Megan Kelly...College Rape And Title IX..

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

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").

False. Most of us care because its an important illustration of how dangerous it is for males in regards to rape allegations.

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.

Nothing clears the stigma. I guarantee each of us can think of someone in their hometown who was accused of rape, then cleared. And that's the first thing that comes to mind when you think about that person. Sad, but true.

As for my son and my daughters...I tell them not to put themselves in circumstances where bad things are left to chance

Unless your advice is "live in a bubble", that's impossible.

"life ain't fair".

Hopefully everyone who posts on the political thread will remember the time fuzz posted these words.

Nobody that is honest can say that "the rules" don't greatly favor the offender

The defendant has constitutional rights, as do all defendants. But the accuser also has the rape shield rules, which preclude any mention of their sexual promiscuity, etc. Plus, anytime there are rape accusations, the accused is fighting an extremely difficult uphill battle in front of the jury. Finally, their life is forever ruined, no matter the outcome. If theyre a college student, theyre certainly expelled regardless of the proof.

So lets not act like its some piece of cake to defend these accusations.

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.

That's the real intended use of title 9. Not these ridiculous student council hearings where accusations are summary proof of guilt.

 

[fuzz77]

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.

Caveman, why don't you go find a lawyer and have them explain this all to you instead of arguing on a message board?
A grand jury's standard is "probable cause" and in Kentucky it requires that 9 of 12 (75%) grand jury members vote that probable cause exists. They don't tell us how the GJ voted when the decision is announced. 8 of 12 (66.7%) people could have voted to indict but that doesn't do the trick however in other states a 8 of 12 vote is sufficient. At UK there are 3 voting members in a SRB decision. It requires a 2/3rds vote to take action so it's standard is lower than that of a grand jury.

But to answer your question...
Preponderance of evidence...Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor.

Probable cause...a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true.

There is no acid test to either of those standards and it is a certainty that there are decisions that if a different jury on a different day heard the same arguments they would render different verdicts. I would say that preponderance is a lower standard than probable but the two aren't exactly "Apples and Oranges"...more like Red Delicious and Honeycrisp...both apples but of different varieties.

 

[fuzz77]

The defendant has constitutional rights, as do all defendants. But the accuser also has the rape shield rules, which preclude any mention of their sexual promiscuity, etc. Plus, anytime there are rape accusations, the accused is fighting an extremely difficult uphill battle in front of the jury. Finally, their life is forever ruined, no matter the outcome. If theyre a college student, theyre certainly expelled regardless of the proof.

The statistics involving rape cases make this statement almost laughable. Few crimes have a lower conviction rate.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

The statistics involving rape cases make this statement almost laughable. Few crimes have a lower conviction rate.

Oh, ok. So sayeth fuzz.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

The statistics involving rape cases make this statement almost laughable. Few crimes have a lower conviction rate.

You have made statements like this repeatedly over the times this board has discussed Tubman and rape. I've never been quite sure what your point is. What difference does it make what the conviction rate is unless you are suggesting that a different standard of proof should apply to rape accusations. What exactly are you saying?

 

[JohnnyGentle]

You have made statements like this repeatedly over the times this board has discussed Tubman and rape. I've never been quite sure what your point is. What difference does it make what the conviction rate is unless you are suggesting that a different standard of proof should apply to rape accusations. What exactly are you saying?

pretty sure the overriding theme is that woman x has a much better chance of being sexually assaulted than man x does of being falsely accused of sexual assault, and that perceiving a campus culture where male scholarship athletes cower under the constant threat of the obama administration kicking them out of school is idiotic to the point of insanity

the op is not smart, and if you agree with him you're either dumb, a terrible person, or both

 

[JohnnyGentle]

The defendant has constitutional rights, as do all defendants. But the accuser also has the rape shield rules, which preclude any mention of their sexual promiscuity, etc. Plus, anytime there are rape accusations, the accused is fighting an extremely difficult uphill battle in front of the jury.

well at least you advertise honestly

 

[BigBluePhantom]

You have made statements like this repeatedly over the times this board has discussed Tubman and rape. I've never been quite sure what your point is. What difference does it make what the conviction rate is unless you are suggesting that a different standard of proof should apply to rape accusations. What exactly are you saying?

