University of Minnesota Sexual Assault Case

[laughing dog]

Making a false allegation is prima facie evidence of lying.

No, it is not. It is prima facie evidence of a mistake. You are making possible false allegations that these women are lying. According to you, that is prima facie evidence that you are lying.

If you somehow claim that these women did not know what they were doing (feminism infantalizes women by demanding they not be held accountable for their actions, see also the thread on the woman hiring a hit man) then the burden to prove this is on you.

You are now resorting to childish babble. Someone may believe she or he has been raped. That is sufficient to mean the allegation, while false, is not a lie. This is basic reasoning.

 

[KeepTalking]

They were suspended by the coach of the team, this indicates to me that they broke team rules. I doubt that the female student in this case was on the football team, so it would be hard for her to be suspended from the team for breaking team rules.

They are still facing possible expulsion by the school administrator while the accuser is facing no consequences even if it turns out she was lying.

If they are facing disciplinary action for underage drinking, and/or drug use, and the female was not underage, not shown to have been drinking, or not shown to have used drugs in the video, then this is exactly what I would expect. There are too many ifs in this situation. It doesn't help either side, here on the board, that the coaches and administrators involved are citing privacy concerns to avoid providing any details at this point. These details may come out at some point, but right now we are left with too much to speculate on.

 

[Malintent]

They are still facing possible expulsion by the school administrator while the accuser is facing no consequences even if it turns out she was lying.

If they are facing disciplinary action for underage drinking, and/or drug use, and the female was not underage, not shown to have been drinking, or not shown to have used drugs in the video, then this is exactly what I would expect. There are too many ifs in this situation. It doesn't help either side, here on the board, that the coaches and administrators involved are citing privacy concerns to avoid providing any details at this point. These details may come out at some point, but right now we are left with too much to speculate on.

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

 

[laughing dog]

If they are facing disciplinary action for underage drinking, and/or drug use, and the female was not underage, not shown to have been drinking, or not shown to have used drugs in the video, then this is exactly what I would expect. There are too many ifs in this situation. It doesn't help either side, here on the board, that the coaches and administrators involved are citing privacy concerns to avoid providing any details at this point. These details may come out at some point, but right now we are left with too much to speculate on.

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.

 

[KeepTalking]

If they are facing disciplinary action for underage drinking, and/or drug use, and the female was not underage, not shown to have been drinking, or not shown to have used drugs in the video, then this is exactly what I would expect. There are too many ifs in this situation. It doesn't help either side, here on the board, that the coaches and administrators involved are citing privacy concerns to avoid providing any details at this point. These details may come out at some point, but right now we are left with too much to speculate on.

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.

I know which hobby horse Derec is riding in this thread, and don't care to comment further about that particular issue. I am simply trying to show that there is much with this case that is unknown, and several possible reasons as to why them boys would be disciplined, but not the girl.

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

And people like you can go fuck themselves. I have been deliberately steering clear of that part of the thread, but my views on the subject are far more nuanced than you might imagine.

 

[ronburgundy]

Maybe, but that would seem to render this part of the story fake news:

A student’s claim last September that she was sexually assaulted prompted the University of Minnesota to suspend 10 Gophers football players from the team, weeks after a criminal probe resulted in no charges.

Not really. If the claim is what brought to light the underage drinking, drugs, and pornography, it prompted the removal of them regardless of whether the claim was the deciding factor. It was the prompt for an investigation that led to the removal. It prompted the removal. Prompt prompt. Prompt.

Such phrasing strongly implies that the accusation itself was THE causal factor and the only one worth mentioning. IF it was actually any of those other things, the the accusation would be a completely unnecessary and insufficient incidental event to what actually prompted their suspension.
IT would be, at minimum, a case of grossly dishonest journalism with the deliberate intent to mislead.

Also, if it was the filming of sex, then the University still recklessly over-stepped its authority since being filmed having sex is in no way illegal in the US, nor anything that a public University has the right to punish students for. While distributing porn in an uncontrolled manner that allows minors to access it is illegal, there is almost zero chance the University would have any evidence that all 10 of the men suspended were involved specifically in the distribution of the video, given that many of them unlikely knew the video was taken.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why? Do the police decide whether or not football players violated team rules?

If the rule in question is "Don't rape people", then yes, they do decide that.

If the rule in question is "Wash your jock strap after each practice", then that's probably not a police matter.

