I think it's feasible that Gibbons was injured during the Ohio game and Hoke probably answered the question as best he could concerning Gibbons prior to the bowl game. He may have been instructed by the legal staff at UM to answer the question in that manner. Again we don't know what was going on behind the scenes with OSCR and the athletic department at the time. With Hoke having a daughter of his own, I would think he would take allegations like this very seriously.
Brendan Gibbons Expelled, Untruths Rampant
The university and athletic department handled Gibbons about as well as he handled this field goal. [Eric Upchurch]
The Daily has revealed that the sketchy way Brendan Gibbons exited the program—a "tweak" before the OSU game followed by barely-credible claims of "family issues"—was in fact a result of the university expelling him for the 2009 rape allegations that were exhumed earlier this year:
“You will be permanently separated from the University of Michigan effective December 20, 2013,” reads a Dec. 19, 2013 letter addressed to Gibbons at his Florida residence from the University’s Office of Student Conflict Resolution, which facilitates disciplinary proceedings against students. The Michigan Daily did not obtain these documents from the University.
In human language, "permanently separated" is expulsion. The OSCR took that action based on a preponderance of the evidence.
Why it took almost five years to reach this conclusion is unknown. The Daily suggests that revised policies from 2011 may have forced the University to re-evaluate, but policies from 2011 do not result in December 2013 expulsions. Given the timing here it's clear that the guy who dumped various court documents on the internet was the proximate cause. That is of course terribly embarrassing for the university, which was apparently fine with having a student they eventually concluded they were at least 50.1% sure raped a girl as long as no one was complaining about it.
Meanwhile, the athletic department's optics here are horrible. Having him on the team is not the issue, or if it is it's on Rodriguez's head. The incident was a year old and seemingly dead when Hoke came in; without the OSCR or other university body stepping in there would be no reason to reconsider Gibbons's status.
But once they knew things were coming to a head they could not have been dumber about this. Not content with offering up the generic and 100% true "violation of team rules" explanation—being enrolled at the university is kind of important if you're going to be on the team—they chose to cloak Gibbons's departure in a thin veneer of sympathy by claiming "family issues." That is a lie. Now they look horrible, and for something a bit more serious than having a noodle in the stadium.
Meanwhile, Hoke's explanation for Gibbons's unavailability for Ohio State is questionable at best. Was this "tweak" legitimate? Is it at all plausible that Gibbons was "iffy" for the bowl game on December 16th, three days before the very last gear of ponderous university justice ground to a halt?
"He's a little iffy," Hoke said. "He's kicking a little bit. But I don't want to over-kick him (in practice).
"I've never been a kicker, so I can't imagine that (muscle pull) problem. So, he's a little iffy."
There is absolutely no chance that Brady Hoke was not fully informed of the status of his kicker by this point. Dave Brandon did not call Brady up on the 19th and say "you're never going to believe this, but…" That's also a lie, and in the service of what cause again?
UPDATE: A user who used to work at the OSCR provides details on the process:
Having worked at the Office of Student Conflict Resolution (the "disciplinary" office that administered the expulsion proceedings against Gibbons) for two years in undergrad, I thought maybe I could offer some insight / clear up some confusion about the OSCR process in this thread.
OSCR is not, in any appreciable sense, an investigatory body. It is a passive office that acts only after receiving a complaint from some member of the University community. While any individual student, faculty, or staff member can file a complaint, the most common OSCR complainants by far are Residence Education (Housing) and DPS. In order to pursue a complaint with OSCR, the Complainant has to provide all the necessary evidentiary backing; again, OSCR does not investigate events on its own.
The process for initiating and pursuing a complaint with OSCR goes as follows:
- An OSCR staff member conducts an intake meeting with the Complainant to discuss the nature of his/her/its complaint and inform the Complainant of the various resolution pathways available (in addition to formal arbitration, OSCR offers a number of alternative dispute resolution pathways that do not result in disciplinary action).
- An OSCR staff member will then conduct an intake meeting with the Respondent to notify him of the complaint and inform him of his rights/options in the process.
- At that point, the Respondent can either accept responsibility for the complaint or indicate that he's willing to proceed to a formal arbitration.
- Assuming that the Complainant is also interested in pursuing a formal arbitration, OSCR will either appoint a trained member of the University staff to serve as the formal arbiter, or it will select a panel of student arbiters.
- After hearing from both the Complainant and the Respondent, the arbiter or the student panel will reach a finding of "responsible" or "not responsible," and will then proceed to make a sanction recommendation.