Very good point. It is also useless to discuss conviction rates unless you know what percentage of the women were actually raped. Rape is a crime with a much higher rate of false accusation vs say murder. If you find a dead body hacked up in little pieces, you can be pretty damn sure that somebody was murdered. Conversely, a penetrated ****** is not proof that a rape has occurred but couple it with an accusation and it might as well be in many people's eyes. Add in the fact that many sexual relationships end with the two participants at odds with each other and the motivation to falsely accuse is a viable weapon. This is unfortunate for the falsely accused, as well as for the women who actually are raped.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

Very good point. It is also useless to discuss conviction rates unless you know what percentage of the women were actually raped. Rape is a crime with a much higher rate of false accusation vs say murder. If you find a dead body hacked up in little pieces, you can be pretty damn sure that somebody was murdered. Conversely, a penetrated ****** is not proof that a rape has occurred but couple it with an accusation and it might as well be in many people's eyes. Add in the fact that many sexual relationships end with the two participants at odds with each other and the motivation to falsely accuse is a viable weapon. This is unfortunate for the falsely accused, as well as for the women who actually are raped.

surely your conclusions were arrived at only after thorough research

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

pretty sure the overriding theme is that woman x has a much better chance of being sexually assaulted than man x does of being falsely accused of sexual assault, and that perceiving a campus culture where male scholarship athletes cower under the constant threat of the obama administration kicking them out of school is idiotic to the point of insanity

the op is not smart, and if you agree with him you're either dumb, a terrible person, or both

My point is very simple. The standard of proof to convict anyone of a crime should be high (beyond a reasonable doubt). That standard should not be compromised simply because it is much more difficult to meet that standard to prove guilt with certain crimes. Everyone should receive due process when accused of a crime and unless the evidence against them meets a high standard of proof, they should not be convicted.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Caveman, why don't you go find a lawyer and have them explain this all to you instead of arguing on a message board?
A grand jury's standard is "probable cause" and in Kentucky it requires that 9 of 12 (75%) grand jury members vote that probable cause exists. They don't tell us how the GJ voted when the decision is announced. 8 of 12 (66.7%) people could have voted to indict but that doesn't do the trick however in other states a 8 of 12 vote is sufficient. At UK there are 3 voting members in a SRB decision. It requires a 2/3rds vote to take action so it's standard is lower than that of a grand jury.

But to answer your question...
Preponderance of evidence...Superiority in weight of an evidence that is more convincing (even if minimally) than the evidence presented by the other party. In civil cases, the jury is instructed to determine which party on the whole has preponderance of evidence, and to return a verdict in its favor.

Probable cause...a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true.

There is no acid test to either of those standards and it is a certainty that there are decisions that if a different jury on a different day heard the same arguments they would render different verdicts. I would say that preponderance is a lower standard than probable but the two aren't exactly "Apples and Oranges"...more like Red Delicious and Honeycrisp...both apples but of different varieties.

It's possible I know the answers and you do not, yet you keeping writing a bunch of crap acting as it you do.

 

[BigBluePhantom]

surely your conclusions were arrived at only after thorough research

Actually, those facts are common knowledge for most people but feel free to research them if you must. It will only confirm what most of us already know.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

pretty sure the overriding theme is that woman x has a much better chance of being sexually assaulted than man x does of being falsely accused of sexual assault, and that perceiving a campus culture where male scholarship athletes cower under the constant threat of the obama administration kicking them out of school is idiotic to the point of insanity

the op is not smart, and if you agree with him you're either dumb, a terrible person, or both

2 entirely unrelated issues. Congrats on not making any sense, while degrading another poster. The irony.

 

[shutzhund]

Actual rape should not be tolerated but justice is truly blind plus deaf and dumb on college campuses. It's all about money and the male is judged guilty without a trial. Anyone who believes that the treatment of the male, in the recent case at UK, was guilty of rape stretches the boundaries of ignorance into the realm of stupidity,

It's lynch law and makes as much sense as 52 percent paying for the nonproductive 48 percent. Our present federal government is truly a ship of fools.

 

[fuzz77]

It's possible I know the answers and you do not, yet you keeping writing a bunch of crap acting as it you do.

You are welcome to point out anything I wrote that is not factually correct.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

It's lynch law and makes as much sense as 52 percent paying for the nonproductive 48 percent. Our present federal government is truly a ship of fools.

gee it almost seems like you're a perma-outraged delusional right winger

 

[JohnnyGentle]

2 entirely unrelated issues. Congrats on not making any sense, while degrading another poster. The irony.

sure thing hoss

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

gee it almost seems like you're a perma-outraged delusional right winger

sure thing hoss

Ill take your ad hominem attacks as a concession that you lost the debate the issue. Otherwise, you wouldve put forth something substantive.

 

[LordEgg_rivals16573]

If a college receives federal funds you get some federal rights...like not being discriminated against. And, one would presume, not being removed on false pretense.

 

[BigBluePhantom]

Ill take your ad hominem attacks as a concession that you lost the debate the issue. Otherwise, you wouldve put forth something substantive.

