What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

U of Minnesota Sexual Assault Case (1 Viewer)

Tom Skerritt

Tom Skerritt

Footballguy
Anybody read the university's report into these allegations? Pretty despicable what some of these guys did. While it's not enough to charge any of them for anything criminal, the university has clear evidence that some of these guys violated the school's code of conduct, specifically related to sexual harassment, harm to a person, sexual misconduct, and violation of University rules.

Report describes how main perpetrator (A2) all but intimidated and coerced a drunk female to perform sex with himself and others against her wishes. He took videos and shared them with multiple people. Witnesses describe the victim as not interested in the sexual contact, but they went on with it anyway.

One of the more damning pieces of evidence was a text that A2 sent to other football players stating... "Me and the recruit finna double team this b**** ". The report states that the accuser is the most credible, while A2 has many discrepancies in his story contradicted by witnesses and his own videos that he took.

It's a long read, but they believe the story of the accuser of that of A2. And after reading the details of the report, the story about the football team threatening to boycott the bowl game over due process is laughable. Those guys should be ashamed of themselves.

 
Apparently there were 3 separate videos that suggesting she was giving consent, but if she's drunk that should override any video of consent.  I read some of the report, she took it pretty hard.  Is there a criminal investigation?

 
Dedfin said:
Apparently there were 3 separate videos that suggesting she was giving consent, but if she's drunk that should override any video of consent.  I read some of the report, she took it pretty hard.  Is there a criminal investigation?
Click to expand...
She says that she felt intimidated and threatened... not quite the same as consent. She relented their somewhat aggressive advances and wanted the whole thing to just get over and done with. The report states that the videos indicate that she was not exactly "consenting" to the sexual acts based on the behavior of multiple parties involved.

I think that the criminal investigation is done, and there is not enough evidence to move forward with charges.

 
Dedfin said:
Apparently there were 3 separate videos that suggesting she was giving consent, but if she's drunk that should override any video of consent.  I read some of the report, she took it pretty hard.  Is there a criminal investigation?
Click to expand...
The police investigator said in his report that the video of the alleged victim made it look consensual. I'm not sure the DA has made a decision, but that's a strong no file in 99.9% of prosecutors offices in the country. 

 
Rirruto said:
The police investigator said in his report that the video of the alleged victim made it look consensual. I'm not sure the DA has made a decision, but that's a strong no file in 99.9% of prosecutors offices in the country. 
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious that there is not enough evidence to suggest sexual assault, but very obvious that they violated the University Code of Conduct. Hence the suspension and potential expulsion. 

 
I saw an article on CNN where other players on the team may boycott the game in support of these tools. Of all the things to stand up for.

 
ESPN's OTL on Friday really made it seem like the University was in the wrong here.  Partially because the University and the student's lawyer refused to be on the show.

 
Dedfin said:
Apparently there were 3 separate videos that suggesting she was giving consent, but if she's drunk that should override any video of consent.  I read some of the report, she took it pretty hard.  Is there a criminal investigation?
Click to expand...
No.

Passed out or clearly incapacitated is one thing.  Merely intoxicated is something entirely different. 

Edit: Seriously, we've gone from "No means no" to "Yes means yes" to "Well, maybe yes really means no."  That's insane, given the stakes that we're talking about.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
I don't think they were accused of crimes in this case - it appears no charges were filed, before the school took disciplinary action for violating the student conduct code.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the woman was the one who brought charges against them, which law enforcement sensibly declined to pursue.  I know that's sort of semantic since they were never charged, but they were actually publicly accused.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
My understanding is that the woman was the one who brought charges against them, which law enforcement sensibly declined to pursue.  I know that's sort of semantic since they were never charged, but they were actually publicly accused.
Click to expand...
But that is not what the players were "standing up for"

The players threatened to boycott because the school is pursuing disciplinary action - including suspending 10 of the players from the team - for a violation of the school conduct code.

 
A major showdown over Title IX is brewing at the University of Minnesota, where the entire football team has agreed to boycott future games in support of 10 players who were suspended for sexual misconduct violations.

Student-athlete Drew Wolitarsky read a statement on behalf of the team Thursday night in which he blamed the administration for conducting an "unjust Title IX investigation without due process."

