University of Minnesota Sexual Assault Case

[Derec]

The University cannot physical collect evidence in a criminal case. It also is forbidden from applying the same standard of evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" to assign responsibility as a criminal court would. These men do not have a criminal conviction on their record. Only the five that were expelled will have permanent mark on their transcript. The rest will have the event wiped from their transcript when the probations/suspensions are lifted.

An expulsion is a major punishment that should not be based to very low "preponderance of evidence" standard. Obama administration has fucked up majorly with them mandating lowest possible standard for sexual assault claim adjudications, resulting in many false positives. Before the Obama edict, universities widely used the stronger (and thus less susceptible to false positives) "clear and convincing" standard, which is also widely used for other disciplinary matters on campus. Why should accusations of sexual wrongdoing be handled with a much lower standard of evidence than other claims of student wrongdoing?

- - - Updated - - -

As was pointed out, the University of Minnesota and its findings are different than the police findings.

Just because they are different, does not mean they have to be idiotic. Consent is given at the time. Just because a female student might regret the sex at some later point, does not mean that consent was not given at the time.

 

[laughing dog]

I find it fascinating that none of the "rape apologists" have read the report. Hell, the football team that was threatening to boycott the bowl game read the report and that played a major role in them to ending their boycott (http://www.startribune.com/gophers-players-u-leaders-working-toward-ending-boycott-of-football/407201426/).

I am certain you think I am one of those 'rape apologists', because I don't automatically assume a claim of rape was necessarily an actual rape until investigated and evidenced.

I do admire your ability to be consistently wrong.

I read both reports in full. ...

If you did, then you know who the University adms decided to believe (and why) and who they decided not to believe (and why). And you would know about the University policy about consent. All of which, while not influencing your opinion on what she "should" have done, should have made it clear what discipline was handed out and why.

 

[laughing dog]

An expulsion is a major punishment that should not be based to very low "preponderance of evidence" standard. ...

Stop flouting your ignorance, and read the report.

Reported in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/charges-in-u-sex-case-still-possible/408364156/)

Based on just the police report, Freeman declined to file charges, citing “insufficient, admissible evidence” to prove a sexual assault occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the 22-page report by Minneapolis Police that influenced that decision was far less thorough than the 80-page report by an investigator with the U’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA), which was made public when it was obtained and released by KSTP-TV.......

 

[Nice Squirrel]

An expulsion is a major punishment that should not be based to very low "preponderance of evidence" standard. Obama administration has fucked up majorly with them mandating lowest possible standard for sexual assault claim adjudications, resulting in many false positives.

False positives? Are we lab testing them now? Seriously, can you give us some stats on all these "false positives"? Because the police not pressing charges are the same thing as innocence, and college records are protected by privacy laws. Many of those men that were found responsible cry injustice because they do not need to bring the college investigation into question. If they feel that they have been wronged they can challenge the findings at the college or in civil court.

Before the Obama edict, universities widely used the stronger (and thus less susceptible to false positives) "clear and convincing" standard, which is also widely used for other disciplinary matters on campus. Why should accusations of sexual wrongdoing be handled with a much lower standard of evidence than other claims of student wrongdoing?

Before Obama, universities pretty much did nothing. They could use any standard of evidence, all public higher-ed schools needed was a hearing to expel a student. Of the 173 reports at the University of Minnesota for 2014-2015 only 24 resulted in investigations. Daniel Drill-Mellum was one of them.

As was pointed out, the University of Minnesota and its findings are different than the police findings.

Just because they are different, does not mean they have to be idiotic. Consent is given at the time. Just because a female student might regret the sex at some later point, does not mean that consent was not given at the time.

You need to read the report.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I find it fascinating that none of the "rape apologists" have read the report. Hell, the football team that was threatening to boycott the bowl game read the report and that played a major role in them to ending their boycott (http://www.startribune.com/gophers-players-u-leaders-working-toward-ending-boycott-of-football/407201426/).

I am certain you think I am one of those 'rape apologists', because I don't automatically assume a claim of rape was necessarily an actual rape until investigated and evidenced.

I read both reports in full. They practically read like two different incidents.

In the police report, the victim claims to have been drunk, flirtatious, and not sure if rape actually occurred. clear, verbal, and physical consent was given by the victim to have sex with two other men at the same time, however the victim appears to have thought there were three people when there were only two. As the incident continued, more men appeared on the scene and the testimony, photographs, and video footage taken by others nearby confirms the victim was outwardly welcoming and 'good natured' about it.

In the University report, a completely different story is written. In that story, consent was not given, she was held as a prisoner in a room with many men in it, and outwardly protested both verbally and physically. No physical evidence was provided that supported these claims, including the physical examination at the hospital the following day which did not reveal the expected injuries that would have occurred given this second version of the story.