I was thinking something very similar. To me, it comes across as a concession when somebody resorts to labeling and name calling. That does seem to be a popular debating tactic though. People throw substance out the window and instead try to categorize the other side into a stereotypical group. It is somewhat effective. Others will hear a single catchphrase and rally against the foe in true Salem fashion.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

There's lots of empty banter on this, once again. I posted on the issue extensively during and after the Tubman issue. The simple problem here is allowing untrained individuals act as judge and jury against a defendant. In most places that defendant is not allowed legal representation, is not allowed to face or cross examine their accuser and has no rights to appeal outside of the same institution who already judged him. For anyone to support something like that is mind numbing. Somehow, schools suddenly seem to believe they are a kingdom. They are state actors. The only use for these kangaroo courts are trivial matters. Serious crimes should be addressed by the people trained to do so, our legal system. There is really no argument to support allowing schools to adjudicate these serious matters. When a non-party, non-witness can effectively bring rape charges against a man; when all evidence and party statements say no rape happened; when a school can then "convict" the man, you should be very frightened.

 

[JohnnyGentle]

When a non-party, non-witness can effectively bring rape charges against a man; when all evidence and party statements say no rape happened; when a school can then "convict" the man, you should be very frightened.

yeah because people are going to jail

=========================================
Please curtail the name calling and language/moderator

 

[JohnnyGentle]

Ill take your ad hominem attacks as a concession that you lost the debate the issue. Otherwise, you wouldve put forth something substantive.

of course you will

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

yeah because people are going to jail

sit down and shut the f--k up

You are clearly a child. Since you so favor the current practice, please respond to my statements. You can use ad hominem attacks if you please, it just gets you closer to being banned and I don't give a rats butt about them. Try to support your position, if you can.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

of course you will

i don't owe lunatic trump-supporting nitwits like you anything

Perhaps you should run to your safe space due to the excessive micro-aggressions. You must be traumatized simply typing the letters- TRUMP.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

yeah because people are going to jail

sit down and shut the f--k up

Because he was wrongfully punished by the state. The punishment is irrelevant.

 

[sluggercatfan]

yeah because people are going to jail

sit down and shut the f--k up

Talking about nitwit...we are only talking about ruining a young man's life and future...no big deal here

 

[truebluewildcat_rivals34254]

I'm all for justice...

Rape is vile...perps who are found beyond a shadow of a doubt to have committed the crime should be dealt with accordingly...

but I also believe in fairness...

I think that false accusation of rape should be handled with the same fervor...

The one thing worse than rape...is being falsely accused...both ruin lives...especially in high profile cases that get attention...

the Duke Lacrosse players...clearly those boys are innocent...but they will forever be rapists in the minds of some...their lives have forever been altered...and most that will be falsely accused do not have the resources to clear their name like those kids did...they came from affluent backgrounds...could afford great lawyers...also, not everyone will get an ESPN prime time special documentary made about their innocence years down the road...

Jameis Winston...I don't know what the real deal is or was...but I do know it doesn't matter...he is forever a rapist in the minds of some...the alleged victim got a nice little pay day from the ordeal...that's another long discussion for another time though...

The Yale basketball player...who really knows...maybe he did...if so shame on him he should rot in jail...but there is no justice for him if he is innocent...if he is innocent, the girl who ruined his name has nothing to worry about....

 

[JohnnyGentle]

what is there to discuss rationally with men who think of rape victims as sluts and alleged rapists as victims

nothing that's what make this board terrible again and post something slick won't be reading

 

[ukalum1988]

what is there to discuss rationally with men who think of rape victims as sluts and alleged rapists as victims

nothing that's what make this board terrible again and post something slick won't be reading f u

Don't know where you're getting that impression from expect perhaps in your own mind. If you think this board is terrible then do everyone a favor (including yourself) and go away please.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Don't know where you're getting that impression from expect perhaps in your own mind. If you think this board is terrible then do everyone a favor (including yourself) and go away please.

He can't defend his position logically. It's why he first resorted to add hominem attacks, and now grasping at strawman.

Happens all the time with radicals who don't actually understand an issue, but just regurgitate what they've been told my their chosen medium.

 

[sluggercatfan]

what is there to discuss rationally with men who think of rape victims as sluts and alleged rapists as victims

nothing that's what make this board terrible again and post something slick won't be reading

NOT ONE PERSON here has said anything other than those found guilty of rape should rot under the jail , but you moron those that there is NO evidence against ,and may very well be innocent ,should not have this over their heads for the rest of their lives

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

what is there to discuss rationally with men who think of rape victims as sluts and alleged rapists as victims

nothing that's what make this board terrible again and post something slick won't be reading

I've never made any such statements and in the Colorado State case, there was no rape victim. Your turn Mr. Wizard.

