University of Minnesota thread

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator, tOSU Denier
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think they didn't prepare since harbaugh was just flying around interviewing for NFL jobs

Anyway, don't celebrate too much - this horrific performance by mich makes one wonder just how good the suckeyes are
Responding to this couldn't possibly be a bigger goof on the University of Michigan than just letting this stand on its own.
 

rguilmar

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,611
Did Michigan consent to what Florida State is doing to them right now?
I believe Michigan did not consent. Unfortunately the matter was reported to Tallahassee PD who, despite the mountain of evidence against Osceola and Renegade, swept the matter under the rug.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,232
I believe Michigan did not consent. Unfortunately the matter was reported to Tallahassee PD who, despite the mountain of evidence against Osceola and Renegade, swept the matter under the rug.

It worked for Jameis
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,233
San Diego, CA
I haven't checked this thread in a few days, let's see what's up...


Let's start with the obvious - I was very early in stating I thought the expulsions were exactly correct, and that the team's boycott was incredibly insulting. I now don't even remember if this was the same thread, but I completely agree with having two standards in these kinds of cases: a "innocent until proven guilty" standard for criminal charges that involve jail time, and a "preponderance of evidence" standard for expulsion (or other penalties within the school). But with criminal charges, the reality is that this is the problem with sexual assault cases in general - they're incredibly hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, as they often come down to what was "felt" or "said", which there's no way to prove other than what the participating parties testify to.

Post 106 does not explicitly state that he does not believe force or the threat of force is required for a rape to occur. In fact, since he originally posted that it was, in fact, his opinion that for rape to occur in a criminal sense, force or the threat of force is required, there are 9 more posts by him where he either reiterates this opinion, or posts links to definitions that support that opinion. If he doesn't hold that opinion, he's done nothing to give us any indication that this isn't the case. All he did in that post was claim that people didn't understand his position (without any attempt to clarify), which he then continued to support by quoting laws.

But let's look past that since you seem to think that stating it was his opinion and then backing up that opinion by repeating it and copying and pasting legal definitions that included that language multiple times doesn't mean he actually holds that opinion. He also suggested that the men who came into the room after she supposedly said to stop sending people in could not have committed rape if they didn't know she'd said no. He suggested that by agreeing to a gangbang with several individuals, the onus was on her to make it clear that others were not entitled to sex with her as well. He suggested that unless she was incapacitated by her level of intoxication her appearing to be actively engaged in the encounters means she was capable of giving consent.

These ideas are all retrograde in that all of them put the responsibility for not being raped on the woman rather than the responsibility of not raping on the men. They are archaic and damaging concepts regardless of whether he finds the acts themselves deplorable or not. That's what I'm responding to. He's made it pretty clear he doesn't think what happened was okay. But insisting it is not rape because the legal definition of the act(s) provide a way to argue it is not since they are so terribly out of date is an exercise in embracing technicalities. The laws in any state where this situation was not legally a "rape" (sexual assault/criminal sexual misconduct/etc) need to amended or rewritten. Any focus on the legal side of this situation should be focused on that, not on whether it's technically correct to call it a rape in a legal sense.
I really think you're reading way too much into the intent behind his posts. This conversation really started from questions of "how could they not have been charged, but the University could think there's enough evidence to suspend / kick them out", and so the conversation initially went towards legal questions of why a prosecutor might not think there's enough to charge (and get a conviction), and he was trying to give perspective on that.

As a society we're moving towards "Yes means Yes" affirmative consent as the standard, and that's a great thing. But pretending that that's the standard that currently exists in a jury box is naive, and it's going to (I agree, sadly) take years before we really get to that standard in criminal cases.

Note, too, that Minnesota is explicit in stating that consent requires an overt act to establish; the default is "no consent", even absent coercion, and attempts to resist are explicitly not required ...

