Gophers Football

[Badsmerf]

Anyone who reads that article and concludes it wasn't a rape is flat out calling the victim a liar.

Any player who boycotts the bowl game to show support to rapists should have their scholarship yanked.

As a father, reading her quotes in that story were heartbreaking. (Not that you need to be a father to be disgusted by gang rape.)

I'm not willing to accept that as easily as you based on what we know. I think rape and allegations surrounding it are serious and still require a burden of proof to be established. I'm sorry, I believe a case would have been filed if there was even a chance these guys were guilty, at least i hope it would.

 

Besides that, players on the team already served a punishment earlier in the season. The definitive players involved. This is double jeopardy for these guys, and it's not fair.

[USAFChief]

The remaining players are now threatening to boycott the bowl game. All of them.

 

This is awful, on any level, no matter who is actually telling the truth.

 

Awful. And made worse by weak and inept university leadership.

[DaveW]

Yeah, I have little sympathy for the players who are doing the boycott this is a very very very poor hill to die on.

 

Nothing positive at all is going to come from this.

Edited December 16, 2016 by DaveW

[DaveW]

Well I don't think I used that term, so I'm not sure why you put that in quotations.

My point is that I hadn't seen those quotes from the victim before.

I thought there might have been some grey area, like she was drunk and didn't remember consenting or something like that.

She says she begged them to stop, and they didn't, and even laughed at her attempts to stop it. That removes most of the grey area.

She is either lying, or it was rape.

I have no reason to think she is lying.

So yeah, you basically said it's "clear" all those players raped her.

 

I said nothing is clear. It's a very difficult situation, but I have a tough time just saying that ten young men are rapists. Especially since none have been charged if I'm reading correctly?

 

I'm not "taking sides" at all, it's a just a terrible situation all around no matter what.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, that boycott threat basically guaranteed there is a lot more coming.  Those that feel they are being wronged are going to air whatever they've been told publicly.  The players threatening to boycott probably are hearing one side of the story and feeling justified standing up for their teammates.  

 

The video is going to be central to a lot of this too as it seems to contradict her statements.  (At least enough so that criminal prosecution wasn't pursued)  But it may be enough to justify the University's actions.

 

This is only getting started.

[Mr. Brooks]

So yeah, you basically said it's "clear" all those players raped her.

 

I said nothing is clear. It's a very difficult situation, but I have a tough time just saying that ten young men are rapists. Especially since none have been charged if I'm reading correctly?

 

I'm not "taking sides" at all, it's a just a terrible situation all around no matter what.

No, I said they either raped her, or she's lying.

With more information coming out, there is much less grey area.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm not willing to accept that as easily as you based on what we know. I think rape and allegations surrounding it are serious and still require a burden of proof to be established. I'm sorry, I believe a case would have been filed if there was even a chance these guys were guilty, at least i hope it would.

 

Besides that, players on the team already served a punishment earlier in the season. The definitive players involved. This is double jeopardy for these guys, and it's not fair.

Criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The lack of criminal charges doesn't mean there is "not even a chance they are guilty", to use your words.

The university isn't bound by that same burden of proof.

[Mr. Brooks]

Also, it's hard to look at these guys as "student" athletes when you see a completely uneducated quote like this:

 

"We got no answers to our questions about why these kids are suspended, when they were just found not guilty by the law," Wolitarsky told reporters after reading the players' statement.

 

This guy attends a major University and he doesn't even know the difference between a lack of charges and "being found not guilty". Wow.

[kab21]

Nobody is telling anyone how to have sex. The biggest part of this is that you definitely shouldn't videotape yourself doing it. And don't engage in acts that are WAY out of the norm. And during those acts ignore a girl that apparently has said stop at some point. What seems to have occurred in that video (I have no interest in watching it) is 100% not acceptable.

 

And just because they aren't charging the players doesn't mean that they can't face university disciplinary action. There are a lot of things that aren't illegal that can lead to university dismissal or probation.

[Badsmerf]

Criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The lack of criminal charges doesn't mean there is "not even a chance they are guilty", to use your words.

The university isn't bound by that same burden of proof.

I'm not debating that about the university. However, there is a big difference between being found not guilty and not having charges pressed. Cases get filed without having a case sewn up is my point. Unfortunate situation no matter what at this point. Amazing how little moments change the course of our lives.

[kab21]

 

I'm not debating that about the university. However, there is a big difference between being found not guilty and not having charges pressed. Cases get filed without having a case sewn up is my point. Unfortunate situation no matter what at this point. Amazing how little moments change the course of our lives.

Perhaps amazing how the difference of there being a videotape or not can change the course of lives but participating in a 10 on 1 gangbang with a girl that was not enjoying it is not a little moment. 

