Minnesota football players boycott their bowl game in protest of suspension of 10 tea

#126
#126
volfan102455 said:
The video was a couple of minutes of an incident that lasted over an hour. The video was taken at the start of the incident well before player after player after player after player after player after player took their turn.

The video content was controlled by those taking the video - selective videoing at the best. Do you really think they were going to video anything that showed them in the wrong?
Click to expand...

It was a documentary.

-Darren Sharper
 
#127
#127
volfan102455 said:
The video was a couple of minutes of an incident that lasted over an hour. The video was taken at the start of the incident well before player after player after player after player after player after player took their turn.

The video content was controlled by those taking the video - selective videoing at the best. Do you really think they were going to video anything that showed them in the wrong?
Click to expand...

Agree with this completely. The level of rape culture endorsed by a few in this thread is shocking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#128
#128
volstuckinNC said:
Agree with this completely. The level of rape culture endorsed by a few in this thread is shocking.
Click to expand...

The culture of letting a woman get around and live out some perverted fantasy then feel bad about the next day in an attempt to gain fortune and ruin others' lives in this thread is shocking.

Did my version of the story happen or did yours? We don't know. The only evidence we have supports my version more than yours though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#129
#129
volfanbill said:
The culture of letting a woman get around and live out some perverted fantasy then feel bad about the next day in an attempt to gain fortune and ruin others' lives in this thread is shocking.

Did my version of the story happen or did yours? We don't know. The only evidence we have supports my version more than yours though.
Click to expand...

So you've seen the video? That's the evidence...right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#131
#131
There's more than one way to learn the facts about a case than physically watching the videos.
 
#132
#132
There's no definitive answer here. Or there. No neutral witnesses, and no video of the entire incident. And so there's no point in letting this become yet another polarizing VN thread. We all have our opinions, and the only thing we likely agree on is that if D4H shows up here, it's going to get worse.

The police investigation was based on the standard of probable cause. They found no basis for criminal charges. The EOAA investigation was based on preponderance of evidence. They found sufficient cause to charge 10 players with violations of the university's code of conduct. Since the university stuck to their guns in the face of a team boycott, one must assume that they think they have a solid case against the players.

Nobody wins here, except for the attorneys who will eventually (if not already) be involved.

I have a conditioned response to the word "rape". I've seen what it can do to an individual, and their family. I also have a conditioned response to a false allegation of sexual assault, for the same reasons. That, IMO, is just as bad as rape itself. Both can, and do, destroy human lives.

Having read both reports (redacted), I am of the opinion that this falls somewhere between rape and a consensual "gang bang". The hard part is figuring out which way the needle really points, and then figuring out what the appropriate...and just...response would be.

I'm glad I don't have that responsibility here.

Go Vols.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#135
#135
volfanbill said:
Yes.taking the rulings of the experts that reviewed the evidence is guessing.
Click to expand...

"Experts"? I've seen ONE police official's OPINION referenced. What, a paragraph? Opposed to an 80 page report generated by the university which they stood behind and used to swat down the players boycott. Might have a smart fellow (or 20) in that bunch. :) So many cases out there where the police have GUESSED wrong. There was a serial rapist from Denver,Colorado who raped a variety of local victims a few years ago. After they arrested him, they were led to one of his former victims in Washington state. Found out that she had reported the rape and been PROSECUTED because they "found inconsistencies" in her story. Found her guilty and she ended up paying THEM for her false report. Raped AND victimized AGAIN by "experts". :pinch:
 
Last edited:
#138
#138
So, basically the woman had no objections to a train until the next day when she felt she needed to restore her rep by destroying the rep of others. Therefore, they were all sluts and hound dogs that night. Where is her suspension from the stadium and game day operations by the same university guidelines of inappropriate behavior that was used against the suspended players. She fabricated a story to protect her rep, that was determined to only be ill advised behavior by all involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#139
#139
GVF said:
So, basically the woman had no objections to a train until the next day when she felt she needed to restore her rep by destroying the rep of others. Therefore, they were all sluts and hound dogs that night. Where is her suspension from the stadium and game day operations by the same university guidelines of inappropriate behavior that was used against the suspended players. She fabricated a story to protect her rep, that was determined to only be ill advised behavior by all involved.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#140
#140
GVF said:
So, basically the woman had no objections to a train until the next day when she felt she needed to restore her rep by destroying the rep of others. Therefore, they were all sluts and hound dogs that night. Where is her suspension from the stadium and game day operations by the same university guidelines of inappropriate behavior that was used against the suspended players. She fabricated a story to protect her rep, that was determined to only be ill advised behavior by all involved.
Click to expand...

How exactly does elevating her circumstances from a campus rumor to a national news story "restore her rep?"
 
#141
#141
butchna said:
Your interpretation of consensual most likely varies with those of us still burdened with souls. I do have a question, how did you get a copy of the video? Maybe if I could stomach a viewing, I'd come to the same conclusion. Haven't seen any links but you obviously have because you can guarantee it was consensual.
Click to expand...

The police watched the video and said she was playful with the men and she wasn't complaining during the sexual contact he observed.

I'm taking his word over yours because he has actually seen the video. You're just saying they're guilty based on a gut feeling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#142
#142
JuicyBrucey said:
The police watched the video and said she was playful with the men and she wasn't complaining during the sexual contact he observed.

I'm taking his word over yours because he has actually seen the video. You're just saying they're guilty based on a gut feeling.
Click to expand...

You're throwing the "experts" term around. I gave you just one example of said "experts" getting it wrong...horribly so. "From what they observed" sounds positively scientific also. The university administration saw the video. Managed to generate 86 more pages than that detective and they developed a strong resolve to jettison those players. You're determined to believe this woman enjoyed every second of this. Content yourself that her rapists got away with it.
 