- Any recommendations for expulsion have to be approved by a member of the University administration. When I was there, I believe this was the responsibility of the VP for Student Affairs, E. Royster Harper.
As you can see, this is a multi-step process that requires several meetings and often many different witnesses, advisors, and arbiters. With that said, it is emphatically NOT a three- or four-year process. Given that all of the investigatory work is already completed before a complaint is filed, the formal arbitration process does not take very long at all. In my time at OSCR, I can't remember a single arbitration - including those involving sexual assault allegations - lasting more than a single semester, from initial complaint to final sanction.
One was a series of blind eyes turned to child rape. The other was a coach trying not to violate FERPA regulations and basically dismissing an alledged sexual assaulter from the team as soon as an impartial third-party tribunal made a ruling.
This reminds me of a recent scandal at Auburn where a male student was expelled over a sexual assault allegation. There was a complete lack of due process and fairness in how it was handled. Basically, he was presumed guilty despite a lack of evidence. Here's a link on the case:
This is apparently more the norm then the exception on college campuses today. A male student basically is presumed guilty when accused of a sexual assuault. In the past, women had fewer rights. Now, men have fewer rights. If both individuals are intoxicated, the male is presumed to be a rapist. If there is literally zero evidence of force or coercion, the male is still presumed to be guilty of rape if accused. It has to be scary to be a sexually active male in college these days. Maybe a videotaped consent AND a witness might help. But I doubt it.
I have no idea whether he's guilty or not but shouldn't the law decide not the university?
Student rights are abused all the time by universities. FIRE is an organization which fights such abuse.
It has to be scary to be a sexually active male in college these days.
*eyeroll* yeah, almost as scary as it is to be a sexually active female. or an inactive one- b/c sometimes it's not the woman's choice to have intercourse, but it happens anyway.
You don't think facing criminal charges for sexual assualt wouldn't be scary? You don't think the threat of losing your freedom and personal reputation isn't scary?
Empathy is a positive trait. Try it sometime.
Sometimes women choose to have intercourse and then cry rape. Sometimes men are perfectly innocent and they are convicted anyway and sent to jail for many many years. Sometimes they are perfectly innocent and acquitted but their lives and reputation are still destroyed. Sometimes a woman makes an unproven allegation and the accused is expelled from school without due process.
EVERYBODY deserves the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty. And everybody deserves to be treated fairly whether they are the accuser or the accused.
EVERYBODY deserves the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty. And everybody deserves to be treated fairly whether they are the accuser or the accused.
This is not a court of law (TM).
Empathy is a positive trait. Try it sometime.
Sometimes men choose to have intercourse whether the woman wants to or not. Sometimes women are only "guilty" of wearing a short skirt or flirting but they are deemed a whore if they talk. Sometimes men are acquitted due to impossibly high standards of proof and the women's lives and reputation are destroyed. Sometimes a woman makes an unproven (but nonetheless likely accurate) allegation and the accused is expelled from school with due process that takes 4 fucking years, apparently.
Yes, that statement is a little weak, but nobody benefits from a "my life situation is EVEN WORSE" game of one-up-manship. College and sexuality are difficult for everybody, and throw them together with alcohol, drugs, and poor decision making and nobody comes out with any great shakes. But nobody here is condoning sexual assault; they are just asking that people not jump to any conclusions based on what amounts to a press release.
This is not fucking good
Tragic. Very unsettling. As an alumni and avid van, this tarnishes things. Moreover, my daughter is determined to attend the University in a year. What to say and do? Meanwhile, I guess it is perhaps easier to understand the poor kicking performance by young Mr. Gibbons in the first year. The student tryouts by Coach Rod may have been more than just a performance concern. Sigh.
Really? I've got a daughter, and I'm definitely not going to tell her not to go to a school because they followed protocol and it turned up that a college kid alledgedly assault a female student. Every school in America has stuff like this happen on campus, and while this could have been handled differently, this is not some f'ing epidemic.
Agree. But I will stick to my comment that this tarnishes things and cools a little of the excitement. Justice here was not swift if even understandable. I will need to continue to educate her - it is an epidemic of assaults on campus and this is very recently addressed by the President (past week I believe).
Well, I agree you need to educate your daughter, as I will with mine. But this is the realities of today, and I'd have the same message for any sons I may have. But this wasn't "justice"; it was an administrative hearing. We may find out there were unrealistic delays or some incorrect behavior by the school, but as of now this sounds like the school and AD handled the situaiton according to the rules in place, and just because those rules allowed for some long delays doesn't show signs of a conspiracy or moral failure.