That's up to the jury to determine given the totality of the circumstances--it might be entering the room, putting on some Barry White, seductively undressing, and crawling into bed astraddle the partner. It might be moaning, grabbing them, and pulling them in toward her. Or not, if there's some other factor at play.
This may technically be the law in Minn, but I really struggle to see that as actually being the real-life standard that the majority of people believe, much less the one that's going to get a conviction. The problem is it's extremely hard to prove - each of those cases, you could argue are still not affirmative -

So the recruit blocked the door. The woman was afraid they'd be upset if she refused, so she tried to just get it over with. Sounds like coercion to me.
If the first (door blocking) is true, it's rape (and if they could prove that through her + other's testimony, I fully support criminal charges). But the second to me is a really really tough standard, as it means someone's actual words and actions can never be believed, because the actual standard is what they were actually thinking. How can you ever enter a sexual relationship with anyone if you could be tried for rape if they (verbally or otherwise) consented, when you have no idea if they did so because they were afraid of making you upset by rejecting? I feel like there needs to be some associated act there (whether it's blocking the door, taking away a phone to call for help, a threat of retaliation (obviously violence, or financial, or social, or whatever), etc) - something else that a normal person would say "ok, yes she technically said "Yes", but it's clear that she didn't really want to". I don't want the old standard of "we assume consent unless the woman can prove otherwise", but I don't think the opposite standard of "we assume no consent unless the man can prove otherwise" is a sustainable standard either. Something in the middle ("would an average person assume that the woman's actions indicated non-coerced consent") seems to me like a sustainable middle ground.

In this case, it's unfortunately not the easiest one to try to push that standard with. The documents seem contradictory about intoxication (even the university's), so I don't see a clear case there. The 'blocked the door' claim is probably the strongest one to sustain a serious rape charge, but the evidence there is weak.

Quite honestly, to actually get a criminal charge sustained through trial (much less convicted), this case really needs one of the men to affirm that she either a) was intoxicated (and so couldn't consent), or b) made some effort to reject consent (if one of them agreed she was pushing people off, for example), or c) back up the claim that one of them blocked the door (to back up a coercion claim). I would love to see one of those happen, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
I really think you're reading way too much into the intent behind his posts. This conversation really started from questions of "how could they not have been charged, but the University could think there's enough evidence to suspend / kick them out", and so the conversation initially went towards legal questions of why a prosecutor might not think there's enough to charge (and get a conviction), and he was trying to give perspective on that.

As a society we're moving towards "Yes means Yes" affirmative consent as the standard, and that's a great thing. But pretending that that's the standard that currently exists in a jury box is naive, and it's going to (I agree, sadly) take years before we really get to that standard in criminal cases.
I never argued nor even suggested that "Yes means yes" is the standard in our society only that it should be and that we should always be striving to move in that direction.

I also never ascribed a nefarious intention to dhappy's posts so I have no idea what you are talking about there.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I dunno man. I'm guessing I've had more casual sex than most bears in the park with more women from different cultures and different backgrounds and it's really not that difficult or awkward to have an honest conversation about this stuff and if you have any doubts, it's not that hard to walk away.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator, tOSU Denier
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I dunno man. I'm guessing I've had more casual sex than most bears in the park with more women from different cultures and different backgrounds and it's really not that difficult or awkward to have an honest conversation about this stuff and if you have any doubts, it's not that hard to walk away.
I agree with everything you say here. Not once in my life have I ever been unclear regarding whether a woman wanted to have sex or not, nor have I been confused at all about how intoxicated she was (Yammer rule 37: never sleep with a woman who is drunker than you, and if it's your first time with a woman, always start with something inherently fun for her. You are all welcome.)

But with that said, what the fuck kind of parks are you going to?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I agree with everything you say here. Not once in my life have I ever been unclear regarding whether a woman wanted to have sex or not, nor have I been confused at all about how intoxicated she was (Yammer rule 37: never sleep with a woman who is drunker than you, and if it's your first time with a woman, always start with something inherently fun for her. You are all welcome.)

But with that said, what the fuck kind of parks are you going to?
I mean, they're more rest stops. What's your point?
 

BJBossman

New Member
Dec 6, 2016
271
The current system sucks for all sides in my view. Colleges often decide guilt or innocence of sexual offenders based on processes that lack the due process and structure of the American legal system.

Sexual crimes are serious and should be adjudicated in a court, not by university bureaucrats.