[Badsmerf]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm questioning the decision by the university right now. This issue seemed to be over. The details surrounding the incident notwithstanding, a few athletes were disciplined and we all moved on with our lives. I believe this is the university overcompansating.

[biggentleben]

 

Also, it's hard to look at these guys as "student" athletes when you see a completely uneducated quote like this:

"We got no answers to our questions about why these kids are suspended, when they were just found not guilty by the law," Wolitarsky told reporters after reading the players' statement.

This guy attends a major University and he doesn't even know the difference between a lack of charges and "being found not guilty". Wow.

 

I'd wager that over half of people who received a college education wouldn't immediately recognize that difference.

[TheLeviathan]

Perhaps amazing how the difference of there being a videotape or not can change the course of lives but participating in a 10 on 1 gangbang with a girl that was not enjoying it is not a little moment.

 

It's possible that video prevented criminal charges but also emboldened the university. Depending on the content of it.

 

It seems to be the case at this point. Affirmative consent sort of encourages filming as a defense. However unsettLing as that may be.

[nicksaviking]

It's possible that video prevented criminal charges but also emboldened the university. Depending on the content of it.

It seems to be the case at this point. Affirmative consent sort of encourages filming as a defense. However unsettLing as that may be.

And in this case, the video may as well not even exist if it's only 90 seconds long since affirmative consent is an ongoing process and the process surely didn't take 90 seconds. If the video doesn't show the whole act, it's pretty much useless. Except to ID some of the parties involved.

[USAFChief]

Also, it's hard to look at these guys as "student" athletes when you see a completely uneducated quote like this:

"We got no answers to our questions about why these kids are suspended, when they were just found not guilty by the law," Wolitarsky told reporters after reading the players' statement.

This guy attends a major University and he doesn't even know the difference between a lack of charges and "being found not guilty". Wow.

Oh for Pete sake. If you're going to parse his words that ridiculously closely, I'm going to point out your post immediately above this one..."criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

Conviction requires such proof. Not "being charged."

 

Every reasonable person fully understood the context of Wolitarsky's statement, and no reasonable person questions whether he is a "student."

[Mr. Brooks]

Oh for Pete sake. If you're going to parse his words that ridiculously closely, I'm going to point out your post immediately above this one..."criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

Conviction requires such proof. Not "being charged."

 

Every reasonable person fully understood the context of Wolitarsky's statement, and no reasonable person questions whether he is a "student."

Prosecutors don't bring changes unless they think they can get a conviction.

My quote is an opinion of degrees.

The quote from Wolitarsky is factually incorrect.

Sure, I understood his point, and perhaps he just misspoke, but don't you think these guys should be pretty sure exactly what they are standing for if they are going to make this stand?

I mean, if they truly (incorrectly) believe these players were "found not guilty" then they are severely misunderstanding the cause they are supporting.

It's a huge difference Chief, not some nitpick.

[USAFChief]

My quote is an opinion of degrees.
The quote from Wolitarsky is factually incorrect.

 

If we're really going down this road, then no...your quote is not an opinion of degrees.  It's factually incorrect.  

 

But reasonable people understood you, and will focus on your opinion, not parse your phrasing in an effort to focus the discussion away from the issue, and onto the words.

 

Just like reasonable people understand Wolitarsky.  

 

And while we're at it, you have stated "Anyone who reads that article and concludes it wasn't a rape is flat out calling the victim a liar."

 

Presumably, you believe that includes the Hennepin County DA, right?  He concluded, from the facts, it couldn't be charged as rape.  So he's flat out calling the victim a liar?

 

 

[kab21]

 

Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm questioning the decision by the university right now. This issue seemed to be over. The details surrounding the incident notwithstanding, a few athletes were disciplined and we all moved on with our lives. I believe this is the university overcompansating.

It seemed to be swept under the rug if that is what you mean by over.

 

Fortunately/Unfortunately social media has been exposing things exactly like this and blowing them up. A video of a girl being gangbanged by ten men and supposedly saying stop on the video can instantly turn into the next Ray Rice/AP/Brock Turner disaster. The UM has chosen not to be on the 'didn't do enough' side. They might have handled this poorly due to the team threatening to boycott but this story is just starting I am afraid.

[Mr. Brooks]

My quote is an opinion of degrees.

The quote from Wolitarsky is factually incorrect.

 

If we're really going down this road, then no...your quote is not an opinion of degrees. It's factually incorrect.

 

But reasonable people understood you, and will focus on your opinion, not parse your phrasing in an effort to focus the discussion away from the issue, and onto the words.

 

Just like reasonable people understand Wolitarsky.

 

And while we're at it, you have stated "Anyone who reads that article and concludes it wasn't a rape is flat out calling the victim a liar."