I make no excuse for a rapist, but I think it is important to let a court weigh the evidence before assuming a charge is fact.
If, in fact, Gibbons raped anyone then he deserves the full sentence that a court imposes upon him. Perhaps he is guilty, perhaps not and until the various police reports and other sources of information are tested in a court of law, or until Gobbons pleads to something, he is granted the presumption of innocence.
Colleges have moved ever more quickly to equate accusation with guilt. The preponderance of the evidence is not "beyond resonable doubt", and as the guys at Duke have proven, reasonable doubt is a far fairer test.
So at this point, Michigan expelled a student who has yet to be tried let alone convicted of anything. Assuming that no one who contributes to this blog witnessed anything surrounding the event that resulted in this charge, none of us know what happened.
So how about we let the legal process run its course and when it concludes we can all rationally discuss the evidence that comes to light. Until then we'll all be better served by taking a deep breath and waiting.
"So at this point, Michigan expelled a student who has yet to be tried let alone convicted of anything."
Is that even unusual? Are felony convictions the only valid grounds for expulsion?
While the optics look terrible, I will withhold my judgement that the very University (and its administration, departments, coaches, etc.) I profess to love and support is somehow guilty of staging a massive cover up of a crime - at best - and even complicity in a crime, a worst. A this point, I know only two pertinent dates: the original complaint (2009) and Gibbons' expulsion (2012). Nothing more.
I can only guess at the origin of the OSCR's proceeding against Gibbons this year. Any explanations for the delay between 2009 and 2012 are purely speculative at this point. Hoke's explanations for his veteran kicker's absence are bewildering and even troubling, but I have no idea what he was told he could say or not say.
I suspect that more will be revealed over the coming days and weeks, perhaps officially, perhaps not. However, I would sure like to get some answers, and as an alum, a regular contributor to fundraising and supporter of the team, I think I am entitled to them.
I don't think most people are concluding this is a "massive cover-up." I think they're concluding that it doesn't seem to have been handled well enough by the coach and the university. Hoke dissembled. And the school did kick Gibbons out. The reason for the delay may yet reveal itself. Maybe Gibbons committed subsequent infractions. Maybe new evidence arose. Maybe Hoke had a change of heart. We just don't know yet.
But reading some of these comments, it certainly seemed to me that many, many people jumped to the conclusion that this is a massive cover up by the University, the Athletic Department, the coaching staff, etc.
I'm not an education lawyer, but my recollection is that due process unquestionably applies to public university decisions to expel a student. It's just that not all that much process is due: notice, a hearing in front of a neutral arbiter, and maybe some reduced right to counsel and cross-examination. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think university policies don't generally comply with these.
...except, if the expulsion only resulted from a change in the burden of proof after the accusation, I think a lawyer might be very interested in whether that was adequate process.
Kicking someone off a mere football team, though, requires no process. Questions about why it did not happen earlier should be asked repeatedly.
so i'm confused here having never actually attended university. was gibbons convicted of something? did he admit to rape? or is it pretty much "someone say's you raped them, and we believe them... goodbye"?
rape is no laughing matter, but i can't help but be skeptical about most rape accusations because i've personally have seen women use the accusation as a weapon for revenge.
This damning report should be obligatory reading for all incoming college freshman to gain some perspective about sexual assault:
Findings from this report include:
- Many women (88%) have never consumed a drink left unattended or consumed a drink given to them by a stranger (76%).
- One-quarter of the sample (25%) reported consuming alcohol or drugs before sex at least once a month, and slightly fewer (23%) were drunk or high during sex at least once a month.
- Eighteen percent experienced an attempted (13%) and/or completed (13%) sexual assault since entering college.
- Among the total sample, 5% experienced a completed physically forced sexual assault, but a much higher percentage (11%) experienced a completed incapacitated sexual assault.
- Sexual assaults were most likely to occur in September, October and November, on Friday or Saturday nights, and between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m.
- Most victims of physically forced or incapacitated sexual assault were assaulted by someone they knew (79% and 88%).
- Freshmen and sophomores are at greater risk for victimization than juniors and seniors.
Sadly most of us guys actually know someone close to us right now who will be sexually assaulted - a friend, sister, wife, daughter. And they will be very unlikely to ever have reported it, or ever mention it again.
We should all keep in mind that we still don't know for sure why Gibbons was expelled. Perhaps the school felt he was guilty of rape. But perhaps his expulsion stemmed from, say, lying to investigators or intimidating someone. We can't just automatically conclude the school deemed him guilty of rape.
