got it - I record Megyn so I'll see if I can go back and watch.. If you have Netflix watch The Hunting Ground to get the other side for balance.
Megan Kelly...College Rape And Title IX..
- Thread starter sluggercatfan
- Start date
got it - I record Megyn so I'll see if I can go back and watch.. If you have Netflix watch The Hunting Ground to get the other side for balance.
Strawman. Noone said there aren't legit cases. There are legit cases and there are garbage cases. Problem is, they all end alike with the man getting kicked out of school.
And Tubman has been fully exonerated. The grand jury already returned a no true bill, meaning no probable cause.
I agree with your post but I believe the burden of proof should have to be on the accuser, and according to the grand jury (and several facts in the young ladies statements AND actions) that wasn't met according to the Grand Jury------and I hope we can rely on them more than the court assembled by UK with their resources.
Sorry, but it seems to me that made up courts main concern was making sure UK didn't have to pay our money sometime from some lawsuit------and it certainly seems to be Fuzz's main concern-------NOT in making sure justice was done.
Which could end up costing them a lot more money IF they did err in judgement------although I believe IF they did err it probably wasn't an error in judgement as much as it was an error in priorities, ie money over right.
Who knows, I would just prefer to believe the Grand Jury before this ad hoc committee and actually I would rather err in favor of letting one more person (out of millions, and just what was the damage done, was she a virgin and had she never had sex with him before, I don't know, do you?) get away with a crime than convicting an innocent man-------and, in a very real sense they did convict him AND punish him.
And yes, rape is a heinous crime and should be punished, but it also seems to me there should be different degrees of rape charges, I'm not sure if there is or not, it has never been a great concern of mine since there has never been a time in my life that I thought it was something I had to worry about..
No, they don't all end up like that, actually very few do, but there are some.
No more comment on Tubman for me, that's been discussed on here ad nauseam, but feel free to indulge.
Very few title 9 cases result in the man being expelled? Am I understanding your position correctly?
This case was investigated, taken by the prosecutor to the grand jury and resolved with a finding of no probable cause of a crime. What else should be done in our system to exonerate?
The sad part of this is that after the way he was treated , he still wants to play at UK..
Danny, you're just as bad on these message boards as you are when you call into KSR. Good God, you're the biggest whining complainer on earth. Do you do anything with your life other than whine about "liberals", bring politics into everything, whine about UK football and whine about Lloyd Tubman???? Anything other than at all?
What the most disturbing thing about all of this is the only reason you and tons of others on this board give a damn is because Tubman is (well was) a football player and don't tell me otherwise (like you give a damn about "the young man"). I'd tell you to move on and drop it since this kid never played a snap of D1 football, no one knows if he would have been any good, and no one really knows if he raped that girl or not, but I know you won't drop it cause then you wouldn't have something to complain about.
What the most disturbing thing about all of this is the only reason you and tons of others on this board give a damn is because Tubman is (well was) a football player and don't tell me otherwise (like you give a damn about "the young man"). I'd tell you to move on and drop it since this kid never played a snap of D1 football, no one knows if he would have been any good, and no one really knows if he raped that girl or not, but I know you won't drop it cause then you wouldn't have something to complain about.
Are you familiar with the Vanderbilt rape case? There is one reason and only one reason these players were accused and found guilty...because they were dumb enough to record it on their cell phones. The Nashville police and the DA both said so. No video, no charges, no convictions... the girl had been drugged and had no recollection of the incident. She didn't even know what had happened until she saw the videos.
That is the problem with rape. 95+% of the time it is a crime with no witnesses. Only what he says and what she says. He can always say it was consensual. The majority of reported rapes go unprosecuted because they are difficult to prove. Are they all falsely reported?
I bet if your daughter is ever one of those raped you'd think differently.
"No true bill" simply means that the grand jury didn't feel that a he said/she said case was worth hearing. Who knows? Tubman's celebrity as a UK athlete may have been what saved him from indictment. What are the chances that 3 UK football fans sat on the Grand Jury and felt that without a recording of what went on in the girl's room that they were going to set him free?
It wasn't "resolved" because if new evidence ever came to light the charges could be refiled and the case re-opened. In some ways, Tubman would have been better off to have been indicted and taken to trial. Then if found innocent the case would be closed. As it stands now this will hang over his head for the rest of his life because there is no statute of limitations for rape. (I think that is correct)
No true bill means there was no probable cause. It is a low standard and really is unrelated to a preliminary hearing. Man, your conjecture about this is sad. Do you work for UK? Suggesting a few UK fans derailed a case about rape. You crossed into pathetic on that one. If you work for UK. Shame.
