I am very sympathetic to anyone who is assaulted and I would hope they get justice and see their attacker convicted and locked away. That being said, as I read your posts and the posts of Defense, I can't help but wonder what you want done differently? I have asked this of Defense before and never get an answer. Because of it's very nature, rape is extremely difficult to prove. There are typically no witnesses and it's difficult to tell consensual sex from rape when looking at physical evidence. That is an unfortunate fact of life. Are you suggesting that because of the statistics rape convictions should meet a much lower standard of proof than for other crimes? What exactly is the point? I want to see justice, but that implies a high level of proof before you would ever punish someone accused of a crime. The logic of our system is that it is better to set a guilty man free than to convict an innocent man. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. Unfortunately, that makes it much more difficult for victims to get satisfaction, but that is better than convicting innocent people of crimes they did not commit.
Of course: Lloyd Tubman might be playing for UL this fall
- Thread starter JHB4UK
- Start date
That's a fair question and I would start with the case of Jamius Winston where the woman claiming he rape her did not receive due process by the DA whose job it is to investigate such a claim. That's the very first place I would start, I would fire that entire prosecutor's office and any police that did not treat her complaint in a serious fashion. No matter what the real story is for them not to do their job is criminal and they should face criminal charges. This isn't suppose to be a selective justice system----but it is.
I have answered this you just don't like the answer. There is widespread guilt by universities that are prioritizing money, athletics and their reputation over dealing with these cases in an honest and fair manner. It means cases are being covered up. Women are being told to keep a lid on it. Serial rapists are allowed to continue their activities. Women are being coerced not to contact law enforcement. In some other cases men falsely accused are being dismissed for expediency. What we "want done differently" as for universities to treat these cases with the seriousness they deserve, to properly investigate and coordinate and cooperate with law endorsement instead of sweeping them under the rug or purging themselves of the innocent.
I suppose now you're going to tell us to do away with any regulations and let the free market resolve all these problem.
That's it, bring up a case in FL & apply it to UK & KY thereby smearing them with an irrelevant to UK case. Tell us a case where this happened at UK.
The foundation of our legal system was that it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent person. That's why the burden of proof is as high as it is. It's that way because it needs to be that way. For some reason with certain offenses we've decided everyone gets convicted just in case some of the really are guilty. That does need to change and not just in relation to this case but in general.
Yes, in a way. First, I think your assumption that there is a coordinated coverup is absurd. Sure, it happens, but it is not a general rule. As for the "free market", in this situation I read that as our legal system. These serious cases should be handled by the only system that allows for due process. I have noticed that you haven't addressed the need for due process once. If you believe schools are Impartial arbiters then I have some beach front property in Arizona I'd like to talk to you about.I have answered this you just don't like the answer. There is widespread guilt by universities that are prioritizing money, athletics and their reputation over dealing with these cases in an honest and fair manner. It means cases are being covered up. Women are being told to keep a lid on it. Serial rapists are allowed to continue their activities. Women are being coerced not to contact law enforcement. In some other cases men falsely accused are being dismissed for expediency. What we "want done differently" as for universities to treat these cases with the seriousness they deserve, to properly investigate and coordinate and cooperate with law endorsement instead of sweeping them under the rug or purging themselves of the innocent.
I suppose now you're going to tell us to do away with any regulations and let the free market resolve all these problem.
Man you really do have a hard time following the conversation. I was having an adult conversation with someone else and like an impertinent child you have butted into that conversation with confrontational claptrap. The man asked me a question which apparently you did not comprehend. I gave my answer and you the vacuous stalker chimes in with this unrelated silliness.
In the future post anything you want as I will not be seeing them anymore. That's the beauty of that ignore button.
And Loyd Tubman was not convicted of anything. He is not the 1st person to be excused from campus even though he was not found to be guilty in a court of law. Furthermore how many cases of expulsion have been talked about by players who were not in the entertainment business?
Not sure you can sanely claim he's seems that way......more likely you see it the opposite way all of the time
From my understanding, that case was undermined by the campus police, a member of the team staff, and Winston's attorney. There were two other kids present when the rape took place, campus police turned the info from their investigation over to a member of the football staff, who in turn forwarded those two names to Winston's attorney. He had sworn statements from both kids before the Prosecutor even knew they existed. He was livid with how the campus police handled the whole investigation. He knew they had covered the whole thing up but didn't have a crack to exploit because of getting the info third down the line. It was a total sham by FSU.
Not at all because I think JW was guilty...but if everybody remembers there was evidence that the girl let Lloyd in and out of her dorm without incident and nothing was claimed until hrs later...and there was history between the two. .
You must have missed the part where I said institutions need to coordinate and cooperate with law endorsement. Law enforcement is the first line of the legal process. It goes without saying that anyone accused of a crime is entitled to legal process, that's not what the discussion has been about, the discussion has been about actually getting to that point.
