University of Minnesota Sexual Assault Case

[Nice Squirrel]

Not if the journalist is just as much in the dark as we are. That seems to be the case here, as can be seen multiple times in the article:

If only journalists had some way to assemble English words in an order that accurately conveyed what is and isn't known in situations of uncertainty they could avoid creating the appearance of causation where none exists.

But then you'd have to pay them a living wage.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Full police and University of Minnesota reports:
Leaked here: http://kstp.com/sports/university-o...eport-gophers-football-players/4347059/?cat=1

TRIGGER WARNING: Description of sexual misconduct in above linked reports.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Full police and University of Minnesota reports:
Leaked here: http://kstp.com/sports/university-o...eport-gophers-football-players/4347059/?cat=1

TRIGGER WARNING: Description of sexual misconduct in above linked reports.

I haven't read the whole thing but it sure looks like it's consensual + regret, not rape.

 

[Toni]

Full police and University of Minnesota reports:
Leaked here: http://kstp.com/sports/university-o...eport-gophers-football-players/4347059/?cat=1

TRIGGER WARNING: Description of sexual misconduct in above linked reports.

I haven't read the whole thing but it sure looks like it's consensual + regret, not rape.

Well, maybe you should try reading the whole thing. Including the police report. Before you decide what it sounds like. Because your post sounds like you don't know or care whether or not it was rape. You've already decided that it was 'consensual + regret.' Without bothering to actually....inform yourself.

As far as consent goes: legally, drunk = no consent. Coerced 'consent' = no consent. No consent = rape.

 

[Derec]

As far as consent goes: legally, drunk = no consent. Coerced 'consent' = no consent. No consent = rape.

Nope.
"Legally drunk", usually 0.08% BAC is relevant only for being allowed to operate motor vehicles. It is not a threshold of consent. Plenty of people have sex while "legally drunk" consensually. If the guy was over the limit, does that mean that she raped him as well? Or is it part of female privilege that your radfems so vociferously defend that these claims can only be made by women?
Coercion would work except that the term has been stretched beyond breaking point. Some "anti-rape activists" claim that if a guy says that he will break up with a girl if she doesn't put out that that counts as "coercion" and that it is thus "rape". That is obviously nonsensical.

 

[Derec]

Full police and University of Minnesota reports:
Leaked here: http://kstp.com/sports/university-o...eport-gophers-football-players/4347059/?cat=1

TRIGGER WARNING: Description of sexual misconduct in above linked reports.

Why are identities (including photos) of the accused released, while the identity of the accuser is hidden? It should be either both or neither, especially since there will be no charges filed.

 

[Arctish]

Coercion would work except that the term has been stretched beyond breaking point. Some "anti-rape activists" claim that if a guy says that he will break up with a girl if she doesn't put out that that counts as "coercion" and that it is thus "rape". That is obviously nonsensical.

It's nonsensical because it's a bastardized version of the actual argument.

The actual argument is that a person in a position of power, one who can inflict actual harm on another by withdrawing support and who uses that power to pressure a reluctant partner into having sex, is committing sexual assault aka rape because the consent they received was coerced.

 

[Toni]

As far as consent goes: legally, drunk = no consent. Coerced 'consent' = no consent. No consent = rape.

Nope.
"Legally drunk", usually 0.08% BAC is relevant only for being allowed to operate motor vehicles. It is not a threshold of consent. Plenty of people have sex while "legally drunk" consensually. If the guy was over the limit, does that mean that she raped him as well? Or is it part of female privilege that your radfems so vociferously defend that these claims can only be made by women?
Coercion would work except that the term has been stretched beyond breaking point. Some "anti-rape activists" claim that if a guy says that he will break up with a girl if she doesn't put out that that counts as "coercion" and that it is thus "rape". That is obviously nonsensical.

Nope. I did not say too drunk to legally operate a motor vehicle. I did not specify-sloppy on my part but I was on the run. My bad.

 

[dismal]

I haven't read the whole thing but it sure looks like it's consensual + regret, not rape.

Well, maybe you should try reading the whole thing. Including the police report. Before you decide what it sounds like. Because your post sounds like you don't know or care whether or not it was rape. You've already decided that it was 'consensual + regret.' Without bothering to actually....inform yourself.