And who said anything about men getting more protection? All I'm saying is that someone accused of a crime should get his or her day IN COURT.

There is a lot of flawed data out there (e.g., 1 in 4 college women are victims of a sexual crime) that has made people comfortable with the idea that some innocent people may lose their reputations.
It's simply insulting that colleges, or professional sports leagues think they're smarter than the law, when in fact they're clown car idiots who can't even run a road race, much less a complex investigation like this.

If video evidence exonerates the players, school running into CYA mode and trying to ruin kids lives when the law says no is pretty bad.
 

BJBossman

New Member
Dec 6, 2016
271
My point was more that nobody has given a shit as women have been victimized for decades, but let's make sure those Duke Lacrosse players are doing okay. The number of reported sexual assaults on campuses in America is a joke, and for the ones that are, the number of men who are then suspended or expelled is an even bigger joke. The issue isn't that the system sucks and there isn't due process for those accused, the issue is that sexual assault against women on college campuses has been an ignored and even accepted practice in America for decades.

So, yes, I'm fine with 1 or 2 or 3 or whatever % of innocent men getting screwed if that means we're, you know, actually acknowledging the sexual assault problem and holding these dudes accountable in the other 95% of the cases.
Quite a fantasy world you live in.
 

BJBossman

New Member
Dec 6, 2016
271
The vitriol is understandable, of course. While dhappy hasn't given us any evidence to suggest he's an alt-right "women owe me their bodies" piece of trash, he is a living embodiment of why rape culture exists and persists despite all the good work so many people do to combat it.

He's so caught up in being technically right about something that he's completely missed the fact that people aren't trying to discuss the laws in Minnesota (or elsewhere) as they exist. (Those laws are inadequate and are artifacts of a time when people genuinely believed it was impossible to for a man to rape his wife.) What people have been trying to discuss is that a young woman was demoralized, dehumanized and in every sense of the word that matters, was raped.

That dhappy is more concerned with technical correctness than the fact that our culture still allows for a woman who is too intoxicated to remember if or when she consented, or if or when she said no to be taken advantage of sexually by 10+ men and for none of them to face criminal charges is a frustrating reminder of how much further we have to go.
A) it's not surprising at all that you believe in the proven myth that is RC.

B) I haven't seen any discussion, and you never do in any case, about the intoxication of the male.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
A) it's not surprising at all that you believe in the proven myth that is RC.

B) I haven't seen any discussion, and you never do in any case, about the intoxication of the male.
Rape culture is a proven myth? Maybe you'd be more comfortable posting at an alt-right message board. I don't think you're going to fit in around here.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
It's simply insulting that colleges, or professional sports leagues think they're smarter than the law, when in fact they're clown car idiots who can't even run a road race, much less a complex investigation like this.

If video evidence exonerates the players, school running into CYA mode and trying to ruin kids lives when the law says no is pretty bad.
There's a lot about your post here that is insulting, but it's not what you think.

Colleges are legally required to conduct the sort of investigation that Minnesota completed. What appears to astonish you is that they actually took their responsibility seriously. (As opposed to places like Penn State, Florida State, Baylor, Tennesee and many others.)

From a factual standpoint, the video in question may have made the case impossible to prosecute, but that does not exonerate the players at all.

Minnesota did not have the burden of proving a criminal case to the point where they could be confident of a unanimous jury verdict. So they were able to complete a more thorough investigation and base their conclusion on factors like the texts being sent back and forth and other evidence that leaves little doubt that this woman was brutalized by the players in question.

It's fine to have a contrary opinion, but if all you're going to do is attack other posters while spewing venom, you are in for a difficult time.
 
Last edited:

BJBossman

New Member
Dec 6, 2016
271
There's a lot about your post here that is insulting, but it's not what you think.

Colleges are legally required to conduct the sort of investigation that Minnesota completed. What appears to astonish you is that they actually took their responsibility seriously. (As opposed to places like Penn State, Florida State, Baylor, Tennesee and many others.)

From a factual standpoint, the video in question may have made the case impossible to prosecute, but that does not exonerate the players at all.