This is BS. You know little about people being charged with crimes and being forced to defend themselves.
In the entirety of American history, the burden is always on the government/accuser. No matter what the case. Rape is no exception. Title 9 is no exception. The problem is the rules aren't being followed, and accusations result in a summary expulsion.
Lol so MAYBE Tubmans celebrity caused the grand jury to return no true bill? 1) it really doesn't matter 2) the case was garbage and 3) no true bill means no probable cause, which is the lowest possible legal standard. The case was THAT weak.
Tubman would've been better off being indicted and taking it to trial? Instead of the no indictment?
This is one of the dumber things I've read on a message board. And that's really saying something.
Probably like you think HRC is honest...ANYONE that lies to a veterans family should NEVER be allowed to be president hopen her *** ends up in jail... what are you going to day if this attonery wins this case, and for for good measure I doubt you can touch MK..
I was speaking about his reputation. Since he could not continue his education at UK there is still a stigma there which, if he is innocent, should be cleared IMO.
Did you read..."In some ways..."?
Let's say Tubman gets drunk one night and tells a buddy that he forced this girl to have sex... or miraculously a video or audio recording appears that is damaging to Tubman. Stranger things have happened. Had he gone to trial and been found not guilty, it wouldn't matter. He couldn't be retried for the same crime. As it stands the charges could be refiled and the whole circus would be replayed.
Yes ..they had been together before and were a couple so this was not a first time thing...which dosen't say it couldn't have been rape , BUT???
If you ever have to defend yourself against false charges, you remember that you believe that woukd be better than a grand jury concluding no true bill. Yeesh. That is about as ignorant a comment as you will find on a board like this.
Whine about UK football? Really? I will be at every UK game this fall but Otis , will you? As for my life I'm retired and have a very comfortable income and 7 gdkids to chase around...why don't you go kiss MJ's liberal *** some more...aren't you worried about whether Bolden has committed yet..good grief...do you not worry at all that a young man's life has possibly been turned upside down because of a lie?
So if this was your son, that would be the stellar advice you give him?
Wrong is wrong, and wrong needs to be fought against.
What if it was your daughter?
There are only 2 people on this earth that know exactly what happened and even those two people could honestly disagree on what was the real truth. Sure, wrong should be fought against but YOUR sense of right and wrong in this case is only a matter of your opinion. Not facts you can prove. Two people go into a closed room and come out disagreeing about what happened in that room. Neither can prove what happened. To be convicted with a criminal act you must be able to prove what happened. What if the burden of proof was on the other foot?
If you are honest you will admit that the person who has the burden of proof is at a disadvantage of getting a just outcome in a like case.
As for my son and my daughters...I tell them not to put themselves in circumstances where bad things are left to chance. That's not always possible but it's good to avoid what you can.
Yeah, I've told them that "life ain't fair". They are all old enough now that they have learned it on their own as well.
Tell me, Is it fair that some people who eat right, live right and still contract horrible diseases? Is life fair when it takes a child?
Is it fair that a woman can be raped and because she cannot prove it was consensual the perpetrator is never punished?
Nobody that is honest can say that "the rules" don't greatly favor the offender. That is why only 1 in 20 rapes are reported, less than 1/3 reported rapes are ever prosecuted, only about 10% of those prosecuted are ever convicted. So do the math and tell me what is fair.
Of course the rules favor the accused. You don't convict and punish a person for something that they might have done or even something that they probably did. The legal requirement is "beyond a shadow of a doubt". In America, we call that due process. And also of course, if it were your child that was an alleged victim, you would say to hell with due process and want the maximum sentence for the person they were accusing. That is precisely why a parent would never be allowed to sit on a jury to judge the person accused of harming their child.
1. Yes, you whine about UK football stuff. I remember you on here whining to no end about getting enough seats or something for the first Stoops spring game, among other things. It's fine.
2. Kiss MJ's liberal ***? See, there you go with that political "liberal" stuff. Sorry pal, I'm not liberal, and I don't kiss anyone's ***. You, on the other hand are wrapped up in political garbage and YOU call in to MJs radio show all the time to talk to him. Hell, I listen to the show for entertainment, but I don't know that guy, talk to that guy and I don't call into his or anyone else's radio show, but you do.
