University of Minnesota Sexual Assault Case

[laughing dog]

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

You have no clue whether the police have a decent idea or not. Read the University report. Among other things, it explains the rationales for the decisions.

 

[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.

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.

Because the University of Minnesota did not release this information. It was released by the lawyers representing the football players.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.)

Well, for the first part, it is common that people blame female victims of sexual assault for being willing if there was any alcohol involved. Even a sip can turn a rape into consensual sex in some peoples eyes. Secondly, it is not illegal to drink or be intoxicated. It is to sexually assault somebody. Thirdly, some people can be quite drunk without displaying behaviors typically associated with drinking. Fourthly, it is possible to have granted consent to one or two individuals, but not to others.

And lastly, how did you get a copy of the video and why did you watch it?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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

Which cop are you referring to? The one on the phone talking to a third party hours after the assault took place? Or the mythical one that was present during the assault that was monitoring her suspected impairment level through sight?

 

[Toni]

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.)

Well, for the first part, it is common that people blame female victims of sexual assault for being willing if there was any alcohol involved. Even a sip can turn a rape into consensual sex in some peoples eyes. Secondly, it is not illegal to drink or be intoxicated. It is to sexually assault somebody. Thirdly, some people can be quite drunk without displaying behaviors typically associated with drinking. Fourthly, it is possible to have granted consent to one or two individuals, but not to others.

And lastly, how did you get a copy of the video and why did you watch it?

Please don't expect Loren to think rationally. He's still recovering from the orgasm he got from reading (or rather reading that there was one) the police report.

Besides, it's always the woman's fault. And all young women really really want to have sex with multiple football players they do not know--or just random men! It just takes a sip-or 20 of hard liquor to let them admit it. I mean, most porno films are actually docu-dramas.

 

[Derec]

Which cop are you referring to? The one on the phone talking to a third party hours after the assault took place? Or the mythical one that was present during the assault that was monitoring her suspected impairment level through sight?

It should be up to the police or the university to prove that the girl was too impaired to consent, not on the defendants to prove that she wasn't. That the police (or university kangaroo court officials) weren't there to check her impairment levels means that they can't prove impairment. In dubio pro reo!

P.S.: Why are you calling it assault? Were you there to know? All we know is that there was group sex. Whether or not it was assault is unknown and probably unknowable at this point.

 

[dismal]

Well, for the first part, it is common that people blame female victims of sexual assault for being willing if there was any alcohol involved. Even a sip can turn a rape into consensual sex in some peoples eyes. Secondly, it is not illegal to drink or be intoxicated. It is to sexually assault somebody. Thirdly, some people can be quite drunk without displaying behaviors typically associated with drinking. Fourthly, it is possible to have granted consent to one or two individuals, but not to others.

And lastly, how did you get a copy of the video and why did you watch it?

Please don't expect Loren to think rationally. He's still recovering from the orgasm he got from reading (or rather reading that there was one) the police report.

Besides, it's always the woman's fault. And all young women really really want to have sex with multiple football players they do not know--or just random men! It just takes a sip-or 20 of hard liquor to let them admit it. I mean, most porno films are actually docu-dramas.

Since you must not have read the article in the OP:

On Sept. 8, police investigators Eric Faulconer and Matthew Wente interviewed Djam. He acknowledged having sex with the woman, but was adamant that it was consensual. As proof, he played them three separate videos, totaling about 90 seconds, taken that morning.

During an 8-second clip, the woman “appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,” Wente wrote in his report. After viewing two additional videos, he wrote “the sexual contact appears entirely consensual.”

 

[Derec]

Since you must not have read the article in the OP:

On Sept. 8, police investigators Eric Faulconer and Matthew Wente interviewed Djam. He acknowledged having sex with the woman, but was adamant that it was consensual. As proof, he played them three separate videos, totaling about 90 seconds, taken that morning.

During an 8-second clip, the woman “appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,” Wente wrote in his report. After viewing two additional videos, he wrote “the sexual contact appears entirely consensual.”

But that's impossible because no woman would ever consent to group sex. Also, women don't lie about rape. </radfem>

 

[laughing dog]

Which cop are you referring to? The one on the phone talking to a third party hours after the assault took place? Or the mythical one that was present during the assault that was monitoring her suspected impairment level through sight?