As far as consent goes: legally, drunk = no consent. Coerced 'consent' = no consent. No consent = rape.

So you're saying she raped all those drunk guys?

 

[Toni]

Coercion would work except that the term has been stretched beyond breaking point. Some "anti-rape activists" claim that if a guy says that he will break up with a girl if she doesn't put out that that counts as "coercion" and that it is thus "rape". That is obviously nonsensical.

It's nonsensical because it's a bastardized version of the actual argument.

The actual argument is that a person in a position of power, one who can inflict actual harm on another by withdrawing support and who uses that power to pressure a reluctant partner into having sex, is committing sexual assault aka rape because the consent they received was coerced.

Exactly.

In this case, a young woman was drunk enough she didn't understand what was going on and was trying to make it stop. There were multiple males involved, members of a university football team. It is unlikely she could have fought any one of them off, much less 10 or more. Apparently none of the witnesses was willing to come to her aid.

 

[Toni]

Well, maybe you should try reading the whole thing. Including the police report. Before you decide what it sounds like. Because your post sounds like you don't know or care whether or not it was rape. You've already decided that it was 'consensual + regret.' Without bothering to actually....inform yourself.

As far as consent goes: legally, drunk = no consent. Coerced 'consent' = no consent. No consent = rape.

So you're saying she raped all those drunk guys?

It is entirely possible for a drunk guy to force himself upon another person, to rape. Now I know for some guys, especially after a certain age, alcohol consumption can interfere with the ability to sustain or even achieve an erection. You would know more than i would the extent of possible impairment, and variables contributing to alcohol induced sexual dysfunction.

But there were young athletes, in prime physical condition, with the full support of a large group of team members.

If it were a different situation: a guy was extremely drunk, tricked into entering a bedroom with multiple women, pushed onto a bed while multiple women performed sex acts or forced him to perform sex acts, he would be a rape victim. Even if it were only one woman and she was much smaller than him.

But that isn't what happened. A person who was extremely drunk was tricked into going into a bedroom with a couple of other people who began to sexually assault A, who simply wanted it to stop, who didn't understand what was going on. Standersby, instead of coming to the aid of A, participated and videotaped and shared the incident via social media.

One question is if no one had been drinking, if A had been lured or tricked into an isolated space where multiple individuals had forced sex, wouldn't that have been rape? Standersby failing to aid but participating and recording and sharing the incident would also be culpable.

Of course, to certain kinds of people, someone who is extremely drunk = opportunity to do whatever you like. Maybe invite your buddies. I've run into those kinds of people. Stopped a roomful of guys from running a train on a friend. Stopped the guy who tried to rape me.

 

[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/).

 

[dismal]

So you're saying she raped all those drunk guys?

It is entirely possible for a drunk guy to force himself upon another person, to rape. Now I know for some guys, especially after a certain age, alcohol consumption can interfere with the ability to sustain or even achieve an erection. You would know more than i would the extent of possible impairment, and variables contributing to alcohol induced sexual dysfunction.

But there were young athletes, in prime physical condition, with the full support of a large group of team members.

If it were a different situation: a guy was extremely drunk, tricked into entering a bedroom with multiple women, pushed onto a bed while multiple women performed sex acts or forced him to perform sex acts, he would be a rape victim. Even if it were only one woman and she was much smaller than him.

But that isn't what happened. A person who was extremely drunk was tricked into going into a bedroom with a couple of other people who began to sexually assault A, who simply wanted it to stop, who didn't understand what was going on. Standersby, instead of coming to the aid of A, participated and videotaped and shared the incident via social media.

One question is if no one had been drinking, if A had been lured or tricked into an isolated space where multiple individuals had forced sex, wouldn't that have been rape? Standersby failing to aid but participating and recording and sharing the incident would also be culpable.

Of course, to certain kinds of people, someone who is extremely drunk = opportunity to do whatever you like. Maybe invite your buddies. I've run into those kinds of people. Stopped a roomful of guys from running a train on a friend. Stopped the guy who tried to rape me.

You seem to be offering a lot of rape apologetics there. If those guys were drunk they were not capable of giving consent.

 

[Toni]

It is entirely possible for a drunk guy to force himself upon another person, to rape. Now I know for some guys, especially after a certain age, alcohol consumption can interfere with the ability to sustain or even achieve an erection. You would know more than i would the extent of possible impairment, and variables contributing to alcohol induced sexual dysfunction.