So you immediately presume a guy is guilty because of accusations? That's an incredibly illogical and dangerous bar to meet. Also, stop it with the "moral corruption" crap - I'm guessing nobody around here knows what happened, and I'm sure that the coaches didn't know anything more back in 2009. It's a bad set of facts, and I definitely believe Gibbons should be punished if he did something wrong. But just because the team was having tryouts at FG doesn't mean they should have cut a guy because even though the victim didn't pursue the issue and the police dropped the charges, you are some great arbiter of justice as a HC and "know" something bad happened. Hell, UM probably wouldn't have had its MNC in 1997 if Carr decided Griese's drinking and fighting was morally reprehensible and kicked him off the team instead of (seemingly) working with him to get better.
The recent action of the Univ of Michigan OSCR in expelling former student Brendon Gibbons might be better understood, if you consider the recent investigations at Yale, where the fraternity DKE was suspended for 5 years along with sexual sensitivity counseling. DKE was found to be contributory to a "hostile sexual environment" on campus. The US Dept. of Education investigated the situation based on Title IX, threatening severe penalties. Yale had to change university policies that ensured a safe campus environment between 2011 and 2013 before the Dept of Education relented.
Let me connect the dots. At least one member of the football team was allegedly in an incident of serious sexual harassment, if not rape. An internal investigation using criminal thresholds for guilt initially failed to find fault. However, as things progress in New Haven, a precedent was established and the principles tort law and civil principles of guilt / fault led to new university policies nationwide, and any cases of sexual assault or harassment were reexamined. Why? To avoid a Title IX investigation by Dept. of Education, and possible findings of negligence or tolerating a hostile sexual environment. Any student organization, athletic team or social fraternity that contributed to that hostile sexual environment could be held accountable.
So, would anyone want to see headlines involving the University of Michigan Football team possibly tolerating a hostile sexual environment, let alone covering up a sexual assault. Can you say Penn State deja vu?
Just search the Yale Daily News archives for Delta Kappa Epsilon to see the articles over the last 4 years. Unfortunately, DKE has been under legal scrutiny for other reason, unrelated to this article.
Nonetheless, the current Dept. of Education will not tolerate an environment on campus that poses a possible sexual threat. It's not just a criminal matter, but also a regulatory and civil matter, where different legal standards apply.
See this article from the NYT in 2011:
Biden to Discuss New Guidelines About Campus Sex Crimes
lesson to be learned. do not have sex with anyone. do not talk about sex to anyone. do no talk to anyone.
The biggest issue to me here is why Gibbons was conveniently expelled as his eligibility was expiring. The incident happened in 2009. What information surfaced that finally made UM "permanently seperate" from Gibbons before an irrelevant bowl game.
On another note, I just don't understand why institutions cover this stuff up. How could coming clean and punishing transgressors be bad public relations? Doesn't matter where you are, there is always a turd in the punchbowl.
There was no cover-up, as far as anyone with information can show. As has been discussed NUMEROUS times here, the issue was investigated in 2009 and charges were not filed and (it appears) the victim did not press for review by the school. Then a change in the rules in late 2011 led to a review, which apparently concluded in December of 2013. Nobody knows when they looked at this issue, how long it took to review, what evidence was presented, etc. The PR was handled poorly by the university, but there doesn't appear to be anything approaching a coverup of systemic corruption. Gibbons lost his eligiblity when the OSCR finished its review. The fact it happened late in the year may simply be coincidence.
I hesitated whether to comment on this or not, obviously I have decided to do so. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not, I didn't have the time to read all the comments.
First and foremost, rape is a dispicable crime that violates a person (usually a woman) in so many ways, not to mention how they think and feel for the rest of their lives.
I'm not here to judge or declare who is guilty or who is a victim, however there seems to be a lot of smoke here and if this did indeed happen, I am sickened by this and I just wonder from a team standpoint if this hurt the leadership of the squad, since Lewan was a Captain and Gibbons was a 5th year sr., it's possible the younger players just weren't inspired by those two guys and it ended up hurting the team internally. maybe we shouldn't be surprised by the results of the season, who knows?
Maybe those two should have been reprimanded, if it did happen, Gibbons should have been expelled way sooner, like 3 years ago, and Lewan should have been suspended for however long with a chance to earn his way back on the team for his role in the matter.
However this turns out, I hope the university does what is proper and not embarrassing to the school. A persons life and how they may be violently affected is more important than football.