Minnesota did not have the burden of proving a criminal case to the point where they could be confident of a unanimous jury verdict. So they were able to complete a more thorough investigation and base their conclusion on factors like the texts being sent back and forth and other evidence that leaves little doubt that this woman was brutalized by the players in question.

It's fine to have a contrary opinion, but if all you're going to do is attack other posters while spewing venom, you are in for a difficult time.
I didn't insult other posters. I was insulting the University.

It's clear they're in CYA mode.
 

BJBossman

New Member
Dec 6, 2016
271
Rape culture is a proven myth? Maybe you'd be more comfortable posting at an alt-right message board. I don't think you're going to fit in around here.
I keep forgetting that despite having the Sox, boston is still in hippy dippy liberal country.

Look at the schilling thread. Speak out against radical islam cutting people's heads off...bad.

But a guy cheating at football is the second coming.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
I didn't insult other posters. I was insulting the University.

It's clear they're in CYA mode.
First off, there are several posts - including one just above this one - where you are insulting posters.

Second, it's not at all clear that they are in CYA mode. Do you have a case you'd like to make, or do you just want to assert your opinion?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I'm still trying to figure out how "despite having the Sox . . . Boston is liberal" makes sense. Is he stuck in the racist, Yawkey days?
 

BJBossman

New Member
Dec 6, 2016
271
I'm still trying to figure out how "despite having the Sox . . . Boston is liberal" makes sense. Is he stuck in the racist, Yawkey days?
I love the sox, they tend to have fans who know baseball.

But i forget they're also crazy left on a lot.

make sense now?
 

BJBossman

New Member
Dec 6, 2016
271
First off, there are several posts - including one just above this one - where you are insulting posters.

Second, it's not at all clear that they are in CYA mode. Do you have a case you'd like to make, or do you just want to assert your opinion?
Not even a little bit. But sure, you go on with that.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator, tOSU Denier
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm convinced that both BJ Bossman and CF Rules are two gimmick accounts that Rev maintains for his own entertainment depending on who he is feeling like poking on any given day. Feeling like poking the idiots? Time for some wisdom from CF Rules.
Feeling like poking anyone with a brain or moral compass? Let's roll out BJ Bossman!

Classic Rev.
 

LeftyTG

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,345
Austin
It's simply insulting that colleges, or professional sports leagues think they're smarter than the law, when in fact they're clown car idiots who can't even run a road race, much less a complex investigation like this.

If video evidence exonerates the players, school running into CYA mode and trying to ruin kids lives when the law says no is pretty bad.
good thing there is no video evidence that exonerates the players in this case.

I mean, surely a beacon of legal knowledge, experience, and good sense such as yourself would know that according to the police report the video evidence in this case consists of three videos (with two of the videos having duplicate content, just in different formats). Of the two videos, one is an 8 second clip and the other is a 92 second clip (page 13 and 14 of the police report). That, of course, means there is less than two minutes recorded of an incident that spanned several hours. So again, surely someone of your knowledge and expertise realizes that in no way, shape, or form is there any video evidence that exonerates "the players".
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
I'm convinced that both BJ Bossman and CF Rules are two gimmick accounts that Rev maintains for his own entertainment depending on who he is feeling like poking on any given day. Feeling like poking the idiots? Time for some wisdom from CF Rules.
Feeling like poking anyone with a brain or moral compass? Let's roll out BJ Bossman!

Classic Rev.
I'm pretty sure that it's not Rev - in my experience he's pretty serious about this topic - but I'll admit that I was thinking that BJ Bossman is probably a gimmick account, so I'll stop now.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
I keep forgetting that despite having the Sox, boston is still in hippy dippy liberal country.

Look at the schilling thread. Speak out against radical islam cutting people's heads off...bad.

But a guy cheating at football is the second coming.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator, tOSU Denier
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm pretty sure that it's not Rev - in my experience he's pretty serious about this topic - but I'll admit that I was thinking that BJ Bossman is probably a gimmick account, so I'll stop now.
I was certainly not trying to imply that Rev does not take this subject very, very seriously. I hope that was not how my post came across.