http://michiganmessenger.com/42253/msu-sexual-assault
That is the link. Michigan Messenger is a pretty reputable political site and I don't think they would report this unless they were sure. No names are listed, please refrain from guessing. It goes into some detail so be aware before you click on the link.
Of each other?
ಠ_ಠ
I have reached a conclusion
ಠ_ಠ is in fact actually mute in real life. He has learned to communicate through facial expressions indicating his thoughts or aims. And as we all know, for all intents and purposes, the internet has only ever produced two reactions in people. "LOL" and ಠ_ಠ.
Lol
Holy crap, you are right!
ಠ_ಠ
WTF!
WTF!
This should not be funny...
This should not be funny... yet i find my self laughing uncontrollably.
Not that I loved Rich Rod less, but that I loved Michigan more.
In any case:
Sparty, no!
This is the type of article
This is the type of article that I don't think anyone can "gloat" about. Sure, if it is true it casts a dark shadow on the MSU basketball team, but the victim was still sexually assaulted. Doing dumb things with fire crackers or punching engineering students is one thing (though obviously the latter is worse than the former), but nobody wins with alleged rape. Thanks for the link, but I don't see how anything good will come from this story.
Good that can come
I'd disagree that good can't come out of this. If the players are charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law maybe it would deter others who think they are above the law from committing the same crime.
Just imagine if nothing comes out of this; then what?
I totally agree that the
I totally agree that the charges, if true, should be prosecuted and the parties punished to the fullest extent of the law. My point is more that if the OP wanted to highlight some "failing" of MSU through this story, I don't see that being appropriate. It is just a sad story all around.
True
True....that's not how I read your comment. My bad.
Not to open up a whole different can
Not to open up a whole different can of worms here, but I don't think the punishment deters anyone from committing serious crimes like these.
The fact that I might go to jail is not the only thing stopping me from raping every girl I see.
Just to be clear, I wasn't
Just to be clear, I wasn't gloating or anything. It's a sad story and those responsible should be punished.
Fucking magnets, how do they work?
I figured as much. I am just
I figured as much. I am just commenting on how this is a situation where (I hope) nobody derives any schadenfreude from.
horrible
I hate hearing about this shit, I hope it's not a cover up for star players, MSU or whatever team. Next time I hope they just go fuck themselves.
Fuck it, Dude, let's go bowling.
coverup vs...
... inepptitude. Either way, it seems like an enormous mistake not to pursue this further. The girls last quote is kinda heartwrenching. What she must be going through right now is horrible... the self-doubt, the helplessness, the fear. Just sad.
Do Something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else.
Despite the allegations,
Despite the allegations, prosecutors have declined to take up the case, and the victim disputes the reasons offered for not bringing charges.
This sounds like an ugly story no matter what happens.
after reading the article...
... I'm lead to believe no assault occurred.
IMO, the police are right not to release the players' names, Duke lacross and all that....
Umm,
did you read the part about her saying no and striking the man. Also the part about the other player corroberating the alleged victim's story?
No means no. It's not rocket science. Once someone says no, you stop. Once someone hits you, you stop.
I agree though, don't release names until charges are pressed.
Do Something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else.
From what I understood, the
From what I understood, the other player corroberated the story inasmuch that sexual act(s) occurred, not necessarily that the woman said "no" (that part was inferred by you).
Again, this is what I understand from the article. I've no additional knowledge of the situation. Who knows if anyone's telling the truth?
He told investigators that
He told investigators that when it was clear from the victim’s statements that she did not want to have sex, he stopped. However, the other player continued “despite her reluctance and statements that she did not want to continue.” The victim confirms that player’s account...
...The player then said a second time that he stopped when she said to, but the other player “coaxed” her into continuing the sexual activity.
Either you didn't read the article fully or you don't know the meaning of infer. It's pretty explicit that she told them to stop. One guy did, the other guy coerced her to continue. This was the guys version. Not hers.
Do Something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else.
This statement “despite
This statement “despite her reluctance and statements that she did not want to continue" followed by “'coaxed' her into continuing" doesn't jive with your characterization of the entire incident as "no means no".