Why? Geez, let's find out who knew what, when. Should Jimbo Fisher be fired as well at FSU for Winston's rape?
Talk talk talk. Who cares. It'll play out. Shut up BRI
That's not a question. This is some serious shit. It's too late to hold Richrod accountable in A2, but Hoke and Brandon have some serious explaining to do. For that matter, MSC too, this is on the U at this point. If we don't have our integrity at Michigan then it doesn't even matter that we suck at football.
this incident happened under RR watch. Brandon and Hoke were operating under the understanding that the situation was closed. how could they be help responsible?
why were Hoke's statements misleading. I won't say Hoke outright lied, and I agree that Hoke was very constrained in what he could say. But his statements were misleading, at least. That's not OK, and it doesn't foster trust or a culture of integrity for the institution. That's a new problem that they created, and in my book that now puts the onus back on them to fix that problem by explaining - as far as is legally allowed - what they knew, when the knew it, and what actions they took in response.
I think people are exaggerating the degree to which the 'family issues' explanation really elicited sympathy for Gibbons. Any time there's a vague answer like that I personally assume the player is dealing with something embarrassing; my guess with regard to Gibbons would have been a drinking problem, to be honest.
It was a dumb thing to say, but the standard answer of 'violation of team rules' may have been awkward as well, since it wasn't really a violation but instead an administrative decision made by the university regarding a violation which occurred four yeats earlier that was at issue.
'Personal issues' would probably have been better, but I wouldn't find it hard to believe that's what Hoke meant to say. I don't know if you guys noticed, but he's not exactly a fluent user of word-type utterances in those press conferences.
Gibbons should have been kicked off the team in 2009. The major concern with regard to Hoke and the athletic department is whether they tried to impede the OSCR process so as to maintain Gibbons' eligibility. However, I find this to be extremely unlikely, and I don't know what means could have been at their disposal to so impede said process. Also, sitting him for the OSU game doesn't really seem like a win-at-all-costs type of decision. To me, this seems much more like an ugly PR fuckup than a failure of morality and institutional control.
of embarrassment. I do not understand why the University kicked this under the rug for almost 3 years. Even if he was never charged as some are saying, why is he NOW being expelled? The fact that RR didn't kick him off is bad. Although, this is not just on RR, when Hoke inherited this team, something should have been done then. Something tells me there are things not being told in this whole thing...the length that it took to expel him, the reasoning for Hoke saying he had family issues, even trying to indicate he had some sort of injury...really, really odd. It doesn't seem like Hoke, he typically has worked fast with suspending/kicking players off. This is a disgusting black eye for the University and although no explanation will be given, something should be stated.
I see people keep saying Gibbons should have been kicked off in 2009, yet everything's rationale seems to be "well look, it turned out to be true." But that's not how the legal system works, and I wouldn't necessarily want a blanket dismissal for accusations without something approaching due process. The police looked into the issue in 2009 and the victim did not press charges, according to the information I've read. So for all intents and purposes, that was the end of it. It's not RR or Hoke's jobs to provide some extra-judicial review of incidents with no additional facts. Tthis reductive reasoning (based, again, on incomplete facts) that comes about years later needs to stop.
She is supposed to be allowed to pursue a complaint under the student disciplinary process, which she tried to do in early 2010, after she returned to school. The University refused to pursue her complaint. Whatever the criminal process, the University was wrong to refuse to investigate her complaint.
I take it you're Doug Smith, and I wish you would be more straightforward in your recitation of facts.
There's always something that doesn't smell right, and, in this case, your continuously shoddy presentation may have caused us to distrust a version of events we should have given credit to.
In 2010: No criminal charges filed. Which you say is the reason OSCR refused to pursue the complaint.
In 2013: Still no criminal charges filed. Yet OSCR agrees to pursue the complaint.
Do you see the problem here? This is the kind of logical inconsistency that plagues every piece of "reporting" you've done on this situation. Instead of brushing over such logical consistency, perhaps you could take the time to help us understand how to reconcile the two?
My guess is that OSCR was only able to pursue the complaint in 2013 because they finally had a standard of proof which suggested there was a reasonable chance Gibbons could be disciplined. If OSCR thought they could not possibly hit, say, a 75-25 level of preponderance of evidence in 2009, but, looking at this in 2013, thought there was a real chance this could come out 51-49, that's the sort of detail real reporting might seek to communicate. But you don't fill in those gaps - ever - you just like to hurl blanket accusations, without any thoughtful examination of the realities that may have effected those accusations.