Exactly. The charge is rape. If the police decided they didn't do it then the school shouldn't override that.

 

[laughing dog]

If the rule in question is "Don't rape people", then yes, they do decide that.

If the rule in question is "Wash your jock strap after each practice", then that's probably not a police matter.

Exactly. The charge is rape. If the police decided they didn't do it then the school shouldn't override that.

You don't know if the police decided there was no rape, or if they decided they did not have enough evidence to pursue a rape charge.

The U. is entitled to make such decisions based on its own criteria unless or until it is over-ridden by a higher authority.

In this case, we do not know the reason(s) for the discipline. The discipline may be for actions other than the alleged rape.

 

[KeepTalking]

Maybe, but that would seem to render this part of the story fake news:

A student’s claim last September that she was sexually assaulted prompted the University of Minnesota to suspend 10 Gophers football players from the team, weeks after a criminal probe resulted in no charges.

Not really. If the claim is what brought to light the underage drinking, drugs, and pornography, it prompted the removal of them regardless of whether the claim was the deciding factor. It was the prompt for an investigation that led to the removal. It prompted the removal. Prompt prompt. Prompt.

Such phrasing strongly implies that the accusation itself was THE causal factor and the only one worth mentioning. IF it was actually any of those other things, the the accusation would be a completely unnecessary and insufficient incidental event to what actually prompted their suspension.
IT would be, at minimum, a case of grossly dishonest journalism with the deliberate intent to mislead.

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:

(University President Eric) Kaler wrote. “While we strive to be transparent in all that we do, the fact is that, under the law, our students have privacy rights that we value and respect.”

The university’s statement said: “Due to privacy restrictions relating to student educational data, there is nothing further the University can share.”

The journalist knows that there was a sexual assault allegation, that there was a video of the alleged assault, and that there were team suspensions as a result of the University investigating the alleged assault and video, as well as possible further action against the students involved. Beyond that, the University is being very tight lipped about the details, and claiming that this is due to privacy restrictions.

 

[J842P]

That varies from from college to college. Brigham Young only decided twop weeks ago to stop punishing students coming forward with sexual assault violations who were assaulted while violating conduct codes against drinking, dancing, etc. (Yes there are schools that prohibit dancing and being alone with the opposite sex.)

If even BYU does it, then it is safe to assume this university does too. I think it's wrong for a female can escape punishment for school violation just by alleging rape. It gives her extra incentive to do so even if the sex was completely consensual or even if no sex ever took place (see Jackie Coakley false rape allegations at UVA). Caught underage drinking or doing drugs? Just say you were "raped" and they can't touch you. Also your use of "who were assaulted" implies that all such claims are true, which is certainly bullshit.

Generally, no one gets in serious trouble for underage drinking at UVA. Even the police will not bust you unless you are being belligerent.

 

[ronburgundy]

Maybe, but that would seem to render this part of the story fake news:

A student’s claim last September that she was sexually assaulted prompted the University of Minnesota to suspend 10 Gophers football players from the team, weeks after a criminal probe resulted in no charges.

Not really. If the claim is what brought to light the underage drinking, drugs, and pornography, it prompted the removal of them regardless of whether the claim was the deciding factor. It was the prompt for an investigation that led to the removal. It prompted the removal. Prompt prompt. Prompt.

Such phrasing strongly implies that the accusation itself was THE causal factor and the only one worth mentioning. IF it was actually any of those other things, the the accusation would be a completely unnecessary and insufficient incidental event to what actually prompted their suspension.
IT would be, at minimum, a case of grossly dishonest journalism with the deliberate intent to mislead.

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 they are in the dark, then asserting a direct causal link (which they do) when they have no evidence of this is dishonest, incompetent journalism.

(University President Eric) Kaler wrote. “While we strive to be transparent in all that we do, the fact is that, under the law, our students have privacy rights that we value and respect.”

The university’s statement said: “Due to privacy restrictions relating to student educational data, there is nothing further the University can share.”

The journalist knows that there was a sexual assault allegation, that there was a video of the alleged assault, and that there were team suspensions as a result of the University investigating the alleged assault and video, as well as possible further action against the students involved. Beyond that, the University is being very tight lipped about the details, and claiming that this is due to privacy restrictions.

