If you read the police report, it doesn't come across as gang rape at all. The police reviewed videos which show the woman engaging in and apparently enjoying sex with multiple men. The men interviewed by police were all cooperative and insistent that the sex was consensual. Even the alleged victim was unclear on this point, saying the sex was "maybe" consensual, maybe not. She did say, however, that at some point after having sex with numerous men (she didn't remember how many) she asked them to stop sending more men into the room. Maybe after that she was raped.
University of Minnesota thread
- Thread starter Rick Burlesons Yam Bag
- Start date
I can't explain the difference in the two reports, but I would urge you to read the University report and see if that changes your perspective.
A long Deadspin article on the differences between the police and university reports:
http://deadsp.in/LmhwiQu
http://deadsp.in/LmhwiQu
Did that article change your perspective at all? Because I stand by my conclusion.
Whether the encounter started as consensual or not, those players dehumanized that woman and brutalized her.
Whether the encounter started as consensual or not, those players dehumanized that woman and brutalized her.
This is inarguable. And apparently it happens more regularly than we might think. I didn't read the University report completely but I scanned it and recall one of the athletes commenting that he wasn't aware of this gang rape but was aware of a compromised freshman girl, who musta also been "putting out", the same evening.
It doesn't change my opinion that it wasn't gang rape. But allow me to clarify my position.
Did the players dehumanize the woman? Yes. Did they brutalize her? I don't think so. Are their actions a violation of university policy and simple human decency? Absolutely. Should they be punished by the university? Yes. But in my opinion, based on both reports, it wasn't rape. In my opinion (and I think most legal definitions,) rape requires the use of force or the threat of the use of force. I'm unaware of any evidence in this case that the men used force or threatened her in any way.
I this case, the woman herself isn't sure whether she consented or not following the threesome. She says she didn't want to continue, but took no action to leave and may or may not have communicated her desire to stop to the men. Schools may use an "affirmative consent" principle in sexual assault cases, requiring men to obtain unequivocal and clear assent from women before engaging in sexual activity, but that's a very problematic slippery slope for the legal system.
As for the Deadspin article, it's a well-reported, well-written account, but it makes some presumptions of guilt. For example, the fact that players texted each other using foul language and then deleted those texts once police and the school started investigations isn't evidence of guilt. The fact that many of them took videos suggests that they believed it was consensual, not the opposite.
It's also hard on the police. Contacting the AD isn't necessarily unprofessional. The fact that the police did fewer interviews than the school isn't necessarily bad either. They have a much higher standard of guilt. Once the woman says something like "I'm not sure if the sex was consensual or not" they basically have no case.
The reason the players complaining about due process are wrong is that due process is a legal concept that protects them from criminal punishment. As students and players, they agree to higher expected standards of behavior and lower standards regarding school and team disciplinary procedures and punishment for violating those standards.
Last edited:
First, IANAL.
Second, the legal definition of rape varies from state to state.
Third, from FindLaw:
"Definition of Rape. The crime of rape generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. Common law defined rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will."
That's all well and good counselor but we're not in court and the presumption of innocence doesn't apply.
They raped that woman. Minnesota did the right thing.
They raped that woman. Minnesota did the right thing.
I agree with many of your points in general in American society. Due process and fairness are absolutely key tenets, and we should not attempt to right past wrongs by overreacting.
However, we are talking about college football here. It's very different from the rest of American society. Maybe I've spent too much time reading about Baylor, Penn State and Florida State, but it feels like too often schools and local police are unlikely to punish people affiliated with winning on Saturdays, and that a rape culture of sorts is either ignored or endorsed. So when I hear a university suspending players, especially without charges being pressed, my reaction is "they must have done something wrong". I'm used to a world where universities cover up the wrong so the players can play.
I'm on my phone so I can't tell if this snark is directed at me. Assuming it is, let me remind you that I'm the one making the distinction between criminal punishment and university discipline. Rape is a legal term. The actions described in both the police report and the university report, however disgusting, aren't legally rape IMO because (a) the was no force or threat of force and (b) there is evidence of consent and (c) the woman herself isn't (or wasn't) sure one way or the other about whether she'd consented.
But yes, as I said in my previous post, there's no presumption of innocence in a university disciplinary procedure. The concept of due process doesn't apply the same way it does in a criminal courtroom. That doesn't make what happened "gang rape" though. Rape, like murder, is a legal term with a somewhat specific meaning.