 

Presumably, you believe that includes the Hennepin County DA, right? He concluded, from the facts, it couldn't be charged as rape. So he's flat out calling the victim a liar?

No, my quote is not factually incorrect. Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and prosecutors don't bring charges unless they think they can get a conviction.

 

The prosecutor could believe the victim and still not have enough evidence to bring charges. His personal opinion- which is what I am referencing, can be different than his professional judgement.

 

Did you read the article? Given her quotes can you tell me what grey area there is besides rape and her flat out lying?

She didn't say she was confused or doesn't remember. She says she begged them to stop and they didn't.

That is rape with no room for exception. Unless she's flat out lying.

 

But fine. If you want me to retract the Wolitarsky argument I will. Instead of giving these guys an out (being uneducated in their stand), I'll instead assume that all 100+ players have no problem potentially taking the side of rapists.

The players who weren't there when it happened don't know if it was rape or not, just like us.

 

Many of these guys will have daughters one day. If it turns out that a rape did occur, I don't envy the day that they have to look their daughters in the eye and explain to them why blind loyalty to their teammates is more important than a woman's right to not be gangraped.

[Craig Arko]

http://nothingshortofgreatness.com/

 

Hahahaha!

 

I want a refund.

[USAFChief]

 

 

Did you read the article?  

Did you?

 

Because there is more to the story.  From the original story, 2 months ago:

 

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.”

Police later interviewed four other players, who each said the sex was consensual.

On Sept. 30, Wente sent the investigation to the Hennepin County Attorney’s office for possible prosecution. In it, he wrote about the videos, “at no time does she indicate that she is in distress or that the contact is unwelcome or nonconsensual.”

On Oct. 3 the attorney’s office announced there would be no charges.

Afterward, the alleged victim filed a restraining order against six of the players, asking that they be made to stay away from the stadium. After a judge granted the orders, the woman dropped a petition against one of the players.

Hutton, the players’ attorney, appealed, setting up a hearing where the woman testified for several hours. The hearing eventually ended in a settlement — the restraining order would be dropped, but the players still had to stay 20 feet away from the woman and have no contact with her. The two sides also agreed that neither would be able to file a lawsuit.

“I’m glad this is over,” the student read in a statement after the hearing. “This has never been about punishing anyone, I just wanted to feel safe. Because of this resolution that we came to, now I do.”

 

At the least, the woman's stories are inconsistent.  

 

She reportedly plead the 5th more than once during that hearing, too.  I do not know if that is trues, but it's easy to find press reports making that claim, if you're inclined.

[TheLeviathan]

 

But fine. If you want me to retract the Wolitarsky argument I will. Instead of giving these guys an out (being uneducated in their stand), I'll instead assume that all 100+ players have no problem potentially taking the side of rapists.
The players who weren't there when it happened don't know if it was rape or not, just like us.

 

I think you're getting caught in the weeds here a bit.  They don't have to stand up for the act to stand up for what they think is right.  The ACLU has stood up for the KKK because they thought their rights were being violated.  And there are many similar examples.  

 

The players made it clear that what they take issue with is the fact that their teammates basically had their fates decided by a tribunal with no ability to defend themselves.  We can assume they are rapists and still think that's a bad idea that we might want to speak out about.  

 

Sometimes you side with someone you despise, or who did something you despise, because allowing unfair treatment to them opens a door that might mean you're next.  Just like ignoring violations of the KKK's first amendment rights jeopardizes all first amendment rights, allowing the University to be judge, jury, and executioner without any kind of fair process also jeopardizes all college students.

 

We're going to have to let this thing play out, but I don't think they are necessarily wrong at this point given what we know.

[Vanimal46]

 

The remaining players are now threatening to boycott the bowl game. All of them.

This is awful, on any level, no matter who is actually telling the truth.

Awful. And made worse by weak and inept university leadership.

I will also be boycotting the Holiday Bowl, just in case.

[Vanimal46]

So long, Antoine Winfield Jr. His dad made a bold statement that his son will not be returning to the U unless President Kaler and AD Mark Coyle lose their jobs. 

[Mr. Brooks]

Did you?

 

Because there is more to the story. From the original story, 2 months ago:

 

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.”

Police later interviewed four other players, who each said the sex was consensual.

On Sept. 30, Wente sent the investigation to the Hennepin County Attorney’s office for possible prosecution. In it, he wrote about the videos, “at no time does she indicate that she is in distress or that the contact is unwelcome or nonconsensual.”

On Oct. 3 the attorney’s office announced there would be no charges.

Afterward, the alleged victim filed a restraining order against six of the players, asking that they be made to stay away from the stadium. After a judge granted the orders, the woman dropped a petition against one of the players.

