Junior wrote: Am I to presume that the crazy Army doc that killed all those soldiers at Fort Hood is innocent solely because he has not been convicted? What about the movie theater guy in Colorado? Do you consider him to be innocent at this stage just because a judge hasn't hammered his gavel while yelling guilty?
I get what you're saying, but I think it's utterly ridiculous and somewhat irresponsible to assume that everyone is innocent until a formal conviction is handed down.
The doc - HELLZ YES - and I'm sitting in Ft. Hood for training right this second while I write this. Besides, the two cases you mentioned are moving through prosecution as we speak, while no charges - if I read this correctly - have been brought against the player. I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like a big difference to me. I mean, this is one article of a writer I'm not familiar with and I'm not ready to point the finger at a kid over that just yet.
And I understand your point, I respect the question you're trying to ask.
Junior wrote: Am I to presume that the crazy Army doc that killed all those soldiers at Fort Hood is innocent solely because he has not been convicted? What about the movie theater guy in Colorado? Do you consider him to be innocent at this stage just because a judge hasn't hammered his gavel while yelling guilty?
I get what you're saying, but I think it's utterly ridiculous and somewhat irresponsible to assume that everyone is innocent until a formal conviction is handed down.
The doc - HELLZ YES - and I'm sitting in Ft. Hood for training right this second while I write this. Besides, the two cases you mentioned are moving through prosecution as we speak, while no charges - if I read this correctly - have been brought against the player. I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like a big difference to me. I mean, this is one article of a writer I'm not familiar with and I'm not ready to point the finger at a kid over that just yet.
And I understand your point, I respect the question you're trying to ask.
You're right. It is a big difference, but I was making more of a generalization regarding the media, not attacking your post.
And the point about no charges being filed is a good one.
Maybe I just shouldn't start drinking beer at 130 on Fridays...
Basically, I just believe 95% of the media are hacks. And the potential threat if litigation over every written these days makes many articles lost unreadable with all of the "alleged" and "so-called"'s they have to throw in these days to protect themselves and their publishers.
The days of great journalism ended decades ago due to the legal system essentially supporting and encouraging anyone who feels wronged or slighted in any way to bring a suit against anyone.
And to clarify, yes, I think >50% of all lawyers are guilty of this sort of behavior for no other reason than to turn a profit for themselves. They make a mockery of the US legal system that won't be reformed until most of us are dead and buried.
Junior wrote:I always have a problem with the assertion that everyone HAS to be presumed innocent in the media until actually convicted.
Am I to presume that the crazy Army doc that killed all those soldiers at Fort Hood is innocent solely because he has not been convicted? What about the movie theater guy in Colorado? Do you consider him to be innocent at this stage just because a judge hasn't hammered his gavel while yelling guilty?
I get what you're saying, but I think it's utterly ridiculous and somewhat irresponsible to assume that everyone is innocent until a formal conviction is handed down.
Unless the victim is physically assualted by a stranger, Rape is different from any other crime because it is based upon consent or lack of consent with respect to a perfectly legal activity - intercourse. In cases of date rape without violence, it is often undisputed that the people had intercourse. The only issues is consent and that means a He Said - She Said.
If you believe a girl would never lie/misremember/regret, then any girl can send any boy to prison for years based upon her word alone. If you don't believe false accusations happen, the Duke lacrosse players would tell you otherwise. They were lucky - they had 100% proof that one of the accused was not there when the alleged assault happened. Without that evidence, they would have gone to trial and probably would have gone to prison.
I not trying to say, "Let's all get along and just be friends", but all of you have very good points and I can't disagree with any of your positions. Having been persecuted by an uneducated press, never receiving an apology, the press can run amok, and suffer no consequences for their errors.
alamocitystang wrote:This is why I don't want thugs on the team no matter how good they are. But how does this author know the facts? Suicide doesn't make you right. And ND, like SMU, has a vested interest in keeping these stories out of the public eye no matter if they are true or not. People, as evidenced by the nasty responses after the comments of some reactive feminist, are lying in wait to say bad things about Notre Dame. And you idiots don't realize that half of DFW can't wait til SMU gets brought down either. Jealousy is a lousy, clouding judgement thing.