"We are concerned that our brothers have been named publicly with reckless disregard in violation of their constitutional rights," he said. "We are now compelled to speak for our team and take back our program."

 
Coach Tracy Claeys appears to be in full support of the boycott. "Have never been more proud of our kids," he tweeted.

The incident in question took place the night of September 2, after the team's season-opener. One female student alleged that she was involved in nonconsensual sex with several people, including Carlton Djam, one of the football players. According to The Star Tribune, the woman consumed "five or six" shots before heading to a party where she met Djam. He took her up to a bedroom and proceeded to have sex with her. She then engaged in sex with a number of other men—she told the police they waited in line to "take turns." She thought as many as 12 men were involved, though she couldn't recall the exact number.

That's the woman's version. Djam told police that their sex was fully consensual. He produced three video clips taken on the morning in question that showed the woman was "lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time," according to the police report. This satisfied the police and no charges were filed.

The woman then pursued a restraining order against six football players, and an agreement was reached: they had to stay away from her, and she agreed not to take further legal action against them.

End of story? Nope. That's because the university has its own process for investigating sexual misconduct that is separate from the police. According to the Education Department, Title IX—a federal statute mandating equality between the sexes in public education—requires universities to adjudicate sexual misconduct internally. These Title IX proceedings often deny fundamental due process rights to accused students, since the Office for Civil Rights—the agency that ensures Title IX compliance—has instructed universities to use a lower standard of proof. OCR guidance also discourages administrators from allowing cross-examination, one of the most vital tools a defendant has to prove his or her innocent.

As a result of Minnesota's Title IX proceeding, 10 players were suspended. The Pioneer Press reported that expulsion was recommended for at least one of them.

The New York Times wrote about the boycott, which seems likely to become a major national issue—and hopefully result in increased scrutiny of OCR. The NYT wrote that "burdens of proof used in [Title IX] investigations are by law lower than the criminal justice system's," which is a bit misleading, as KC Johnson pointed out. It is OCR's opinion that Title IX—a one-sentence statute—requires university administrators to use the preponderance of evidence standard. But neither Congress, nor the courts, nor the Minnesota legislature have approved such a requirement.

That's not the only curious thing about the NYT's coverage.

Note that every single one of the 10 suspended students is black. We don't know what, exactly, they are all accused of—recall that the woman only filed restraining orders against six of them—but we do know that they are all students of color, because they were named and publicly identified.

The Times glosses over this detail.

Given the fact that the criminal justice system is plagued by implicit and explicit racism, it's astonishing that the paper of record would ignore the racial implications of a university denying fundamental due process to 10 black students and then punishing them for sexual misconduct.

*Updated on December 17 and 1:00 p.m.: The Gophers have ended their boycott. The suspensions remain in place.
Click to expand...
Link

 
The sense I get from the local coverage is the players went with the boycott because they had no information other than what their teammates said and that no criminal charges were brought. Then the report was released and inthibk the boycott was dropped less than 24 hours later once they had access. 

 
For those that can't be bothered to read, some key findings:

STANDARD OF EVIDENCE EOAA determines whether sexual assault or harassment occurred using a preponderance of the evidence standard. In other words, EOAA determines whether it is more likely than not that the alleged sexual assault or harassment occurred.

***

FINDING ON INCAPACITATION We considered whether RS was incapacitated by alcohol during her time in apartment 8 . According to University policy, consent for sexual contact is not obtained where there is incapacitation due to the influence of alcohol. While in apartment B , RS felt intoxicated by the alcohol that she drank earlier in the night and her judgment was likely somewhat impaired. However, information from multiple sources (including from witnesses, RS herself and videos of RS taken that night) indicates that her alcohol consumption did not significantly impair her ability to control her physical movements, her ability to communicate effectively or her awareness of her circumstances and surroundings. Based on this evidence, we find that RS ·was not incapacitated by alcohol under University policy.