But there were young athletes, in prime physical condition, with the full support of a large group of team members.

If it were a different situation: a guy was extremely drunk, tricked into entering a bedroom with multiple women, pushed onto a bed while multiple women performed sex acts or forced him to perform sex acts, he would be a rape victim. Even if it were only one woman and she was much smaller than him.

But that isn't what happened. A person who was extremely drunk was tricked into going into a bedroom with a couple of other people who began to sexually assault A, who simply wanted it to stop, who didn't understand what was going on. Standersby, instead of coming to the aid of A, participated and videotaped and shared the incident via social media.

One question is if no one had been drinking, if A had been lured or tricked into an isolated space where multiple individuals had forced sex, wouldn't that have been rape? Standersby failing to aid but participating and recording and sharing the incident would also be culpable.

Of course, to certain kinds of people, someone who is extremely drunk = opportunity to do whatever you like. Maybe invite your buddies. I've run into those kinds of people. Stopped a roomful of guys from running a train on a friend. Stopped the guy who tried to rape me.

You seem to be offering a lot of rape apologetics there. If those guys were drunk they were not capable of giving consent.

Nope. You seem to be unable to understand the written word.

 

[dismal]

Pp

As far as consent goes: legally, drunk = no consent. Coerced 'consent' = no consent. No consent = rape.

No I got the whole meaning of words thing down fine. These words mean shevraped all those drunk guys.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I haven't read the whole thing but it sure looks like it's consensual + regret, not rape.

Well, maybe you should try reading the whole thing. Including the police report. Before you decide what it sounds like. Because your post sounds like you don't know or care whether or not it was rape. You've already decided that it was 'consensual + regret.' Without bothering to actually....inform yourself.

As far as consent goes: legally, drunk = no consent. Coerced 'consent' = no consent. No consent = rape.

Yeah, look at the police reports. Specifically, where the cops are describing what they saw on the video.

Consensual sex involving multiple partners with someone who was not seriously impaired.

QED.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, look at the police reports. Specifically, where the cops are describing what they saw on the video.

Consensual sex involving multiple partners with someone who was not seriously impaired.

QED.

Read the University report. QED.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Coercion would work except that the term has been stretched beyond breaking point. Some "anti-rape activists" claim that if a guy says that he will break up with a girl if she doesn't put out that that counts as "coercion" and that it is thus "rape". That is obviously nonsensical.

It's nonsensical because it's a bastardized version of the actual argument.

The actual argument is that a person in a position of power, one who can inflict actual harm on another by withdrawing support and who uses that power to pressure a reluctant partner into having sex, is committing sexual assault aka rape because the consent they received was coerced.

Except that's the definition of the women-are-never-responsible crowd rather than a proper definition.

Under this definition it would be illegal to say that you are considering breaking up with a live-in girlfriend due to a lack of sex. Some leeches might like that but it's not reasonable.

- - - Updated - - -

It's nonsensical because it's a bastardized version of the actual argument.

The actual argument is that a person in a position of power, one who can inflict actual harm on another by withdrawing support and who uses that power to pressure a reluctant partner into having sex, is committing sexual assault aka rape because the consent they received was coerced.

Exactly.

In this case, a young woman was drunk enough she didn't understand what was going on and was trying to make it stop. There were multiple males involved, members of a university football team. It is unlikely she could have fought any one of them off, much less 10 or more. Apparently none of the witnesses was willing to come to her aid.

So a woman who has a sip of alcohol isn't responsible for anything? (Hint: The video shows a woman who wasn't nearly as impaired as you think.)

 

[laughing dog]

So a woman who has a sip of alcohol isn't responsible for anything?

According to the reports, this woman had much more than a sip of alcohol.

(Hint: The video shows a woman who wasn't nearly as impaired as you think.)

She does not show impairment. Which does not mean she was not impaired mentally and/or emotionally.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to the reports, this woman had much more than a sip of alcohol.

(Hint: The video shows a woman who wasn't nearly as impaired as you think.)

She does not show impairment. Which does not mean she was not impaired mentally and/or emotionally.

But it's unlikely she was all that impaired. The cop probably has a decent idea of how impaired someone is.