3. Do I worry about "a young man's life turned upside down because of a lie"? I don't know it's a lie, and neither do you. Like i said... this is about a football player. You wouldn't care if he wasn't a football player. No one knows what happened for sure. I do find it ironic though that football/sports fans are more likely to take the side of the male (um, because he is an athlete on their favorite team) than the female when athletes have been raping women and getting away with it for years. I'm worried about the young man AND the young woman, for several reasons.
Exactly! In criminal court, that is the case. Is a University SRB a criminal court?
Are you familiar with our civil court system? If a civil court is convinced that it is 50.01% likely that you are responsible for an act it can order you to pay damages. The difference between the two systems is the amount of punishment that the system can bring. Civil courts can take your money...hell they can take every dime you will earn the rest of your life...but they can't put you in jail. The most sever punishment a University SRB can bring is to kick you out of that school.
People want to try and hold a University to a criminal standard when their ability to punish is even lower than that of a civil court.
That's not the issue fuzz, and even if it were sexual assault is a criminal matter not a civil one.
The issue is some universities are covering up criminal activity - not reporting to law enforcement, not cooperating with law enforcement, or even hiding or destroying evidence. Two rape victims that started a victims support group found that the only way to get the universities to reform their conduct was to use Title 10.
Oh, I'm sorry. I realize now this is a Fox News story so I'm absolutely sure now that it said it just like that.
We aren't talking about rape here. We are talking about the girl (In this case) admitting it's was CONSENSUAL. So you can deflect by using a red herring all you like. And of course it falls on the accuser to Prove her case, as this pesky little thing called "presumption of innocence." Quit trying to defend this misandrist campus culture.
At least some people have common sense on this issue and don't act like oh God its on Fox so it must be bogus...
who is the "it" in that sentence? I thought the post said the kid's attorney was speaking?
There was a nuance in the Kelly report that I wonder if any of you noticed. Although the report emphasized the fact that the couple had consensual sex on consecutive days, it was the man's conduct prior to gaining eventual initial consent that was the reason for his expulsion. The report gave no specific details as to that conduct. The question may be whether eventual consent overrides any prior unwanted/non-consensual action. Maybe I missed something but it didn't strike me as an honest report since it glossed over the real reason for the expulsion.
From a school's perspective, it seems reasonable that there are certain actions that shouldn't be ignored even if the victim in retrospect isn't bothered by those actions. In the Kelly case, it seems that the girl's girlfriend was offended by the man's pre-consent conduct and that the conduct was bad enough, in the school's judgment, to get the guy booted.
From a school's perspective, it seems reasonable that there are certain actions that shouldn't be ignored even if the victim in retrospect isn't bothered by those actions. In the Kelly case, it seems that the girl's girlfriend was offended by the man's pre-consent conduct and that the conduct was bad enough, in the school's judgment, to get the guy booted.
The report said they were getting ready to have sex and the girl told him she wasn't on BC and he wanted to continue , but she said no and he asked her if she wanted him to use a condom and she said yes and they had sex again a couple days later..not going to tell all the story and those of you not "afraid" of the big bad wolf Fox should watch .
Lets review. This is your quote that I replied to:
"Nobody that is honest can say that "the rules" don't greatly favor the offender. That is why only 1 in 20 rapes are reported, less than 1/3 reported rapes are ever prosecuted, only about 10% of those prosecuted are ever convicted. So do the math and tell me what is fair."
I am very familiar with the Civil Court system. Pretty sure you were citing stats from criminal proceedings. You asked "what is fair" and I told you why that was the way our criminal court system works. You, then tried to act like you were talking about an SRB.
The standard for all civil law actions is not preponderance of the evidence. Regardless, what is the standard for the grand jury? Compare the grand jury standard to the preponderance standard, please.
I listened to it again and it said that he wanted to have unprotected sex, she didn't want to "but he started to anyway ...." Even though he then stopped when she told him to stop, his act of "starting to anyway" after she said that she didn't want to is the problem for him. She essentially said "no" and THEN still had to tell him to stop. That's what got him it trouble (I think). Again, it is a nuance but that nuance is the crux of the matter.
I'm not picking sides but had the headline been "she says she doesn't want to but he starts anyway" then it wouldn't have been much of a story when someone thinks that he engaged in misconduct. The fact that they had consensual sex later that day, and the next, isn't really relevant except to the extent that if they are boyfriend/girlfriend then maybe there is implied consent and sometimes "no" really doesn't mean or stay "no."
I just think that Megan Kelly glossed over his "pushing" for sex after she said that she didn't want to and didn't fairly present the matter. As a disclaimer, I tend to like Megan Kelly's, and FoxNews', reporting.