My opinion after reading through over 100 pages... a three-way got out of hand in that it began to invite onlookers and additional participants and the woman did not say 'no'. The women acted coy, saying things like, "I can't take you all on" in a sarcastic tone, etc... The woman later regretted the event because many pictures and video of the event were taken, and uploaded to snapchat, instagram, and tinder... and people used her phone and account info to link it so she was clearly identified as the woman in the photos and videos...

She should have put limits on the encounter, didn't, and regretted it. This was 'retroactively rape, due to regret'.

The evidence collected by police was insufficient to arrest anyone for rape, because it wasn't
No evidence was collected by the U, but the new testimony was sufficient for them to apply their Sexual Harassment Policy.

And this is why I haven't bothered with reading the university "report". We have one group trained at finding the truth. We have another group of amateurs with an agenda. It's like the BBC vs Weekly World News.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

False positives? Are we lab testing them now? Seriously, can you give us some stats on all these "false positives"? Because the police not pressing charges are the same thing as innocence, and college records are protected by privacy laws. Many of those men that were found responsible cry injustice because they do not need to bring the college investigation into question. If they feel that they have been wronged they can challenge the findings at the college or in civil court.

It's called binding arbitration. They probably have no meaningful recourse.

 

[Malintent]

Sufficient evidence of University Policy Violations are contained in the University Report.

Is consensual group sex against university policy?

Don't know. Possibly. irrelevant, though.

If there is no evidence of non-consent, her regretting it later or it being with more than one person should not be the matter for the university to punish anybody over.

absolutely agree.

We must end this idiotic doctrine that "regret equals rape" as far as university kangaroo courts are concerned.

absolutely agree.

There are policies of conduct that several people seem to have violated in both versions of the report. including but not limited to Sexual harassment (not rape) and Underage drinking.

 

[RavenSky]

Why is it a "stupid question"? Perhaps because the report does not actually give any evidence that the sex was nonconsensual?

It is a stupid fucking question because it shows that you are 100% ignorant as to the actual facts of this case; and that your ignorance is WILLFUL because you are choosing not to read the report. You are making yourself look ridiculous and biased.

I, for one, am not going to spoon-feed it to you.

The report is supposedly 80 pages long. A summery would certainly be in order.

no.

I educated myself about the case by reading the report before commenting. You can do the same or shut the fuck up in this thread. Your choice.

AND YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IF YOU BOTHERED TO EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE MOUTHING OFF ABOUT IT

Again: what evidence of any nonconsensual sex does this 80 page report contain? Because if it doesn't actually provide any evidence, then the punishment against the students was wrong and reading the report would be useless.

Again, you would know how fucking stupid your comments sound if you bothered to read the report for yourself. Read the report and answer your own fucking questions.

I am not going to do your homework for you.
Thank you for admitting you are posting out of complete ignorance of the actual facts of the case and the reasons for the discipline.

I asked you to sum up the facts. That you and RavenSky and others are so adamantly opposed to stating those facts makes me think the entire 80 page report does not contain any actual facts or evidence.

Wrong. Our refusal to spoon feed it to you is because I am sick to fucking death of you spouting off about shit where you don't even know the facts.

And in this case, quite frankly, I am perversely enjoying watching you make a complete and utter fool of yourself.

 

[RavenSky]

Sufficient evidence of University Policy Violations are contained in the University Report.

Is consensual group sex against university policy?
If there is no evidence of non-consent, her regretting it later or it being with more than one person should not be the matter for the university to punish anybody over.

We must end this idiotic doctrine that "regret equals rape" as far as university kangaroo courts are concerned.

You don't even fucking know what anyone was expelled for because you are being willfully ignorant and making yourself look like an idiot.

 

[Elixir]

I, for one, am not going to spoon-feed it to you.

Then you will continue to get the same mindless blanket denials.
Of course you might get the same result, even if armed with one YUUUGE spoon...

 

[RavenSky]

An expulsion is a major punishment that should not be based to very low "preponderance of evidence" standard. Obama administration has fucked up majorly with them mandating lowest possible standard for sexual assault claim adjudications, resulting in many false positives. Before the Obama edict, universities widely used the stronger (and thus less susceptible to false positives) "clear and convincing" standard, which is also widely used for other disciplinary matters on campus. Why should accusations of sexual wrongdoing be handled with a much lower standard of evidence than other claims of student wrongdoing?

- - - Updated - - -

As was pointed out, the University of Minnesota and its findings are different than the police findings.

Just because they are different, does not mean they have to be idiotic. Consent is given at the time. Just because a female student might regret the sex at some later point, does not mean that consent was not given at the time.

Since you have no fucking idea what the University's finding even were, your entire post above is meaningless and as zero application to this case.

 

[RavenSky]

And this is why I haven't bothered with reading the university "report". We have one group trained at finding the truth. We have another group of amateurs with an agenda. It's like the BBC vs Weekly World News.