Of course what they did was wrong, but where was the coverup here? IIRC, at least two of the students voluntarily provided the police with video of players having sex with the woman and readily named names. Doesn't seem to me that anyone was hiding anything, at least at first. Later, apparently, some players deleted vulgar texts after it became clear that those involved would be punished.
There was none to the best of my knowledge. In the broader college football world we would almost expect one, which is why this university taking action was a bit refreshing.
To your broader point of men being punished unfairly for accusations of sexual assault, I agree with you on the legal process. Presumption of innocence and a preponderance of evidence are critical tenants. I just expect the behavior of a university to be the opposite of Minnesota in the context of college football where universities look to ignore (or worse, cover up) sexual assault by football players. Regardless of evidence and guilt or innocence, we gotta win/ sell tickets/ keep milking this cash cow.
I guess what I'm saying is that I look at college football through a different lens than the rest of American society. I'm admittedly tainted by recent scandals. Of course, Minnesota addressing sexual assault by their football team could help explain why they haven't been a relevant force in the game recently too...
You are correct that rape is a legal term. But the presumption of innocence only applies in court.
It is absolutely your right to come to a different conclusion, but the case has been adjudicated by the University and they have been found guilty. Regardless of whether they can be criminally charged or not, that fact will not change.
I have to assume that the reason they haven't been charged is that she's trying to put this sordid tale behind her.
I can easily see where the case might be considered unprosecutable, if only because (to give just one example) the concept of someone consenting at the outset of a sexual encounter but then being trapped or manipulated into a gang-rape would be very difficult for a jury to wrap their collective minds around.
That does not change what happened here, but I can understand why the prosecutor would not go forward.
That does not change what happened here, but I can understand why the prosecutor would not go forward.
Under common law that was the case, and until about 40-50 years ago force or threat of force was often required in most of the US. Most (all?) states now have statutes that replace the common law; they typically criminalize non-consensual sex in general, though whether the term "rape" is used or not is a mishmash (in many places it's all called sexual assault, in Minnesota it's "criminal sexual conduct")
Among other things, in Minnesota it's criminal sexual conduct in the 3rd degree if the perpetrator knew or should have known that the victim was mentally impaired (e.g. drunk).
I'm not sure that's true. Even most non- judicial, academic disciplinary procedures respect the principles of presumption of innocence and due process, just not as rigorously as the judicial system. When the max punishment is expulsion, not prison time, that's okay.
They were not found "guilty" of any crime at all, certainly not "rape." That's not my conclusion. It's a simple fact. They were found to have violated the school's rules. I'm not playing word games. The distinction is hugely important.
In Minnesota, if two drunk people engage in sex without either of them giving explicit consent or expressing refusal, which one is committing 3rd degree criminal sexual assault?
I'm sure it seems as if I'm playing word games, but I assure you I am not.
The presumption of innocence really has no place outside of a courtroom. I have no problem in stating that based on a review of the facts and a dash of common sense, these men are unquestionably rapists.
That's not a legal judgement. It's a factual one.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree about that. I believe the presumption of innocence is a basic principle of American justice in nearly every venue. It is, in fact, a part of UM's student disciplinary procedure. I think you may be confusing "beyond reasonable doubt" with "a preponderance of evidence." The former isn't a central principle in most non-criminal disciplinary systems.
Actually, it's your opinion, not a fact. And you could have a problem insofar as your opinion could be considered slander or libel.
You are free to believe what your want, but the presumption of innocence is a specific legal concept that is relevant only in the context of a criminal trial. Institutions are free to incorporate it into their process if they want, but they are under no obligation to do so.
The truth is an affirmative defense.
Seems to me you're contradicting yourself when you say the presumption of innocence principle is relevant ONLY in criminal trials, but that institutions can adhere to it too. In fact, most institutions do, so it's not relevant only in criminal trials. It's relevant in all institutional disciplinary procedures that adhere to it, i.e. most of the time. I can't think of any institution that employs a presumption of guilt in disciplinary procedures. Can you?
True, but AFAIK, none of the players have been convicted of rape (or even charged with any crime) so calling them rapists could be considered slander or libel. I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you though.
We're arguing semantics here - if you're in a situation where preponderance of evidence is the standard, it's not clear what 'presumption of innocence' means. I guess if the evidence is exactly 50-50 you break the tie in favor of the defense? Presumption of innocence makes sense in the criminal setting where you're saying you assume innocence, and then have to prove guilt... if the standard is "which side makes the more convincing case", it doesn't really matter what presumption you start with
Maybe it is a semantic argument, but I think it's perfectly clear what it means. It means that an accused person is presumed to be innocent unless and until an adjudicating body determines there's a preponderance of evidence indicating that the accused person is guilty.