Hutton, the players’ attorney, appealed, setting up a hearing where the woman testified for several hours. The hearing eventually ended in a settlement — the restraining order would be dropped, but the players still had to stay 20 feet away from the woman and have no contact with her. The two sides also agreed that neither would be able to file a lawsuit.

“I’m glad this is over,” the student read in a statement after the hearing. “This has never been about punishing anyone, I just wanted to feel safe. Because of this resolution that we came to, now I do.”

 

At the least, the woman's stories are inconsistent.

 

She reportedly plead the 5th more than once during that hearing, too. I do not know if that is trues, but it's easy to find press reports making that claim, if you're inclined.

Consent has to be ongoing and affirmative. 90 seconds worth of video is never going to be able to show that it WASN'T rape.

 

I've never claimed that she is telling the truth. I've said she's either lying or it was rape.

I think some are mistakenly thinking that I believe I know what happened. To be clear, I don't. My original point was that her statements, that I hadn't seen before, eliminates some of the grey area that might have been a consideration before. That is all.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think you're getting caught in the weeds here a bit. They don't have to stand up for the act to stand up for what they think is right. The ACLU has stood up for the KKK because they thought their rights were being violated. And there are many similar examples.

 

The players made it clear that what they take issue with is the fact that their teammates basically had their fates decided by a tribunal with no ability to defend themselves. We can assume they are rapists and still think that's a bad idea that we might want to speak out about.

 

Sometimes you side with someone you despise, or who did something you despise, because allowing unfair treatment to them opens a door that might mean you're next. Just like ignoring violations of the KKK's first amendment rights jeopardizes all first amendment rights, allowing the University to be judge, jury, and executioner without any kind of fair process also jeopardizes all college students.

 

We're going to have to let this thing play out, but I don't think they are necessarily wrong at this point given what we know.

The University is bound by privacy laws.

This isn't a court of law, these are the policies these players accepted when they enrolled at the University.

I guess I don't understand what they are protesting.

More transparency? The university is handcuffed in that regard by privacy laws.

Due process? This isn't a court of law. University punishment procedure doesn't entitle these players to the same type of rights and due process as they would be guaranteed in a criminal proceeding. (The rights that the ACLU stands up for in your KKK example.)

 

I thought their demands were that all suspensions be dropped, not just more transparency? That doesn't jive with the idea of them protesting the process only.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Due process? This isn't a court of law. University punishment procedure doesn't entitle these players to the same type of rights and due process as they would be guaranteed in a criminal proceeding. (The rights that the ACLU stands up for in your KKK example.)

I thought their demands were that all suspensions be dropped, not just more transparency? That doesn't jive with the idea of them protesting the process only.

 

They're protesting the manner of the suspensions being handed out as well.  

 

“Effective immediately, we will boycott all football activities,” Wolitarsky said to a large media throng in the University of Minnesota’s indoor practice facility. “The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed, and the suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted.”

 

And just because the University isn't bound by the same process as the courts doesn't mean it's in the right.  I would hope, for something this serious, that there would be something more akin to the process of the courts than some unchecked, on-high tribunal making the calls.  If the University is going to declare their behavior inappropriate and suspend them because that's their right to do without a better process in place, the athletes can use what rights they have (boycotting) to send the message that they don't approve of the process.  

 

And, depending upon how this went down, I'm not so sure I disagree with them. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[USAFChief]

 

Consent has to be ongoing and affirmative. 90 seconds worth of video is never going to be able to show that it WASN'T rape.

I've never claimed that she is telling the truth. I've said she's either lying or it was rape.
I think some are mistakenly thinking that I believe I know what happened. To be clear, I don't. My original point was that her statements, that I hadn't seen before, eliminates some of the grey area that might have been a consideration before. That is all.

And this is why offices such as the EOAA should stay the **** away from redefining legal terms such as "rape."

 

"Consent has to be ongoing and affirmative" is a standard that is not the same as the standard defined in law.  It is in fact, an arbitrary and ridiculous standard that cannot possibly be met.  How can it be "ongoing?"  Do you ask, continually, for affirmative consent during sex?

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

And this is why offices such as the EOAA should stay the **** away from redefining legal terms such as "rape."

 

"Consent has to be ongoing and affirmative" is a standard that is not the same as the standard defined in law. It is in fact, an arbitrary and ridiculous standard that cannot possibly be met. How can it be "ongoing?" Do you ask, continually, for affirmative consent during sex?

For starters, consenting to sex with one person is not consent to all of his friends. Can we agree on that?

 

Her description of what happened (I begged them to stop) is rape no matter how you define it.

 

I hope nobody is actually arguing that once a woman initially consents to sex she forfeits the right to stop consenting at a later point. That is what "ongoing consent" means. It is not arbitrary or ridiculous. It doesn't mean a person has to perpetually keep asking for consent. It means a person has the right to withdraw consent at any point.