I'm not saying that no assault occurred, only that the article leads me to believe that it didn't occur. Everything we've read is third or fourth hand knowledge. More evidence needs to come to light other than hearsay. Unlike you, my mind isn't made up about what really happened.
Now, your just being silly...
Unlike you, my mind isn't made up about what really happened.
Really? My position is that it should be looked into further and reexamined, indicating that the stories provided warrant further scrutiny of the handling of the case. I go so far as to agree that the names shouldn't be released until charges are pressed. You read one article and say it's not assault. Whose mind is made up in this?
Do Something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else.
I hate fake rape allegations and all but...
The other guy admitting they continued after she "said she did not want to continue" sounds awfully like rape to me whether they eventually convinced her to keep going or not.
"out of these tunnels will come the meanest, toughest sonsabitches ever to put on pads"
Uhhh, I would think you
Uhhh, I would think you should re-read the article. It is rather clear the the alleged victim was not a willing participant and the MSU player corroborated her statement to police.
During his interview with detectives, the one player who volunteered a statement corroborated much of the victim’s statement, the report shows. He told investigators that when it was clear from the victim’s statements that she did not want to have sex, he stopped. However, the other player continued “despite her reluctance and statements that she did not want to continue.” The victim confirms that player’s account.
The player told detectives he was concerned “over the girl’s reaction to the circumstances,” noting she was “timid” and “not aggressive.” The player then admitted to detectives that he understood how the woman believed she was not welcome to leave the room, in part because she kept referencing that the two were “bigger” than her.
The player then said a second time that he stopped when she said to, but the other player “coaxed” her into continuing the sexual activity.
The player told detectives that he and the other player should apologize because he felt the two had “disrespected” the woman.
"Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and things with... molecular structures."
After her "reluctance", the
After her "reluctance", the victim was also "coaxed" into continuing (according to the player).
Can't just pick and choose what you want to hear.
That being said, "coaxed" and "coerced" are two different things. The former implies choice, the latter force. They are not the same.
"Can't just pick and choose
"Can't just pick and choose what you want to hear."
And yet you focus on one word ("coaxed") in the entire article to the exclusion of other statements by the player who spoke with the police stating it was clear she wanted to stop.
Interesting.
And yet you'd convict someone
And yet you'd convict someone simply based on hearsay...
Interesting.
Show me where I said I would
Show me where I said I would convict in this case, based on ANYTHING. You are being defensive because I called you out for being hypocritical. I made no statements at all about what I thought happened or didn't happen, did I?
Waiting....
Still waiting....
Show me where I focus on "one
Show me where I focus on "one word" to the exclusion of all other statements. My post is in response to someone else focusing on only one segment of the statement.
In simplest terms: I'm being as hypocritical as you are advocating a conviction based on hearsay. Get it?
Well, each of your prior
Well, each of your prior posts that mentions anything specific from the article focuses on the word "coaxed." Other than that....?
I see - to you, the problem
I see - to you, the problem is not that I'm focusing on only one part of the statement, but that I'm focusing on the wrong part.
I'm not saying, "hey, it's okay because he said they coaxed her". But equally, you can't say, "it's rape because she said she didn't want to."
Neither statement is the entire statement (if the statement is to believed at all).
So back to my original point: you can't pick and choose what to focus on, the statement must be taken in its entirety.
I didn't say it was rape...
I didn't say it was rape... or wasn't rape. That is where you go off the rails repeatedly. I merely pointed out that you were doing the same thing (hypocritically) that you accused others of doing. Period.
Show me where I take a stand on the case as you have done repeatedly... show me one instance...
I'm still waiting.
Wow, you still don't get
Wow, you still don't get it.
Here's everyone: "I'm only gonna focus on this one part of the statement!"
Here's me: "Focusing on one part of the statement is dumb because one could focus on this other part and come to a different conclusion."
Here's you: "That's hypocritical to focus on one part of the statement!"
Yeah, it's hypocritical. That's the point, genius.
Yeah, except you focused on
Yeah, except you focused on the one word and reached a conclusion ("No sexual assault occurred") right from the start. If it bothered you that others did the same, that is the definition of hypocrisy.
