambiguity on the issue of consent arises anytime during the sexual interaction, it is essential that each participant stops and clarifies, verbally, willingness to continue. Students should understand that consent may not be inferred from silence, passivity, or lack of active resistance alone. Furthermore, a current or previous dating or sexual relationship is not sufficient to constitute consent, and consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity. Being intoxicated does not diminish one’s responsibility to obtain consent.

Conduct will be considered “without consent” if no clear consent, verbal or nonverbal, is given. It should be noted that in some situations an individual’s ability to freely consent is taken away by another person or circumstance. Examples include, but are not limited to, when an individual is incapacitated due to alcohol or other drugs, scared, physically forced, passed out, intimidated, coerced, mentally or physically impaired, beaten, threatened, isolated, or confined.

All bolded is mine for emphasis

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly"

Touching an unwilling person's breasts or genetalia isn't considered rape? It certainly should be.

 

[RavenSky]

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly"

Touching an unwilling person's breasts or genetalia isn't considered rape? It certainly should be.

So groping is rape. We will see if you maintain that position when the inevitable case is posted.

 

[RavenSky]

And for the record, in this case - I think they should give him his diploma. He completed all of the requisite work to obtain it. Leave his permanent school record indicating that he was found guilty of "sexual misconduct" on campus, but don't withhold the actual diploma at this point.

 

[J842P]

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly"

Touching an unwilling person's breasts or genetalia isn't considered rape? It certainly should be.

So groping is rape. We will see if you maintain that position when the inevitable case is posted.

Legally it's usually defined as sexual assault and not rape, or am I mistaken?

 

[RavenSky]

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly"

Touching an unwilling person's breasts or genetalia isn't considered rape? It certainly should be.

So groping is rape. We will see if you maintain that position when the inevitable case is posted.

Legally it's usually defined as sexual assault and not rape, or am I mistaken?

Depends on the municipality, but generally all rape is a sexual assault, but not all sexual assault is rape. Likewise, all rape would be sexual misconduct but not all sexual misconduct would be rape. Rape typically implies or explicitly includes an element of penetration. Groping doesn't.

 

[bigfield]

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly" or would you like to admit that Duke University' definition of "sexual misconduct" is a tiny bit broader than "rape"

I agree with that. However, her complaint was that she did not consent to sex.

Do you suppose she complained about the rape to the campus authorities, and then the uni expelled him for merely touching a drunk girl?

 

[RavenSky]

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly" or would you like to admit that Duke University' definition of "sexual misconduct" is a tiny bit broader than "rape"

I agree with that. However, her complaint was that she did not consent to sex.

Do you suppose she complained about the rape to the campus authorities, and then the uni expelled him for merely touching a drunk girl?

I understand what her complaint was about. Her complaint included her telling him she didn't want to go home with him, giving him the excuse of 4 exams the following day (something he fully acknowledges in his text to her the next day). She says she tried to talk him into everything other than intercourse. I don't see him denying that. She says she told him to stop and that she was crying. He doesn't deny that either - he only disagrees with her about how soon he stopped.

Did he have "an affirmative decision to engage in mutually acceptable sexual activity given by clear actions or words." No

Was there "confusion or ambiguity on the issue of consent" from her? Yes

That certainly sounds like sexual misconduct under the rules of the university.

 

[bigfield]

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly" or would you like to admit that Duke University' definition of "sexual misconduct" is a tiny bit broader than "rape"

I agree with that. However, her complaint was that she did not consent to sex.

Do you suppose she complained about the rape to the campus authorities, and then the uni expelled him for merely touching a drunk girl?

I understand what her complaint was about. Her complaint included her telling him she didn't want to go home with him, giving him the excuse of 4 exams the following day (something he fully acknowledges in his text to her the next day). She says she tried to talk him into everything other than intercourse. I don't see him denying that. She says she told him to stop and that she was crying. He doesn't deny that either - he only disagrees with her about how soon he stopped.

Did he have "an affirmative decision to engage in mutually acceptable sexual activity given by clear actions or words." No

Was there "confusion or ambiguity on the issue of consent" from her? Yes

That certainly sounds like sexual misconduct under the rules of the university.

OK, we'll leave it at that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly" or would you like to admit that Duke University' definition of "sexual misconduct" is a tiny bit broader than "rape"

But sexual assault covers them.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly"

Touching an unwilling person's breasts or genetalia isn't considered rape? It certainly should be.

No, it's normally considered sexual assault.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you two suggesting that the criminal definition of "rape" should include "touching or attempted touching of an unwilling person’s breasts, buttocks, inner thighs, groin, or genitalia, either directly or indirectly"

Touching an unwilling person's breasts or genetalia isn't considered rape? It certainly should be.

So groping is rape. We will see if you maintain that position when the inevitable case is posted.

Legally it's usually defined as sexual assault and not rape, or am I mistaken?

Depends on the municipality, but generally all rape is a sexual assault, but not all sexual assault is rape. Likewise, all rape would be sexual misconduct but not all sexual misconduct would be rape. Rape typically implies or explicitly includes an element of penetration. Groping doesn't.

But sexual assault is a crime. If he really did it the police would have prosecuted.