What does it even mean to "coordinate and cooperate" with law enforcement? I am talking about the heart of the matter. Due process. Do you believe the accused should be afforded due process? You sort of said you do but you aren't making your statements very clear. So let's assume you do want due process. Do you believe LT or any person adjudicated by an SRB has received it?
Due process is a term that that applies to the criminal justice system. It does not apply to other things like review boards. As I have said in other posts those involved in these situations should be dealt with fairly by the institutions investigating them, and institutions should act in a way that's fair to both the victim and the accused. There are many cases where this has not been the case and some have been discussed on this thread.
As for Tubman, as I said previously I have my doubts about his guilt based on the information that was available to the public. That's all I can honestly say about it.
The following is quoted from the CSA study you linked.
- Inform men that they are ultimately responsible for determining (1) whether or not a women has consented to sexual contact, and (2) whether or not a women is capable of providing consent; and
- Educate men that an intoxicated person cannot legally consent to sexual contact and that having sexual contact with an intoxicated or incapacitated person is unacceptable.
My issue here is pretty simple and your "impartial" authors stated it earlier in the study. The woman can NEVER be at fault, only the male. As you see in what I quoted this creates quite a conundrum. Let's say we have two 18 year old freshmen out on a date and they get access to too much alcohol. Now both just so happen to be dead drunk, but equally so. They both decide to have sex and do. Now the next day the girl is feeling like she was taken advantage of, even though she remembers consenting, and says something to her RA. The process will be almost automatic from here with the male being kicked out of school. I say he did nothing wrong. The school will say she could not consent. I say if she is too incapacitated to consent, he is too incapacitated to understand her consent was really not consent. The burden is his, though both were in an equal position. That is wrong. Then, of course, he won't even be allowed to properly defend himself because SRB's do not allow for due process. This will statistically go down as a rape or sexual assault, even though one never occurred and the male will be kicked out of school. Now the claim will be made that he was just kicked out of school, it wasn't that big of a deal, he can go elsewhere. Really? Let's say this young man was from an extremely poor Appalachian family. He was also an excellent student and fortunate enough to get a full ride for academics. This was also the only school who offered him the full scholarship he needed. His college dreams are over. The young lady involved? Well, she gets to continue in school without a concern in the world.
Now please explain how that situation is right because it does occur.
I thought you'd go down that road. Due process applies to criminal and civil matters. Universities are state actors. If you would like me to prove that to you, I can. "Fair" is irrelevant. That isn't a standard. The standard is due process from a state actor. It is impossible for the issue to be fair when the male is automatically at fault and unable to fully defend himself with his Constitutional right to due process. You can see from my last post that LT never stood a chance. Guilt or innocence was irrelevant. That is precisely why these kangaroo courts need to be outlawed.
I think the point they are making here is that if guys are a little more aware of what the law says they can better protect themselves. At any rate I cited the portion of this report that dealt with the hard data that they documented, their opinions and recommendations are something different.
I'm not trying to hound every post you make, and this has been a good discussion btw, but my point is the study isn't benign. That is how schools view these situations. The male is automatically at fault. I can guarantee you that if the girl was totally sober and agreed to sex, but the guy was drunk, and the next day she decided that was a bad choice - guess who would be tainted forever? It should be her, but it won't be. There can never be due process when the outcome is predetermined. You seem to be citing Michigans law. I want these situations turned over, fully, to our legal system. You get no argument from me there. One thing I have noticed though. You seem to side step most of what is posted. I gave a very clear example a moment ago. Do you believe the male did anything wrong and do you believe he should be kicked out of school?
I'm not a lawyer so I can't debate that with you, but if at least the concept of due process is relevant to institutional dealings with these cases than fine, I'm all for that. In the case of Tubman, if he feels he was not dealt with fairly or with due process or whatever term you want to use, then I would think he has rights and remedies under the civil statute. No doubt these board prioritize their own best interests and that of the institution above that of any student, so there's no disagreement from me at all there. But there still has to be some body to make decisions on who can or who cannot attend an institution so I'm not sure what you replace these with.
Not really going to try and judge a hypothetical, but I'm sure there are cases like what you describe where someone is unfairly expelled, but there are also many more where someone gets away with a crime.
You replace it with our existing legal system. You know, the people trained to adjudicate these cases every day. You give the accused the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. You give him the right to counsel, cross examination and facing your accuser. You replace it with the rights we were all born with in this country. SRB's need to stick with cheating, damaging school property, being drunk on pcampus. Trivial matters.
I agree with you that if there is reason a believe a crime may have been committed law enforcement should be notify. I'm not familiar enough with the Tubman case to say but what I have heard others say is that they did in fact take action based on student conduct issues such as the examples you cite not criminal ones. That by no means is to say that they necessarily got it right though. Remember they didn't send him to jail, they just told him he couldn't attend UK anymore.