It's a simple concept and somewhat puzzling to me that it's in any way arguable. We generally don't punish people accused of wrongdoing based on accusations. We generally punish people only after an appropriate adjudicating body (a court of law or university student conduct review board, etc.) make a determination that the allegations are true. Whether the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of evidence" doesn't change the initial presumption of innocence at all in any way.
I have not employed a presumption of guilt here - I've looked at the evidence that has been released and come to a conclusion based on that evidence. And because we are not in court, I have no obligation to suspend reason and declare that the players must be innocent simply because a court has not found them guilty.
I've heard many legal experts/commentators talk about this, but I am partial to Dan Abrams, who said this about the presumption:
Our system makes it very hard to convict. And in this case, the prosecutors did not bring charges because they did not believe that they could get 12 jurors to convict. That does not mean that the players were innocent and after reading the University's report, it's pretty clear that they are guilty of rape.
You obviously disagree and that's your right. But judging the players by a legal standard that requires me to suspend my sense of deductive reasoning is silly and I don't buy it.
Okay, but I neither said nor implied that you did.
No one is requiring or even suggesting that you suspend your sense of deductive reasoning.
Read better or avoid the temptation to put words in his mouth. He's making a distinct argument that we don't know when she claims to have said 'stop' and when it did actually stop. He's not saying that after she said 'stop having sex with me' that 'maybe it was rape' at that point if the players continued. That would be pretty cut and dry and short of someone explicitly stating otherwise I think anyone here can be trusted to see that line of demarcation.
Agreement on the overall argument isn't necessary to see the distinction to that particular statement. I'm not weighing in one way or the other on that larger argument because I haven't read any of the reports and even then, who the fuck knows? There seems to be conflict and the Deadspin article posted earlier didn't strike me as particularly objective or as decisive as it seemingly did others.
But he's not saying what you're implying. That much is not really up for debate.
Yeah, that's what the woman apparently told the police, that maybe she didn't consent. She wasn't at all clear on that point, to whom she'd consented and to whom she had not, which is probably why the police didn't charge anyone.
But yes, I put that very poorly. Allow me to clarify. From reading the police report, it seems to me that this young women willingly engaged in a gang bang, having sex with several men, but at some point she'd "had enough" and told someone to stop sending more men into the room. Whether the additional men, after that point, had any idea that she'd withdrawn consent is relevant to the question of rape, but I'm not sure exactly how.
All that said, it bears repeating that the men's behavior was disgusting and deserving of university discipline, but probably not criminal charges.
It's pretty clear in the EOAA report when she said stop, and it's corroborated by *one of the accused* (the only one who had a conscience).
I apologize for taking your post that way, but jeez read the report. It took me 15 minutes.
Spoilering this because it's fucking gross, but this is a section on accused A12's testimony (NOT the accuser).
I apologize for taking your post that way, but jeez read the report. It took me 15 minutes.
Spoilering this because it's fucking gross, but this is a section on accused A12's testimony (NOT the accuser).
Last edited:
Please take a step back and think how absurd and incoherent your arguments here are. And how pernicious. Attitudes like yours jeopardize millions of women. And if you think this is too strong, it's about half of what I'd love to say to you. Keep worrying about whether the gangbanging football players were on notice that maybe the girl wasn't still into it and whether they're need to get a nut was so important that they couldn't just walk away.
Perhaps you can help by explaining why you believe my "argument" is absurd? I put "argument" in quotes, because the part of my post you're referring to isn't really an argument at all. It's a reiteration of what the woman herself said, according to the police report.
Perhaps my summary is inaccurate? Or are you objecting to me raising the question about whether the men involved in the gangbang after she says she expressed her desire for it to stop were aware of her withdrawal of consent, and whether their knowledge has relevance to criminal rape charges. (I say it does. I'm just not sure how.)
In a nutshell, the question is: if a man has sex with a woman and mistakenly believes she has consented, absent any indication that the woman objects, is that criminal rape? "Affirmative consent" may be required by many university sexual conduct policies, but AFIAK, that's not a legal standard. Also, at many (most?) universities, people incapacitated by alcohol (or other intoxication) cannot consent. It's also the law in many states. I completely agree with that. In this case, however, that doesn't appear to be at issue. According to the police report, the woman's level of intoxication was not incapacitating. The police say that in the video they reviewed she appeared to be engaging in consensual sex, so unless she drank more alcohol or took drugs after the videos were taken, incapacitation isn't in play here.