And since you are presumably close to all of this, would you please tell us exactly when she was able to get the university to start an investigation of her claims? It's a very pertinent date, and providing this sort of information is how you could actually make yourself useful.
Maybe others have asked you this, but I don't see it.
How do you know that the victim attempted to pursue a complaint and was not allowed to do so by the university?
"Any time there's a vague answer like that I personally assume the player is dealing with something embarrassing;..."
But on this:
"...my guess with regard to Gibbons would have been a drinking problem, to be honest."
I have to admit I suspected it was this case. And I've been troubled about Lewan as much as about Gibbons since I read the stuff that the ex-med school professor was putting out there. But with all the internet crazy-board stuff you come across, I was concerned but never took it as absolute truth. I had hoped that given no police, school, team action that it was much less than what was being alleged and that things were being handled correctly.
Now I expect, as an alum and as someone who wants to maintain reverence and respect for his school and athletics programs, to know what the school knew when, how they actually were handling this, and why. Not sordid details of the case; just an explanation of the process that they followed; and why players were allowed to play through all of this.
And my hope is that it was all proper and anything that appears to be cover-up, misinformation, or simply heartless, is due to properly following procedure, policy and law. If not, folks, and if they were intentionally covering anything, or delaying decisions for the sake of a better team, we have to consider that those responsible for properly handling these issues need to go.
There is a common misconception that the prosecutor turn down the case. The Ann Arbor police never asked the prosecutor to authorize any charges because they said the victim stopped cooperating. The victim actually left school for more than two months. She only returned when the University said that she would lose her own athletic scholarship if she did not return in February.
When she returned, she asked OSCR to pursue a student disciplinary case, because that would be more private than a public trial but the University said that they would not pursue a student disciplinary complaint as long as she did not pursue criminal charges.
The prosecutor did turn down charges against Lewan because they said that they could not charge him with obstructing justice without a criminal prosecution of the underlying case. That goes to show you that if you succesfully intimidate the witness, you get off scott free.
Rape is a heinous crime.
Lying about having been raped is an equally heinous crime.
If women want to punish a rapist, they need to go to the police, swear out a complaint and pursue a criminal prosecution, as rape is against the law.
That their behavior leading up to the alleged rape will be called into question is as it should be. We have ample proof in this world of of two distinct things, men rape women and women lie about having been raped.
It is weak and gutless for a woman who wants to punish some man for having injured her, to seek to make anonymous accusations in an effort to evade questions about her own behavior and thus reduce the burden of proof required to convict a man in a court of law.
Worse yet in this case if it is true that a rape occurred, thanks to the efforts of this and other women a rapist remains on the street.
Stand up there girls! Grow a pair! Be a man!
The good new here is that thanks to the efforts of most likely, some other gutless woman who in her personal fit of pique, selectively dumped these documents onto the public, which dumping is likely in violation of some equally gutless confidentiality agreement entered into by the University, the girl and Gibbons, this mess will hopefully land the University in court for some number of millions. At which time we can have a thorough conversation about rape, prosecuting rape, the brutal nature of men, strong women, personal accountability, alchohol, Taylor Lewan and keeping your mouth shut etc.
It should be wonderful theatre.
You've been sexually assaulted and faced the possiblity of reporting it to the police and others and going through the whole judicial/decision-making process, I would calm down. It's a terribly difficult experience.
He's got friends, broheim
About the dumbest thing I've read on this thread (and yes, there are many dumb things posted above):
"Stand up there girls! Grow a pair! Be a man!"
That's offensive, sexist, and, given the particulars of the case, worse than the usual "be a man" crap. As if being a "man" is inherently better than being a woman - what year are you living in?
I'd venture a guess that you've never known someone who has been raped or sexually assaulted in some way. You make it sound easy to go through the legal process - it isn't. The victim has to suffer under all the negative attention, and the outcome is hugely uncertain. There is more nuance in the world than your black-and-white rant suggests.
First of all I did it just to piss you off.
Second, I know more than a few women who have claimed rape, all of whom I believe to this writing, having nothing but their word and my belief in their honesty. One of whom spent two days hiding out at my house because she was too sick to go home after her trip to the abortion clinic.
Everyone likely knows someone who has bee raped. That they are discouraged from seeking legal redress by women and others who claim that they abhor rape in favor of a system where an accusation provides a "hugely certain" outcome causes me to question both motives and morals.
Nuance is where lies and liars hide.
I got it right, Grow a pair. Be a man.
is that you don't have a daughter
With that mentality I would be terrified to see what he could unleash to the world.