 

[fuzz77]

You REALLY are an idiot...NOT ONE PERSON here has said anything other than those found guilty of rape should rot under the jail , but you moron those that there is NO evidence against ,and may very well be innocent ,should not have this over their heads for the rest of their lives

Many on here equate no indictment, no conviction with false accusation.
Again, your daughter and a man she knows go into a closed room with no witnesses...she comes out saying she was raped, he says it was consentual sex. <-- describes most rapes on college campuses, most rapes...period.

Whether you intend it or not, you are essentially discouraging any woman with like circumstances to ever file charges of rape. Your blindness to your bias is asstounding.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Problem is attending any school isn't a right, it is a privilege. Read the small print on any college admissions application if you don't believe it. As long as a college doesn't discriminate against any protected class then it is free to admit and dismiss whoever it wants.

That "privilege" should never come at the loss of your Constitutional rights. Is that in the small print too?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Many on here equate no indictment, no conviction with false accusation.
Again, your daughter and a man she knows go into a closed room with no witnesses...she comes out saying she was raped, he says it was consentual sex. <-- describes most rapes on college campuses, most rapes...period.

Whether you intend it or not, you are essentially discouraging any woman with like circumstances to ever file charges of rape. Your blindness to your bias is asstounding.

Please explain how that is different than a man and woman who are not going to a University and once you can't explain a difference, please explain why you believe the process is appropriate. Guilty guys should be in prison, so should false accusers. Many times they both believe they are correct. At any rate, the issue isn't the crime. The issue is the adjudication of the alleged crime. Serious crimes should stay in the venue of our legal system not left to untrained individuals who act as judge and jury. Some of you really worry me with the amount of rights we are guaranteed that you are willing to walk away from.

 

[zcats]

scalia's bloated corpse says the founders knew and said nothing of the right to a football scholarship

ps screw both scalia and the slave rapist patrician scumbag founders

Wow, I have stayed away from this thread for days and after discovering you I wish I had never returned. You need some help. Your hate is pathological.

 

[truebluewildcat_rivals34254]

Many on here equate no indictment, no conviction with false accusation.
Again, your daughter and a man she knows go into a closed room with no witnesses...she comes out saying she was raped, he says it was consentual sex. <-- describes most rapes on college campuses, most rapes...period.

Whether you intend it or not, you are essentially discouraging any woman with like circumstances to ever file charges of rape. Your blindness to your bias is asstounding.

same logic could be applied to the other side...

Your son goes into a room with a female...she comes out crying rape...

...or how about other crime...you and someone else go into a room...you come out, the other doesn't and is found dead...was it self defense or murder?...

we can go on for days with all sorts of scenarios...

whether it is intended or not the "rape culture" prosecute at all costs, men are inherently guilty movement is encouraging crying wolf...and that really hurts real victims in the long run...

it's a sticky situation...and the proper course of action is to get all the facts and then act accordingly...there doesn't need to be pressure from the federal government, society, popular culture, activist groups, sports talking heads, etc to rush to guilty verdicts...

No one is discouraging anyone's right to file charges and feel safe in doing so...

No one is trying to deny that there are sexual aggression and rape issues on campus...i think every reasonable person would acknowledge that and want it to be dealt with...but not so recklessly and at the expense of the innocence of others...

 

[Blue Decade]

After the Lloyd Tubman incident thought some of you might find this interesting...on Megan's show last night she had a young man who played football at Colorado State and he was kicked out of school for allegedly raping a young woman on campus. The only problem is the young is the young lady said she wasn't raped and she and the young man had consensual sex twice, but one of the girls friends saw a "hickey " on her neck and turned him in for raping her ...with NO due process this young man who was by all accounts a model student (3.7 gpa) and despite the girl saying he wasn't raped was still kicked out of school and get get admitted anywhere else...the reason his attorney says he was kicked out is the the Obama admin is putting pressure on all universities to"automatically" apply guilt to the young men being accused of these despite the evidence...the young man is suing the university for violation of title IX...very interesting and worth watching as this relates to Lloyds situation..

There have already been numerous threads about Tubman. The case at Colorado State is irrelevant to Tubman. Tubman is gone, and another thread is not going to change anything or bring him back. I hope Tubman puts this behind him and moves on. So should this board.

 

[fuzz77]

That "privilege" should never come at the loss of your Constitutional rights. Is that in the small print too?

Constitutional rights are between citizens and the government. Universities are not the government. You have no Constitutional right to attend, thus not being able to attend is in no way removing someone's Constitutional rights.