University of Minnesota Sexual Assault Case

[Toni]

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.

LD is referring to a separate rape case, where the victim was not taken seriously but in fact, was the victim of a serial rapist, who continued to rape victims because earlier victims were not believed. A careful reading of his post will make that clear.

In such a circumstance, it is not unreasonable for a university and for a police department to perhaps exercise greater caution and investigate more thoroughly. Or simply investigate.

 

[Toni]

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.

Not at all. I am not reversing any burden of proof. In fact, this is a discussion, not a police investigation. I am not an investigator, nor a judge or jury or a college administrator. There is no burden of proof. I am a private person. Unlike you and Loren, I do not immediately assume that a woman who makes rape accusations is lying. Perhaps because I've seen women being victimized by groups of men--and fortunately, was able to stop that attack, and in fact, have had the same attempted on me.

Some people have an instinct to flee from danger, and if that is impossible, will attempt to appease their attackers. Other people have the fight instinct and will fight an attacker. I fall into the second category. I don't fault those who fall into the first, however. Nor do I fault those who attempt to appease an attacker or attackers in order to find an opportunity to escape or to minimize injury. Because I have seen, stopped and been the victim of attempted sexual assaults several times over, I have some understanding of what the dynamics are from the standpoint of the victim.

I confess I cannot fathom what goes on in someone's mind that sees a drunk person and thinks: free sex for me and everybody at the party! But I know that such individuals--I hesitate to call them people--exist.

It is easy to see who you identify with. I wonder why that is.

Actually, I don't really.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

What are you afraid of? The report is long, but it is broken up into section with clear titles. Read the first 20 pages to get an idea.

[
Other than knee-jerk believing the female accuser over anything else.

If you had read the report, you would not make such a claim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I consider the police far more qualified than the university in conducting an investigation.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

I'm talking about the cop's description of what's on the video. They are by far the most qualified investigators involved, I see no reason not to think they understand what they're really looking at.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The problem is she's a woman--so you have no need to consider whether she is lying.

Someone simply going along isn't going to appear playful.

And note that the report addresses her level of intoxication.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Why do you consider the university report to be superior to the police report? Amateurs almost never do a better job than pros.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I confess I cannot fathom what goes on in someone's mind that sees a drunk person and thinks: free sex for me and everybody at the party! But I know that such individuals--I hesitate to call them people--exist.

The problem is that you are simply assuming that she's telling the truth.

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you consider the university report to be superior to the police report?

I am not considering it superior. It lays out the evidence it found, the people they found credible (and why), the people who tried to hide evidence, and the university rules it found violated.

Amateurs almost never do a better job than pros.

Read both reports and get back to us on that.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

I consider the police far more qualified than the university in conducting an investigation.

Of course you do. Even without looking at any actual evidence.

 

[Toni]

I confess I cannot fathom what goes on in someone's mind that sees a drunk person and thinks: free sex for me and everybody at the party! But I know that such individuals--I hesitate to call them people--exist.

The problem is that you are simply assuming that she's telling the truth.

The problem is that you assume she is lying.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Well if you are claiming that the 90 second report showed her having consensual sex with 10 or more men, you clearly did not even read the police report, much less the university report.

Go read the reports before you say anything else about any of this.

 

[RavenSky]

I confess I cannot fathom what goes on in someone's mind that sees a drunk person and thinks: free sex for me and everybody at the party! But I know that such individuals--I hesitate to call them people--exist.

The problem is that you are simply assuming that she's telling the truth.

The real problem is that this (like most) rape cases is nuanced - as is the University's findings. Something you would know IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ THE REPORT!!!

Unfortunately, you and Derec and those like you are seemingly unable to comprehend any of the facts of this case; instead you falsely blame the woman.

I particularly love how you two are blathering on and on, screaching and beating your chests, accusing the University of making particular determinations THAT IT DID NOT ACTUALLY MAKE. Again, you would KNOW THIS IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ THE REPORT.

So, here's the deal... every time you or Derec posts anything else in this thread that is not factually accurate, I am going to call you out on it. And I will not be polite about it.

 

[Toni]

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.”

Wow: 8 seconds! Definitive determination of sobriety! Plus the football team said she wanted it. That makes it so.

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.

The problem is she's a woman--so you have no need to consider whether she is lying.

Someone simply going along isn't going to appear playful.

I agree: to you, the problem is she is a woman and you have no need to consider whether she is lying or telling the truth. You assume that she is not.

' Appearing playful' is pretty subjective. You have no idea what she was doing, whether she was trying to appease or attract. Neither did the officers.

You have no idea what it is like to have someone who is much larger and stronger than you are --or multiple someones--to try to force you into a situation you do not want, to be afraid of being hurt, to feel you need to smile and make nice do maybe they'll let you go. And neither did those officers.