What do you imagine my attitude is? In what way is that attitude harmful to women?
First, thanks for being civil. I'm aware that discussions on this subject often become heated. Second, I think I see the problem. That's not what I think or believe. I am not worried about the gangbanging players at all. As I've said, I think their behavior was disgusting, reprehensible, and deserving of punishment -- more severe punishment than they're apparently receiving. I do not, however, believe it is clear that they committed criminal rape, a point the police and prosecutors seem to agree with. I'm aware that police/prosecutorial agreement is an argument-from-authority and not necessarily persuasive, but it's worth noting.
What I am discussing (and what seems to be driving some people crazy, and others to jump to conclusions about my arguments, attitudes, beliefs, and character) is the question of what, exactly, constitutes rape and/or sexual assault in criminal and university-disciplinary proceedings. And the rather large difference between the two. In short: are the cops wrong about this case? Are the player/students, without doubt, rapists? I don't think so.
There's also a side-debate about whether the principle of "presumption of innocence" is or should be a general principle of justice or whether it is appropriate only in criminal trials, but that's more of a philosophical discussion.
[Edits for punctuation and grammar.]
Last edited:
You can start your exercise by thinking of all the various reasons why prosecutors don't pursue rape charges. Thank you, too, for being civil.
@dhappy42 in regards to consent I think it's pretty instructive to look at this bit of the report (I will continue to spoiler these because some might not want to see the difficult details). It's not always an easy, binary thing for a woman, especially in a situation with multiple, large men, to "just get out" of the situation. My apologies again for my reactionary first post in this thread. I know that doesn't help anything.
I understand that. I still believe that rape requires coercion of some kind. Regarding the sexual encounters described in the university report passages you cite, those are the same encounters that the police saw, in part, on videotape. The police officer described the woman in the tape as "lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time." What was she thinking at the time? Who knows? She's not even sure. But if she was fully conscious, "playful" and laughing with the men she's sucking and fucking, I have a difficult time considering that rape, regardless of what she thought about it later when she was sober.
More from the police report: "[Redacted] sounds as though she is somewhat intoxicated, but is not slurring her words and is certainly conscious of what is going on. She does not appear to be upset by the sexual activity and does not indicate that she wants it to stop... the sexual contact appears entirely consensual." If it appeared entirely consensual to the police officer (she's laughing and joking with the men, acting playfully) it almost certainly appeared that way to the men involved in the encounter too. It's impossible to know if she gave "affirmative consent," i.e. explicitly said "yes," but it's reasonably clear that she did not say "no" and was not coerced into having sex with the first two or three men. Did she regret it later when she was sober? Obviously, but regret ≠ rape.
Note that I'm only referring to the first two or three men she had sexual relations with, the part described in the report you refer to.
Start? I've already given that considerable thought. In this case, it's very clear to me why the police and prosecutors didn't bring charges. The victim's story is equivocal. She tells the police she's not sure whether the sex was consensual or not and says the sex with some of the men "may have been consensual," but that it wasn't with some others. She makes no claim that any of the men forced her to have sex. She's seen laughing and joking with two or three men in a videotape of a threesome. After the incident, she returned to the apartment to talk with one of the men who she later claims raped her just hours before. IANAL, but that seems to me to be an incredibly weak case.
It seems like you feel that the definition of coercion requires physicality. I fundamentally disagree with that.
The video that you're referring to was at the very beginning with only the first two (of possibly over 10) perps. It's completely possible this portion was somewhat consensual, but even there she talks about doing it to get it over with because she felt that was the safest way out of a situation *she didn't want to be in*. It goes downhill fast from there.
The video that you're referring to was at the very beginning with only the first two (of possibly over 10) perps. It's completely possible this portion was somewhat consensual, but even there she talks about doing it to get it over with because she felt that was the safest way out of a situation *she didn't want to be in*. It goes downhill fast from there.
Yeah, like did a liquor store clerk give all the money in the cash register to a guy holding a gun consensually?
Umm... no. That's not what I said. Force isn't required. Coercion can be the threat of force. Even an implied threat. That's absent here.
Yes. If you read my post, that's pretty much what I said. Except I said two or three.