How sad the the law allows the University to use the excuse of student privacy to hide its arbitrary, subjective secret procedures it used to deny students their rights to an education.

But, actually, if the suspended students want the details public, then there would be nothing preventing the school from giving all the details, unless those details hinge upon them being suspended due to the rape allegation which brings the woman's privacy into play.

 

[Arctish]

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.

I agree with your assessment of Derec's claim. He's saying that women who claim to have been sexually assaulted get blanket immunity from punishment for Code of Conduct violations. But, as usual, Derec has neglected to support this claim with facts.

He has not shown us evidence that any school grants blanket immunity for Code of Conduct violations, much less that the University of Minnesota does it.

He has not shown us that this alleged blanket immunity is only available to women.

All Derec has given us so far is rhetoric. I'd like to see his evidence but I suspect what he's pointing out is one of those 'spiritually discerned' things that you can only see it if you believe it's there.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

How sad the the law allows the University to use the excuse of student privacy to hide its arbitrary, subjective secret procedures it used to deny students their rights to an education.

Unfortunately, federal law is quite clear about what information can be released. The penalties for violating can be severe. The University could lose its accreditation of lose student loan funding.

Here is the procedure for reported assaults: https://oscai.umn.edu/title-ix-process

Here is the conduct code: http://regents.umn.edu/sites/regents.umn.edu/files/policies/Student_Conduct_Code.pdf

But, actually, if the suspended students want the details public, then there would be nothing preventing the school from giving all the details, unless those details hinge upon them being suspended due to the rape allegation which brings the woman's privacy into play.

They can definitely do that and in many cases they are able to tell their side of the story to the public while the college must remain silent.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Derec: Once again I think it is noble of you to stand up for the falsely accused, but could you go one step farther and donate to the Innocence Project? They are helping to overturn convictions of the falsely convicted.

https://support.innocenceproject.org/checkout/donation?eid=78994
http://www.innocenceproject.org

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.kare11.com/news/gophers-threatening-to-boycott-holiday-bowl-game/371108358

Team might skip bowl game.

 

[Playball40]

Yet another false accusation and of course the university is taking her side of the story even though there is no evidence she was raped vs. having consensual sex she regretted later.

"Preponderance of evidence" is too low a standard in these cases. Hopefully the Trunp administration will reverse this monumental mistake by the Obama administration, which mandated the lowest possible standard (rather than "clear and convincing proof" most universities used hitherto and continue to use for non-sexual misconduct cases) must be used.

Oh yeah sure. Because women just LOVE having people "line up" to fuck them while others cheer and clap. OOOHhh yes, what a wonderful night of sex. Derec - if you really truly believe the shit you spout, you don't deserve to have a woman in your life.

 

[Derec]

Oh yeah sure. Because women just LOVE having people "line up" to fuck them while others cheer and clap. OOOHhh yes, what a wonderful night of sex. Derec - if you really truly believe the shit you spout, you don't deserve to have a woman in your life.

Some women do consent to gang bangs. Why do you assume that just because she had sex with multiple men that she must have been raped? Police is certainly not making such a ridiculous assumption in this case, and neither should the university. Or you for that matter.

Remember the Hofstra false rape allegation case? It was also a gang bang where the female claimed she was "raped" because she had a boyfriend and did not want to admit to him she was letting guys run a train on her, i.e. cheating with multiple men at the time. The only thing that saved thee completely innocent male students is that one of them videoed the encounter proving that the sex was consensual and that she was a liar.

Twisted motive behind rape story

So yes, "sex with multiple men" != "rape" no matter what radical feminists like you say for ideological reasons.

 

[Derec]

Generally, no one gets in serious trouble for underage drinking at UVA. Even the police will not bust you unless you are being belligerent.

But making false rape allegations should get you expelled. And criminally charged if you made those false rape allegations to the police.
Jackie Coakley, like vast majority of false accusers, faced no consequences for her lies.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Generally, no one gets in serious trouble for underage drinking at UVA. Even the police will not bust you unless you are being belligerent.

But making false rape allegations should get you expelled. And criminally charged if you made those false rape allegations to the police.
Jackie Coakley, like vast majority of false accusers, faced no consequences for her lies.

Speaking of false rape accusations, The Innocence Project helps those wrongly convicted of rape. I've donated, you should donate: https://support.innocenceproject.org/checkout/donation?eid=105777

 

[dismal]

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.