[There is a lengthy 50ish pages discussing the evidence, and credibility of the various witnesses]

***

XIII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Administrative Sexual assault Board ofRcgents
Policy: Sexual provision of the Policy: Student
Hal'assment Administrative Co1ttluct Code, Section
I>oJicy: Sexual IV
Assault, Stalking and
Relationship Violence
A2 Violation No Violation Violation of Subdivisions
6, 8 and 19
A6 Violation Violation Violation of Subdivisions
6,8andl9
A10 No Violation No Violation No Violation
A4 Violation Violation Violation of Subdivisions
6, 8 and 19
A1 Violation Violation Violation of Subdivisions
6, 8 and 19
A5 No Violation Violation Violation of Subdivisions
6, 8 and 19
A12 Violation No Violation Violation of Subdivisions
6, 8 and 19
A7 No Violation No Violation No Violatio11
A3 Violation No Violation Violation of Subdivisions
6, 8 and 19
A8 Violation No Violation Violation of Subdivisions
3,6,8and19
A11 Violation No Violation Violation of Subdivisions
3, 6, 8 and 19
A9 No Violation No Violation Violation of Subdivision
3 

So, the accused were going up against 3 main charges from the Administrative Police and Student Conduct Code - Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, and a specific provision of the Student conduct Code.  There were numerous finding of "no violation" but most were adjudged guilty of at least one violation.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
No.

Passed out or clearly incapacitated is one thing.  Merely intoxicated is something entirely different. 

Edit: Seriously, we've gone from "No means no" to "Yes means yes" to "Well, maybe yes really means no."  That's insane, given the stakes that we're talking about.
Click to expand...
The report was hard to follow due to the number of men involved and her not remembering exact details.

Sounds like she never said "no" to the first two guys and did it just so she wouldn't get hurt/raped.  So it was consent due to fear?

 
Max Power said:
The report was hard to follow due to the number of men involved and her not remembering exact details.

Sounds like she never said "no" to the first two guys and did it just so she wouldn't get hurt/raped.  So it was consent due to fear?
Click to expand...
I skimmed through the report.  Pages 24-25 describe the short video that the police had access to but the university did not (because the woman did not consent to making the video available to university investigators).  The police indicated that what they saw was consensual sex.  Admittedly, the fact that there is video strikes me as inherently skeevy, but these are the times that we live in.  

Edit: Here's the section I'm referring to.  The formatting is terrible since it's coming off a pdf.  

EOAA was unable to obtain the 90-second video taken by A2 A2 lawyer Lee Hutton reported that he has th~ video and offered to provide it with RS written consent. Mr. Hutton reported that he obtained the video through a forensic investigation of 1 A2 ;ellphone. RS refused to consent because she has never seen the video, and feared that 1t would be too painful. EOAA obtained a redacted version of the Minneapolis P9lice Department's description of the video. According to the police description: The video shows A2 the recruit and RS , all naked. A2 is sitting on the bed with his legs spread. RS is on her hands and elbows with her 24 chest facing_ down. She appears to be perfonning oral sex on AZ The recruit is having ######l intercourse with RS from behind her. At one point, RS says, "Okay, I have to throw out my gum, where do I put it, I can't, man, guh, no, no (laughs) it's so hard with three of you. Okay, okay this is ####### bard, I don't know.'' One of the men suggests that they take turns and RS replies, "1 don't know. 11 According to the police description: The two men make gestures indicatillg success to one another during the sexual interaction. RS sounds somewhat intoxicated, but her coordination appears to be normal and she is not slurring her words. She does not appear to be upset by the sexual activity. She does not indicate that she wants it to stop. The Minneapolis Police Department concluded that the sexual contact "appears entirely consensual."
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Totally fine with the university pulling their scholarships for conduct that reflects badly on the institution.

 
The kids' boycott speech was absolutely legally and intellectually stupid. They may have had a point, but whoever wrote that statement must have gone to st Thomas law. 

 
There's a difference between someone who is drunk and someone who is too drunk to consent.

It should not be hard to tell, but as a rule if your buddy hands off a girl he just finished with to you and 4 of your buddies, and she is drunk...probably a good idea to pass

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dickey moe
University of Idaho college student murders - suspect arrested
4 5 6
Replies
265
Views
15K
GenX fan
G
BroncoFreak_2K3
University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel fired by board after investigation
Replies
11
Views
939
Judge Smails
Judge Smails
Bracie Smathers
YouTube channels of people building own homes
Replies
0
Views
690
Bracie Smathers
Bracie Smathers

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top