It should be up to the police or the university to prove that the girl was too impaired to consent, not on the defendants to prove that she wasn't. That the police (or university kangaroo court officials) weren't there to check her impairment levels means that they can't prove impairment. In dubio pro reo!

P.S.: Why are you calling it assault? Were you there to know? All we know is that there was group sex. Whether or not it was assault is unknown and probably unknowable at this point.

The University called it assault. If you read the University report, you would know that.

 

[Derec]

The University called it assault. If you read the University report, you would know that.

Based on what exactly are they calling it an assault, other than based on the same sexist prejudices certain people on here are exhibiting as well?
The video seems to show the woman "appear[ing] lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,”. That does not look like assault to me.

Contrary to what some radfems believe, regret does not equal rape.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Which cop are you referring to? The one on the phone talking to a third party hours after the assault took place? Or the mythical one that was present during the assault that was monitoring her suspected impairment level through sight?

It should be up to the police or the university to prove that the girl was too impaired to consent, not on the defendants to prove that she wasn't.

You can sexually assault someone regardless of their level of intoxication.

That the police (or university kangaroo court officials) weren't there to check her impairment levels means that they can't prove impairment. In dubio pro reo!

Loren says the police could tell even though the police did not meet with her until she was sober. He's has some miracle evidence given to him but denied to all other parties.

P.S.: Why are you calling it assault? Were you there to know? All we know is that there was group sex. Whether or not it was assault is unknown and probably unknowable at this point.

I read the investigative report. It's very assaulty to me.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

WTF ! These guys are pigs at the very least, scumbag rapists probably.

 

[laughing dog]

The University called it assault. If you read the University report, you would know that.

Based on what exactly are they calling it an assault, other than based on the same sexist prejudices certain people on here are exhibiting as well?

There is clear evidence that you are capable of reading. So instead of engaging your usual ignorance-based rape apologia, read the University report.

It explains in detail the information it obtained, and why some witnesses were found to more credible than others. BTW, the University found the woman was not incapacitated by alcohol according to University standards.

There were 12 men involved. The videos capture a tiny portion of the alleged events.

 

[Toni]

Please don't expect Loren to think rationally. He's still recovering from the orgasm he got from reading (or rather reading that there was one) the police report.

Besides, it's always the woman's fault. And all young women really really want to have sex with multiple football players they do not know--or just random men! It just takes a sip-or 20 of hard liquor to let them admit it. I mean, most porno films are actually docu-dramas.

Since you must not have read the article in the OP:

On Sept. 8, police investigators Eric Faulconer and Matthew Wente interviewed Djam. He acknowledged having sex with the woman, but was adamant that it was consensual. As proof, he played them three separate videos, totaling about 90 seconds, taken that morning.

During an 8-second clip, the woman “appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,” Wente wrote in his report. After viewing two additional videos, he wrote “the sexual contact appears entirely consensual.”

It is extremely easy to determine consent from 3 separate videos totaling 90! Seconds! Provided, no doubt by participants. No need to consider blood alcohol of the victim, no need to consider whether she was willing or simply cooperating in order to escape a situation where she was surrounded by at least 10 football players, none of whom considered that perhaps she wasn't actually willing but too drunk to escape and was in survival mode, which often includes appeasement. After all, we do not trust confessions obtained by torture for good reason.

Thank heavens there is no possibility of video being edited or altered in any way.

 

[Trausti]

Since you must not have read the article in the OP:

On Sept. 8, police investigators Eric Faulconer and Matthew Wente interviewed Djam. He acknowledged having sex with the woman, but was adamant that it was consensual. As proof, he played them three separate videos, totaling about 90 seconds, taken that morning.

During an 8-second clip, the woman “appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,” Wente wrote in his report. After viewing two additional videos, he wrote “the sexual contact appears entirely consensual.”

It is extremely easy to determine consent from 3 separate videos totaling 90! Seconds! Provided, no doubt by participants. No need to consider blood alcohol of the victim, no need to consider whether she was willing or simply cooperating in order to escape a situation where she was surrounded by at least 10 football players, none of whom considered that perhaps she wasn't actually willing but too drunk to escape and was in survival mode, which often includes appeasement. After all, we do not trust confessions obtained by torture for good reason.

Thank heavens there is no possibility of video being edited or altered in any way.

You're just injecting doubt into this occurrence. The more doubt, the more reason to avoid prosecution.