Girls are raised to be nice. Not to make a fuss. To please and to appease. To placate. To never forget that you can be hurt. Killed.

The officers seemed to be assessing her behavior according to how men act. No one who is eager to give a blow job asks if she needs to take her gum out. That's a delaying tactic. The officers seem to have been extremely unskilled in assessing behavior. Also extremely gullible to rely on three very short videos taken by the accused without any regard to whether the clips were missing vital pieces that could show a different way of viewing the events of that night.

And note that the report addresses her level of intoxication.

And how did they do that? Certainly not by a BAC-- they were not present to take one. They relied on the testimony of the accused.

What is particularly stunning is that the football team backed down after they learned what really happened.
Apparently they didn't feel it was worth giving up their scholarships to defend the aggregious behavior of teammates.

Why do you consider the university report to be superior to the police report? Amateurs almost never do a better job than pros.

The university in charge of investigating possible Title IX violations and enforcing school policies are not amateurs. Being suspended is not the same thing as facing criminal charges.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm talking about the cop's description of what's on the video. They are by far the most qualified investigators involved, I see no reason not to think they understand what they're really looking at.

I would think a prosecutor would be most qualified. And why does her level of intoxication matter if she is not claiming incapacity?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Why do you consider the university report to be superior to the police report? Amateurs almost never do a better job than pros.

Why do you assume these are amateurs? How much training do the police get in investigation? They college investigators do get extensive training as required by law. Also, apparently (as I found out this morning through private sources) this has happened before with these same individuals, but they were able to escape any repercussions.

As Toni pointed out and I am writing in my final paper:

The institutional investigations are not criminal, but civil in nature, that they do not have the power to fine or incarcerate the responsible party, and the worst a punishment a student can face is expulsion with a note stating the reason on a transcript. Colleges can suspend or expel students for many lesser acts. Colleges cannot subpoena witnesses or force any testimony. Courts can compel individuals to give statements, universities cannot. In the University of Minnesota case, several attempts to reach out to the non-student recruit that participated in the events of September 2nd. The attempts went unanswered and the University did not continue their pursuit because there was no legal way to compel this individual to give a statement.

It would have been up to the lawyers to provide the defense witnesses. (Yes, lawyers can handle these disciplinary cases and did so for the football players.)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why do you consider the university report to be superior to the police report? Amateurs almost never do a better job than pros.

Why do you assume these are amateurs? How much training do the police get in investigation? They college investigators do get extensive training as required by law. Also, apparently (as I found out this morning through private sources) this has happened before with these same individuals, but they were able to escape any repercussions.

What training? In the last thread on this subject, I believe you said that the college investigators got about eight hours worth of training. Is it more than that?

 

[Toni]

Why do you consider the university report to be superior to the police report? Amateurs almost never do a better job than pros.

Why do you assume these are amateurs? How much training do the police get in investigation? They college investigators do get extensive training as required by law.

Yep.

Also, apparently (as I found out this morning through private sources) this has happened before with these same individuals, but they were able to escape any repercussions.

Go figure. On both accounts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that you are simply assuming that she's telling the truth.

The problem is that you assume she is lying.

The cop says the video looks consensual. We have all the elements of a typical regret case. That's why I conclude she's lying.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do you consider the university report to be superior to the police report? Amateurs almost never do a better job than pros.

Why do you assume these are amateurs? How much training do the police get in investigation? They college investigators do get extensive training as required by law. Also, apparently (as I found out this morning through private sources) this has happened before with these same individuals, but they were able to escape any repercussions.

You really think the University investigators are going to be better at investigating that people who have gone to school and do it full time???

 

[Toni]

The problem is that you assume she is lying.

The cop says the video looks consensual. We have all the elements of a typical regret case. That's why I conclude she's lying.

You believe that police can determine consent, and sobriety-- based on three separate videos totaling 90 seconds! provided by the accused !

You are not fooling anyone. You appear to have gained all your insight about women's sexuality by watching porn depicting gang bangs. I'm just waiting for you to tell me that a certain number of women have a clitoris located in their throats. If you are even aware what a clitoris is.

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you assume these are amateurs? How much training do the police get in investigation? They college investigators do get extensive training as required by law. Also, apparently (as I found out this morning through private sources) this has happened before with these same individuals, but they were able to escape any repercussions.

You really think the University investigators are going to be better at investigating that people who have gone to school and do it full time???

University investigators have gone to school. And it is quite possible that the people who have only one case to deal with, will spend more time doing an in-depth investigation. But instead of spouting your kneejerk assumptions, read the University report and see
1) what was alleged,
2) how many men were involved,
3) who the university found credible and their reasons why,
4) what the findings of the university are, and
5) what that disciplinary actions are for