Edit: What does "somewhat consensual" mean?
A poor choice of words for sure. From my reading of the accounts, my personal opinion is that she was drunk (but not plastered) and wanted to hook up with one of the initial 2 accused, which is totally fine and normal.
That was spun by Accused #2 into something she did absolutely did not want and that she couldn't and didn't know how to get out of.
The accounts simply do not agree with the bolded but I'm not going to do the legwork of pulling them from every other page of the report.
Here's some other interesting links.
http://m.startribune.com/after-authorities-did-not-charge-her-rapist-u-student-fought-back/398051931/
http://m.startribune.com/charges-in-u-sex-case-still-possible/408364156/
Agreed.
That part, I don't get. Didn't know how to get out of? How about saying, "Get the fuck off of me, asshole!"? Or telling the guy she liked to make the other guy leave? The notion that she had no choice and no other option but the one she chose seems preposterous to me. And it's contradicted by the video as described by police.
The UM report says, "RS felt she was in a situation she didn't want to be in. However, she did not communicate this to A2 and the recruit at that time. [My emphasis.] RS felt like she could not stop what was happening. She felt that the men would either ignore her resistance or would make her feel bad about it or 'cause a scene.'"
She blows one guy (the guy she likes) and lets the other guy fuck her because she doesn't want "cause a scene"? Seriously? And she didn't tell either of them that she was uncomfortable with what was happening. I think that alone absolves A2 and the recruit of any criminal responsibility. I'd also say that any university punishment of A2 is unwarranted. (Again, what happens later is a different matter.) Keep in mind that this is based on the university's report, not the police report, in which the woman is described as laughing and joking with A2 and the recruit in a video while engaging in what the police say was an "entirely consensual" threesome.
By "the bolded" are you referring to my contention that there's nothing in either report indicating that the men used force or the threat of force to compel the woman to have sex? If so, where in either report does the woman make the claim that any of them threatened her or used force? Letting a guy fuck you because you don't want him to make you "feel bad" or "cause a scene" isn't the same thing as him forcing you to have sex. The way I'm putting it may sound callous or crude, but those are her words as described in the report that's the most favorable to her claims of what transpired.
Last edited:
This is an excellent illustration of why "no means no" has failed and there's a move to "yes means yes" standards. Which shouldn't be needed, but sadly is.
It's probably hard to imagine when you're not a 115lb woman in this situation with men who are 6 whatever and 200lb give or take. This is why empathy and sympathy are different words, man.
I'm not going to argue further with someone who doesn't seem to want to arm themselves with the facts. I'll leave you with what I think is the best reply you were given: "Attitudes like yours jeopardize millions of women." You should *really* think about what that meant.
I'm not going to argue further with someone who doesn't seem to want to arm themselves with the facts. I'll leave you with what I think is the best reply you were given: "Attitudes like yours jeopardize millions of women." You should *really* think about what that meant.
Yeah, dhappy42, you're trying to make an intellectual exercise or some socratic/sophist thing out of this and it's bullshit. Don't have a conversation about rape and talk about what "you believe" the law is. Educate yourself, because it's a horrific topic to be ignorant about.
The best thing you can do is stop having this conversation with men - though many of us are well-informed and well-meaning, and look into some of the resources put out their by survivors. I can point you in the right direction. Read about people's experiences and try to have some empathy and understanding and some real-world, real-life appreciation of how what is thought and felt and feared in these situations and their aftermaths.
The best thing you can do is stop having this conversation with men - though many of us are well-informed and well-meaning, and look into some of the resources put out their by survivors. I can point you in the right direction. Read about people's experiences and try to have some empathy and understanding and some real-world, real-life appreciation of how what is thought and felt and feared in these situations and their aftermaths.
How so? According to both the police and UM report, she didn't say no until sometime later, and even then didn't actually say "no" or "stop" to anyone in particular.
What's probably hard to imagine?
Excuse me? I'm citing the facts as best we can know them, using the description of events from both the police and UM reports.
I know what it means. It's ad hominem, an attempt to malign my character rather than address any facts or argument. It's an appeal to emotion, not an argument.
My "attitude" is simply this: rape is a legal term and, in nearly all cases, requires coercion, not simply lack of communication. And again, I'm not defending the men's behavior.
Nothing you're saying is actually true, either legally or morally. You're either trolling or woefully ignorant. Please stop and educate yourself. Really. Stop posting in this thread till you've learned a little more.