The Manhood Trap

[Loren Pechtel]

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Wut?
You think guilty scumbags can’t get lawyers?

Civil. Such cases are usually taken on contingency, lawyers care very much about whether they expect to win when taking a case.

 

[Elixir]

Such cases are usually taken on contingency, lawyers care very much about whether they expect to win when taking a case.

I don’t know that either of those things are true. There’s a reason that lawyers’ collective reputations are virtually the same as that of… uh … lawyers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Victims may be reluctant to come forward because misogynist assholes refer to them as ‘victims’. And much, much worse.

Their ‘side’ would never be presented by the accused’s lawyers. Hell, we do not even know the accused’s side. We only know his attorney’s well crafted for public consumption storyline.

Lawyers for defense clients take cases of their clients or their clients’ parents can pay.

What is with everyone not getting it about contingency fees? This isn't about defense, this is about suing the school over what happened.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

The victims do present their side to the school. They are not required to go public.

But the lawyers would get the records in such a lawsuit.

And the problem is that the accused is generally not allowed to present their side. Kangaroo court.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Lawyers in these cases tend to get paid by the billable hour, so I think you are naive.

No, we are talking about suing the school. That's normally contingency.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

 

[laughing dog]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

The victims do present their side to the school. They are not required to go public.

But the lawyers would get the records in such a lawsuit.

And the problem is that the accused is generally not allowed to present their side. Kangaroo court.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Lawyers in these cases tend to get paid by the billable hour, so I think you are naive.

No, we are talking about suing the school. That's normally contingency.

So the expulsion is not ruining anyone’s life.

 

[Toni]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

It seems far less severe than how you view a young black man accused of raping a young woman, with neither of them being college students.

 

[Toni]

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing it's very hard to find a neutral voice. Are you saying what they said was false??

If is incomplete and self-serving. Universities and colleges are restricted by law what they can reveal. So all the public sees is the accused’s version and maybe the victim’s side of the story.

The "victims" could present their side. They generally don't.

Besides, if the school had a good basis for expelling them a lawyer wouldn't take the case.

Victims may be reluctant to come forward because misogynist assholes refer to them as ‘victims’. And much, much worse.

Their ‘side’ would never be presented by the accused’s lawyers. Hell, we do not even know the accused’s side. We only know his attorney’s well crafted for public consumption storyline.

Lawyers for defense clients take cases of their clients or their clients’ parents can pay.

What is with everyone not getting it about contingency fees? This isn't about defense, this is about suing the school over what happened.

What kind of contingency fee do you believe would be collected in such a case? Why and who would pay?

Contingency fees raise the stakes for defense attorneys to craft a narrative that makes their client appear blameless while the victim is pained as a lying, scheming harlot who is probably mentally ill and mixes meds with too much booze.

 

[Toni]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

You seem to find it perfectly acceptable that drunk = consent.

 

[laughing dog]

But the lawyers would get the records in such a lawsuit.

Irrelevant to the issue of the full facts becoming public.

And the problem is that the accused is generally not allowed to present their side. Kangaroo court.

I missed this whooper. In my experience in academia, and that of my friends and colleagues, institutions do investigate and do get the accused’s version. That has been true for decades. I seriously doubt you have a clue about what goes on except what you might read in some sensational case.

 

[Bronzeage]

If a school is informed of a student who may be a hazard in the future, the standard of "reasonable doubt" does not apply. Whether they expel him to protect other students from harm, or to protect their financial interests, doesn't really matter. If they allow a known hazard to continue, they are now complicit and will have to shoulder the blame for whatever happens.

Yeah, but so what?

This amounts to accusation = punishment. You find that acceptable?

Yeah, so what? Every job comes with a set of expectations and obligations. A school Admin is expected and obligated to keep the campus safe and ensure the financial survival of the school.

A few years back, Hoverboards were the must have Christmas present. There was no ruled concerning Hoverboards or any other similar devices. When LSU started the spring semester there were two dorm fires caused by Hoverboards being charged. The immediate reaction was to ban Hoverboards on campus. That's an easy call, without regard to anyone's personal right to legally possess a Hoverboard, or the protest, "I don't leave my Hoverboard unattended on a charger." The Amin can't leave a known hazard in place, no matter how unlikely it is to reoccur.

Life is full of judgment calls and you can't please everybody. If nothing else, expelling one student because of a plausible accusation of sexual assault will likely reduce the incidence of such things.

It's been a long time since I've spent a lot of time on a college campus, but I know one thing for certain. In those days, sexual assault, date rape, PYL, etc, was very common. Any time I heard about it, I never doubted the accusation. The standard response to the woman, if she bothered to report it was, "You'll know better next time." Expelling the man involved is basically applying the same remedy to him.