I had a friend in high school that was falsely accused of tape because the girl couldn't face the consequences of her drunken actions. This was a fluff piece with absolutely no evidence cited. What a deleted deleted.
I'm not saying this story is true or not. I wasn't there and have no facts, but statements like these are why more women do not come forward when they are the victims of sexual assault. Someone tries to bring this story to light and is labeled a "reactive feminist?" This board is full of reactive idiots, but we rarely call them out.
My last point is in reference to your high school friend, and this is the same thing I tell my 15 year old son. Do not have sex with a girl if she is intoxicated in any way. Depending on the level of intoxication, the girl is unable to consent. I passed up on a lot of tail at SMU for that very reason. Maybe I was scared of being falsely accused, but I'd rather avoid the situation if possible.
alamocitystang wrote:This is why I don't want thugs on the team no matter how good they are. But how does this author know the facts? Suicide doesn't make you right. And ND, like SMU, has a vested interest in keeping these stories out of the public eye no matter if they are true or not. People, as evidenced by the nasty responses after the comments of some reactive feminist, are lying in wait to say bad things about Notre Dame. And you idiots don't realize that half of DFW can't wait til SMU gets brought down either. Jealousy is a lousy, clouding judgement thing.
I had a friend in high school that was falsely accused of tape because the girl couldn't face the consequences of her drunken actions. This was a fluff piece with absolutely no evidence cited. What a deleted deleted.
I'm not saying this story is true or not. I wasn't there and have no facts, but statements like these are why more women do not come forward when they are the victims of sexual assault. Someone tries to bring this story to light and is labeled a "reactive feminist?" This board is full of reactive idiots, but we rarely call them out.
My last point is in reference to your high school friend, and this is the same thing I tell my 15 year old son. Do not have sex with a girl if she is intoxicated in any way. Depending on the level of intoxication, the girl is unable to consent. I passed up on a lot of tail at SMU for that very reason. Maybe I was scared of being falsely accused, but I'd rather avoid the situation if possible.
These crimes take place on every college campus regardless of whether or not the school has a football team. Forget the fact that this author doesn't have all of the facts. The fact the author does have about the text messages from people trying to keep her silent is a real problem.
Any kind of sexual assault is very damaging emotionally. If any student has suffered from this kind of assault that student must be protected from any kind of harassment. Until the facts are determined in totality, the school must assume a student has been assaulted and protect them from this kind of harassment. The accused is still presumed innocent.
No matter how this plays out. Anybody who sent a text message to either of these young women should be expelled. By not punishing these students ND is creating an environment where people will be too scared to step forward.
stc9 wrote:These crimes take place on every college campus regardless of whether or not the school has a football team. Forget the fact that this author doesn't have all of the facts. The fact the author does have about the text messages from people trying to keep her silent is a real problem.
Any kind of sexual assault is very damaging emotionally. If any student has suffered from this kind of assault that student must be protected from any kind of harassment. Until the facts are determined in totality, the school must assume a student has been assaulted and protect them from this kind of harassment. The accused is still presumed innocent.
No matter how this plays out. Anybody who sent a text message to either of these young women should be expelled. By not punishing these students ND is creating an environment where people will be too scared to step forward.
On the way to the city, I heard ND's AD talk about the incident on Sirius XM radio.
He claimed that he could not talk about the issue in detail b/c of privacy issues. His answers were cryptic, but he appeared to say:
1) The incident has been fully investigated by the authorities;
2) The authorities are not going to charge the player with a crime; and
3) The school has taken appropriate action with respect to its students.
At one point, the host asked if the player involved was still on the team and would go to the bowl. The answer seemed to be yes. My takeway - there wasn't enough evidence to pursue charges.