I'm still waiting, by the way...
I already clarified my statement
Instead of saying "no assault occurred", I should've said, "I'm not convinced an assault occurred". In other words, based on the article, I've reached no conclusion.
And you're so misunderstanding the other post, I don't know where to begin. It was an attempt to point out the ridiculousness of your charge. I'm being hypocritical as much as you are advocating a conviction based on hearsay... which is to say, not at all.
I'm still waiting....
I'm still waiting....
you've leaned rather firmly
you've leaned rather firmly on the word "coaxed".
wolverineliberationarmy.com/blog
Maybe you missed it
From the article
During his interview with detectives, the one player who volunteered a statement corroborated much of the victim’s statement, the report shows. He told investigators that when it was clear from the victim’s statements that she did not want to have sex, he stopped. However, the other player continued “despite her reluctance and statements that she did not want to continue.” The victim confirms that player’s account.
I read that as at least one of the players got the idea that she didn't want to be having sex. To me, that means she said, "No." Perhaps not the word no or stop or whatever, but it sounds like it was pretty clear she meant No.
that means she said, "No."
that means she said, "No." Perhaps not the word no or stop or whatever, but it sounds like it was pretty clear she meant No.
One-hundred percent agreed.
However, the same source says she was subsequently "coaxed" into continuing, which means she subsequently said, "Yes." Perhaps not the word yes or continue or whatever, but it sounds like it was pretty clear she meant Yes.
I only know as much about the situation as you do. Simply pointing out that it's all hearsay for now and everyone's jumping to conclusions.
IANAL, but I believe that if
IANAL, but I believe that if someone says no and then later is "coaxed" into saying yes, that it still means no.
The player told detectives he was concerned “over the girl’s reaction to the circumstances,” noting she was “timid” and “not aggressive.” The player then admitted to detectives that he understood how the woman believed she was not welcome to leave the room, in part because she kept referencing that the two were “bigger” than her.
Did she mean no but was too afraid and just gave up? That's still rape in my book. If one is too afraid to fight, it still doesn't mean one agrees with what is happening. Maybe she thought being raped was better than having her face beaten in and then raped? You weren't there. You can't judge. I wasn't there, and I can't judge, but she was there and came forward to the police with her account, and the player who came forward with his account was there, and those both sound like she said no.
Agreed. Neither of us can
Agreed. Neither of us can judge.
Determination of what
Determination of what actually happened can't be made unless a judge gets the chance to rule on it- which cannot happen itself if the prosecutor doesn't bring charges...
-Formerly known as Richrodiculous
"Not tricks, Michael, illusions. A trick is something a whore does for money...Or cocaine!"
FYI
Judge wouldn't be ruling on this, would be submitted to jury. *douchey lawyer comments done*
"out of these tunnels will come the meanest, toughest sonsabitches ever to put on pads"
replying to my own post to clarify something
I wrote "after reading the article, I'm lead to believe no assault occurred."
This is not true.
What I meant was "after reading the article, I'm not convinced an assault occurred" ... because the case is based on hearsay.
My apologies for not being clear.
...computer lag
...computer lag...my apologies...
-Formerly known as Richrodiculous
"Not tricks, Michael, illusions. A trick is something a whore does for money...Or cocaine!"
Yeah, I totally agree. These
Yeah, I totally agree. These guys are complete and total dipshits.
Unfortunately, it's the "technical legal definition of saying 'no'" that's in question, here.
Bouck
Sounds like a huge bitch. That is all.
"A flute with no holes is not a flute. A donut with no hole is a danish"
Seems quite inappropriate to
Seems quite inappropriate to mock cross-examine the victim during her first meeting. This is something that should not have been done until much later, when the prosecutor was prepping the victim for trial.
Sounds like a situation in which the prosecutor did not think she could "win" the case, so she decided not to proescute, whether she thought a crime occurred or not.
I hope to be like dang for large sections of the season.
You come at the king, you best not miss.
Just kidding.
Ok, not...
Hope it's not true, but source seems generally reliable.
Wolverine Nation Unite!