Last edited:
#143
#143
butchna said:
You're throwing the "experts" term around. I gave you just one example of said "experts" getting it wrong...horribly so. "From what they observed" sounds positively scientific also. The university administration saw the video. Managed to generate 86 more pages than that detective and they developed a strong resolve to jettison those players. You're determined to believe this woman enjoyed every second of this. Content yourself that her rapists got away with it.
Click to expand...

Now you're saying I'm throwing around the term "experts" when I haven't used it even once during the entire thread. There's a pattern here of you saying people did something, even if they didn't do it, based on your feelings.

Ten years ago, I was saying the same things online about the Duke lacrosse team. Just because the Minnesota football players have been suspended, it doesn't prove they're guilty of rape. The Duke lacrosse players were suspended too, but I'm still waiting on proof that the alleged gang rape the Duke players were accused of committing actually occurred.

In 2006, famous religious figures, Reverend Sharpton and Reverend Jackson, contended the woman was a rape victim. Now, you're playing the holier-than-thou card by saying you're burdened with a soul. Before the Duke lacrosse players were suspended, Nancy Grace said, "I'm glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" Paula Zahn said, "the DA wouldn't be proceeding with this case if he didn't believe that this alleged victim had been raped." A feminist blogger, Amanda Marcotte, wrote that people who questioned the guilt of the Duke lacrosse players were "rape-loving scum." Now we see the same thing here. The thing is, playing the holier-than-thou card by proclaiming you uniquely have a soul, and calling other people pro-rape, does nothing to actually support your point of view regarding the guilt or innocence of the Minnesota football players. If it did, Reverend Sharpton and hardcore feminists would be right 100% of the time.

There is proof the woman had some consensual sex. She told police she had consensual sex with multiple athletes. What I'm waiting on is proof, any proof, that the woman was raped. When I see proof, I'll join in and proclaim them criminals. As it stands, the only proof of any crime that I see is Carlton Djam admitting that he contributed to a minor having sex with a 22 year old adult. If the kid was one of the two players the woman admits to having consensual sex with, then she herself is guilty of statutory rape. If she doesn't admit to having consensual sex with the kid, we can only speculate as to whether she raped the kid or he raped her. One or the other obviously happened, but we can't make a convincing argument that one or the other is guilty without proof, and speculation isn't proof. Neither are our feelings or self-annointed holiness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#144
#144
JuicyBrucey said:
Now you're saying I'm throwing around the term "experts" when I haven't used it even once during the entire thread. There's a pattern here of you saying people did something, even if they didn't do it, based on your feelings.

Ten years ago, I was saying the same things online about the Duke lacrosse team. Just because the Minnesota football players have been suspended, it doesn't prove they're guilty of rape. The Duke lacrosse players were suspended too, but I'm still waiting on proof that the alleged gang rape the Duke players were accused of committing actually occurred.

In 2006, famous religious figures, Reverend Sharpton and Reverend Jackson, contended the woman was a rape victim. Now, you're playing the holier-than-thou card by saying you're burdened with a soul. Before the Duke lacrosse players were suspended, Nancy Grace said, "I'm glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" Paula Zahn said, "the DA wouldn't be proceeding with this case if he didn't believe that this alleged victim had been raped." A feminist blogger, Amanda Marcotte, wrote that people who questioned the guilt of the Duke lacrosse players were "rape-loving scum." Now we see the same thing here. The thing is, playing the holier-than-thou card by proclaiming you uniquely have a soul, and calling other people pro-rape, does nothing to actually support your point of view regarding the guilt or innocence of the Minnesota football players. If it did, Reverend Sharpton and hardcore feminists would be right 100% of the time.

There is proof the woman had some consensual sex. She told police she had consensual sex with multiple athletes. What I'm waiting on is proof, any proof, that the woman was raped. When I see proof, I'll join in and proclaim them criminals. As it stands, the only proof of any crime that I see is Carlton Djam admitting that he contributed to a minor having sex with a 22 year old adult. If the kid was one of the two players the woman admits to having consensual sex with, then she herself is guilty of statutory rape. If she doesn't admit to having consensual sex with the kid, we can only speculate as to whether she raped the kid or he raped her. One or the other obviously happened, but we can't make a convincing argument that one or the other is guilty without proof, and speculation isn't proof. Neither are our feelings or self-annointed holiness.
Click to expand...

So you disagree? :) I think you're missing the point of all this. THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT! You believe she enjoyed the whole encounter. I believe they got away with rape. Neither of our opinion's are official. I have as much to back my contention as you.

As far as the Duke case? Nowhere close to the same. That one fell apart for me early when one of the "rapists" showed he was an ATM at the time of her allegation. There was no tape to interpret or misinterpret. But it was ANOTHER case of "experts" getting it wrong.
There's no "holier than thou" mantra on my part. I think you and a couple of others are way too vicious in your depiction of her as an amateur porn star and even better "cumdumpster". You doubt her story so you go to the extreme in stating so. I'm not better than most people but I'm better than YOU.
 
Last edited:
#148
#148
volfanbill said:
So if law enforcement decided charges weren't warranted, why should the players have to suffer from the university?
Click to expand...

The DA determined that they did not have enough evidence to support a successful criminal prosecution. If they don't think they can win, they don't proceed.

The standard for the university (and civil lawsuits) is completely different. While you need "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal case, you simply need a "preponderance of evidence" for a civil case. That same standard is used by the university.

"Preponderance of evidence" is the reason O.J. Simpson lost a wrongful death suit in civil court.

The university is simply saying her story is more believable than that the players' story. That's the standard.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top