And because you and Derec refuse to read the report, you illustrate with every post in this thread that you have NO FUCKING CLUE what was determined, who was punished or what each of them was actually punished for.

- - - Updated - - -

I, for one, am not going to spoon-feed it to you.

Then you will continue to get the same mindless blanket denials.
Of course you might get the same result, even if armed with one YUUUGE spoon...

yep

 

[laughing dog]

And this is why I haven't bothered with reading the university "report". We have one group trained at finding the truth. We have another group of amateurs with an agenda. It's like the BBC vs Weekly World News.

One group (the EEOA of Mn) interviewed many more witnesses than another group (the Minneapolis police). One group is trained to investigate violations of University policy (the EEOA of Mn) while another group is not (the Minneapolis police).

You literally have no clue about the evidence that motivated the disciplines nor the reasons (i.e. university policies) used to justify the disciplines. You really have no clue what you talking about.

 

[laughing dog]

I asked you to sum up the facts.

And I asked you to educate yourself by reading the report. And you refused.

That you and RavenSky and others are so adamantly opposed to stating those facts makes me think the entire 80 page report does not contain any actual facts or evidence.

If you were interested in actually thinking instead of spouting knee jerk rape apologia, you'd have read the University report. The source is readily available. It has a table of contents which serves as a guide to any person who is actually interested in information the University used and how it made its determinations were made to find out. In the time you have spent here spewing your ignorance in this case and posting pointless links, you could have read the entire document which may (although I doubt it) changed your views on the discipline meted out.

But why bother educating yourself about the facts of the situation and the reasons for the discipline? After all, why should anyone have any actual knowledge about an actual situation while they try to discuss it? What are you and the other rape apologists afraid of learning?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

False positives? Are we lab testing them now? Seriously, can you give us some stats on all these "false positives"? Because the police not pressing charges are the same thing as innocence, and college records are protected by privacy laws. Many of those men that were found responsible cry injustice because they do not need to bring the college investigation into question. If they feel that they have been wronged they can challenge the findings at the college or in civil court.

It's called binding arbitration. They probably have no meaningful recourse.

Huh? The law states that colleges must allow an appeal and that challenges beyond that can be made in civil court.

 

[laughing dog]

It's called binding arbitration. They probably have no meaningful recourse.

Huh? The law states that colleges must allow an appeal and that challenges beyond that can be made in civil court.

Hey, LP has made it clear to he does not wish to be confused by reality, so stop injecting facts into this discussion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And because you and Derec refuse to read the report, you illustrate with every post in this thread that you have NO FUCKING CLUE what was determined, who was punished or what each of them was actually punished for.

- - - Updated - - -

I, for one, am not going to spoon-feed it to you.

Then you will continue to get the same mindless blanket denials.
Of course you might get the same result, even if armed with one YUUUGE spoon...

yep

He summed up the situation, the problem is that you are taking the university report as the word of god because it says what you want to hear.

I don't give a hoot what they determined because I do not trust that they were either skilled enough to reach a good conclusion or neutral enough to do so. The feds have made it clear they want punishment for sexual offenses based on poor evidence. Exonerating these guys would get them in hot water, expelling them will not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's called binding arbitration. They probably have no meaningful recourse.

Huh? The law states that colleges must allow an appeal and that challenges beyond that can be made in civil court.

So your legislature has gotten sensible and banned the forced binding arbitration???

 

[RavenSky]

And because you and Derec refuse to read the report, you illustrate with every post in this thread that you have NO FUCKING CLUE what was determined, who was punished or what each of them was actually punished for.

I, for one, am not going to spoon-feed it to you.

Then you will continue to get the same mindless blanket denials.
Of course you might get the same result, even if armed with one YUUUGE spoon...

yep

He summed up the situation, the problem is that you are taking the university report as the word of god because it says what you want to hear.

I don't give a hoot what they determined because I do not trust that they were either skilled enough to reach a good conclusion or neutral enough to do so. The feds have made it clear they want punishment for sexual offenses based on poor evidence. Exonerating these guys would get them in hot water, expelling them will not.

You are talking out of your ass because you have no clue whatsoever what the university determined because you refuse to read their report. Since you are not typically a woman-hating misogynist, I'm betting that if you read the report - particularly their determinations as to who would receive punishments and (most importantly) why - you would not be parroting Derec and company about the poor poor man being expelled for "morning after regrets"... or even for rape.

Here's the only clue you are going to get. He wasn't.

Go read the report. If you can't do that, then hoot the fuck out of this thread because you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

 

[laughing dog]

Huh? The law states that colleges must allow an appeal and that challenges beyond that can be made in civil court.

So your legislature has gotten sensible and banned the forced binding arbitration???

Please provide a link that shows prior to this law in Mn there was binding arbitration in these situations.