If all you are saying is that every accusation should be fully investigated to determine there is enough evidence to charge the person being accused, then I agree. I have no problem with that. I'm not sure schools sweeping these cases under the rug amounts to high percentage, but maybe it does. The problem, as I see it, with low conviction rates is that rape is extremely difficult to prove. It's just the nature of the crime. I think that very fact plays heavily in why it is not reported a lot of times by the victim. She knows it's difficult to prove, and therefore, is hesitant to go through the process of reporting it, having people find out about it, only to fail to get a conviction because of lack of evidence.
Again, you side stepped. The hypothetical situation was very clear and very simple. Do you have an issue making a direct statement? I'm beginning to think you like the corrupt system just the way it is. The obvious answer, since you refuse to answer, is that you agree the outcome of my hypothetical situation is wrong, but in doing so, you have to admit that your entire stance on this issue is wrong. Sadly, it doesn't appear that you're willing to admit you are wrong. Noted.
Oh, well schools have addressed that problem by making males guilty until proven innocent. Sad but true.
As I said above, every accusation should be investigated and prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence to do so. I may be wrong, but I doubt that universities sweeping cases under the rug represents enough of a percentage of cases that it would materially change conviction rates. Rape is hard to prove. That is always going to be the case and will always make it difficult for victims to get justice. That is sad, but it's the reality of the crime.I have answered this you just don't like the answer. There is widespread guilt by universities that are prioritizing money, athletics and their reputation over dealing with these cases in an honest and fair manner. It means cases are being covered up. Women are being told to keep a lid on it. Serial rapists are allowed to continue their activities. Women are being coerced not to contact law enforcement. In some other cases men falsely accused are being dismissed for expediency. What we "want done differently" as for universities to treat these cases with the seriousness they deserve, to properly investigate and coordinate and cooperate with law endorsement instead of sweeping them under the rug or purging themselves of the innocent.
I suppose now you're going to tell us to do away with any regulations and let the free market resolve all these problem.
Sheesh, like that is insignificant. Nothing like branding him a rapist, stripping him of his scholarship and sending him on his way. Naw, that didn't hurt a thing. No need for actual justice here. You followed what I said people would do in my hypothetical, almost exactly.
If this were an actually incident would you want to render a decision just on what you typed? I would want to hear all the evidence.. How much alcohol was consumed? were there any witnesses, if so what do they say. Was any force applied? I would like to ask the young man some questions, I would like to hear from the girl.
Is this the first time he was accused of anything or has this come up before? I want to hear all the facts first.
If there is insufficient evidence that he acted inappropriately then I let him stay, otherwise if there is evidence that indicates a crime may have been committed I turn it over to law enforcement. Fair enough?
I didn't say they necessarily got it right, and I didn't say I agreed with them, nor did I insinuate that his dismissal was not damaging to him. I just pointed out that your "solution" of turning over to law enforcement doesn't fit if it were a student conduct issue, which I thought was exactly what you said. IN the case of Tubman he was exonerated in the judicial process.
Yep, now you seem to agree that the SRB's are unfair entities. All that was done for LT and the DA couldn't get a Grand Jury indictment. That didn't stop the SRB, with, at best, the same evidence. Now read up on the kid from Colorado State. The people on that SRB should be in prison.
This isn't a student conduct issue. Cheating is a student conduct issue. This is or is not a serious crime and it has no business being decided by an untrained and biased SRB. Plain and simple.
This thread and others confirm what we already know. A level of guilt lingers simply premised upon the allegation.
Nope they did nothing to LT!!!! He chose going to UK with offers from PSU , Vandy and others and now he is down to Utah St. and according to one otis fan here the opportunity to walk on there , so what the hell is the beef, right? Hell the kid is fine and ONLY his FALSE reputation precedes him!! He should send the university a big thank you letter...good grief people
Last edited:
Barney has nothing to do with the SRB or their decisions.
I read the same thing, the articles before said he only had a walkon offer at Transfer U, this makes it sound like he would have a scholarship, and I don't believe for a minute he wouldn't have one from them, if they have no problem giving scholarships to proven criminals why would they hesitate based on his case?
Someone contested my statement that UK's coaches were very excited about him based on an article I read about their comments about him as a redshirt and one of the things I mentioned was his big growth spurt, he was listed as 6' 3" and 228# as a commit and is now listed in this article as 6' 5" and 256#, and I think all that growth was attained during his redshirt at UK. They were also very impressed with his wingspan.
I'm pretty sure jurich will give him an offer he can't refuse, he will probably even promise him a few virgins in heaven if he does get killed following Quick around, not that I have heard he has any of those problems, or is that something only the Muslim fanatic sect can offer?
Last edited:
So if Tubman accepts LV, these are your reasons why? Pretty degrading of him imo.