 

[Derec]

It is extremely easy to determine consent from 3 separate videos totaling 90! Seconds! Provided, no doubt by participants. No need to consider blood alcohol of the victim, no need to consider whether she was willing or simply cooperating in order to escape a situation where she was surrounded by at least 10 football players, none of whom considered that perhaps she wasn't actually willing but too drunk to escape and was in survival mode, which often includes appeasement. After all, we do not trust confessions obtained by torture for good reason.

Thank heavens there is no possibility of video being edited or altered in any way.

You are again reversing burden of proof, assuming it was "rape" and she a "victim" until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, too many colleges operate on the same perverted principle.

 

[laughing dog]

You are again reversing burden of proof, assuming it was "rape" and she a "victim" until proven otherwise.

The U. of Mn administration believes the allegations of sexual assault have been proven. Otherwise, they would not have disciplined these men. Instead of engaging in kneejerk rape apologia, read the University report.

 

[Derec]

The U. of Mn administration believes the allegations of sexual assault have been proven. Otherwise, they would not have disciplined these men. Instead of engaging in kneejerk rape apologia, read the University report.

How about you tell me, from reading this "report", what the alleged evidence actually is. Other than knee-jerk believing the female accuser over anything else.

Also, as we have seen from case upon case (Vasser, Amherst, Occidental, Washington&Lee) that just because a college decides the accused is/are guilty does not mean they factually are.

 

[Malintent]

I think the issue Derec is underscoring here is that IF the woman WAS engaged in various activities that WOULD get her expelled, then by her simply CLAIMING to have been raped at the time these activities were occurring, makes her immune to the penalties of her violations. The claim of Rape becomes a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card. And people like you eat it right up, creating America's Rape Accusation Culture whereby accusations serve as a tool to further support Female Privilege

That is as an idiotic claim as the one that people like you are rape apologists for men.

The men involved in this situation are members of the U of Mn football team and the woman is not. These men agreed to abide by the rules of conduct for the U of Mn football team. These men are being disciplined by the football coach for perceived violations of those rules. Since the woman is not a member of the football team, she is not subject to their rules. No one has indicated what U. of Mn student conduct rules she may have broken. All that is alleged (as is the usual case from the usual suspects) is that the woman lied about all of this and she ought to be sanctioned for that lie.

I will say that the U. of Mn recently had some bad pr when a story broke out about a student who had been raped on campus and whose story was not taken seriously by either the police or campus officials. She persisted and finally with the help of an experienced ex-investigator broke the case open and her rapist (who was serial rapist on campus) eventually confessed and was convicted. As a result, I imagine U of Mn officials are sensitive about these situations and the public image of the U.

not sure if you are correctly quoting the thing you are replying to, since it does not parse, but the rules I referred to in what you quoted have nothing to do with the football team.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is extremely easy to determine consent from 3 separate videos totaling 90! Seconds! Provided, no doubt by participants. No need to consider blood alcohol of the victim, no need to consider whether she was willing or simply cooperating in order to escape a situation where she was surrounded by at least 10 football players, none of whom considered that perhaps she wasn't actually willing but too drunk to escape and was in survival mode, which often includes appeasement. After all, we do not trust confessions obtained by torture for good reason.

Thank heavens there is no possibility of video being edited or altered in any way.

You are again reversing burden of proof, assuming it was "rape" and she a "victim" until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, too many colleges operate on the same perverted principle.

Reversing the burden of proof you say?

How would you call it? Oh yes, she is a woman, so you think she is entitled to kill her boyfriends and husbands just by playing the victim.

No, I am not. She should be in prison instead of having sex while under house arrest. That has nothing to do with "slut shaming". A non-murderous woman can have all the sex she wants as far as I care.

Edit: and this coming from the guy who hires prostitutes, sex slaves, and rapes them. Oh, wait, you don't like me calling it rape when you do it? Do you not like it when the shoe is on the other foot?

Very different. You said that women "sometimes" have the right to murder their boyfriends and husbands, hiding behind circumlocutions like "those that lack testosterone".
I on the other hand only have consensual sex.

There you go again begging the question that it is murder.

So how is that raping of sex slaves working out for you. Rapedy rape rape rapey rape. Rape.


rape

I'm just going to point out that you are not one to talk about reversing the burden of proof. You beg too many questions, and then conveniently forget that you did it. Then again you also rape many sex slaves. Rapey rape rapedy rape rape rape rapist rape.

Rape