Details on removed football player Logan Tuley-Tillman available
Details are out there on the incident leading to Logan Tuley-Tillman's dismissal from the Michigan Football team. Because the article and details are found only at the Freep, and are somewhat sordid, I'm not providing a link. Suffice to say, there was significant alcohol consumption and impaired judgement by both parties involved. The article is largely factual, and not editorial in comments. Poor decisions were made, with sad consequences for all, and Tuley-Tillman being removed from the team. I hope he turns his life around and learns from this incident. I also hope this is somewhat of a teaching tool for all those currently on the team.
EDIT: Masses have spoken. Here is the article. Someone in the thread below has pasted the whole thing in.
LINK: Ex-Wolverine Logan Tuley-Tillman was too drunk to recall filming sex act
EDIT 2: Apparently much of this information was posted already. In a thread which I missed somehow. I searched for it, but because the thread was deleted, I didn't find it.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:25 PM ^
"Well he was drunk too so he couldn't consent either."-- so what? He's the one allegedly doing the filming and the distributing. Who cares if he consented to the filming? Do you want the police to charge him with another count because he filmed himself without consent too? Frankly, I hoped the fantasy was better than this.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 9:26 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 9:28 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 9:44 PM ^
How, exactly, did he film her, against her wishes, with her phone?
Also, what do we have, aside from the word of someone who admittedly can't remember the entire night, that says she didn't send the videos to him herself?
This is way too big a deal for his life to decide he's guilty because someone who can't remember what they did or didn't do says they can remember what he did.
This smells like Duke Lacrosse.
October 20th, 2015 at 11:21 PM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 10:41 AM ^
People under the age of 18 have been charged as adults with distributing child pornography for emailing pics of their own junk.
They illegally filmed THEMSELVES, and they're being charged as an adult - for having pictures of a child, who is getting charged as an adult.
So to the prosecutor - they're both the victim and the perpetrator, and both a child (for purposes of child porn charges) and an adult (what they're being charged as).
October 21st, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 22nd, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 21st, 2015 at 1:19 PM ^
You're talking in circles. Can you give consent when you're drunk or not? Your original post said that you can not. I'm simply saying that's an untenable position in the real world when both parties are drunk. Forget about LTT and think about how you apply this policy in this generic case: two people get drunk and agree to make a sex tape. The next morning one of these people is a victim and the other is a felon, based solely on who physically did the filming.
If you are saying it *does* matter if the film was made consensually (which is the view I agree with), then I'm saying isn't it at least plausible if not likely that she can't actually remember if she was a willing participant in the filming at the time? At the very least, it doesn't meet the burden of proof that should be required to justify ruining a young man's life.
October 21st, 2015 at 1:23 PM ^
Let's say Tommy Lee and Pam Anderson were drunk when they made their tape. Given the content, I would have to agree with you that it would be difficult to pin it on Tommy. She's as drunkenly willing as he is. But you haven't see the LTT video. What if there's something in the video itself that clearly conveys that she is not aware, and thus cannot give consent?
October 21st, 2015 at 3:44 PM ^
I agree with you that you have to look at the specifics of the case and try to determine consent, in fact that's my whole point (in response to his post). His post and others that have argued that you can't consent drunk, period would mean that Tommy Lee would, in fact, be committing a crime.
Also, simply not looking at the camera doesn't prove she isn't aware though. If there's something that shows she didn't consent beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm all for him facing the penalties, but I find it hard to believe a 15 second clip can show that. From the article, It seems that the police/prosecutor are basing this case primarily on her allegations that she did not consent.
October 21st, 2015 at 1:56 AM ^
Because it sounds to me like this big video "distribution" was a text message or email to his own phone.
Again, as I said in an earlier post, these laws were written 30 years ago, when distributing pornagraphic material was actually a lot of work. You had to make a movie with an expensive video camera, duplicate the video tapes, give/sell them to people, etc. You were obviously doing some heavy legwork there.
In LTT's case you're basically talking about him sending a Vine to himself. What is that? About 5 clicks total on the phone from start of the video to "distribution" if his number was in her address book?
I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong if he didn't have permission. I'm just dubious that this should be a felony if he never sent the video to anyone else or put it on the internet.
October 21st, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 21st, 2015 at 12:55 PM ^
labelling something a felony indicates the seriousness of the action including the amount of thought put into it. This is essentially something stupid he did in a matter of seconds while in a drunken stupor, and if the story is to be believed, he deleted the results after sobering up.
Back when these laws were written, if you were "distributing" a pornographic image of someone else, you had to be really thinking about it and obviously, willfully, doing something highly illegal. Now, you need about 60 seconds and a cell phone. And I'll still argue that text messaging it to himself is barely "distribution". Unless he sent it to other people or put it online.
I'm not saying he didn't break the law or deserve some sort of punishment. But "drunk vining myself having sex to my cellphone" sounds far more like a misdemeanor than multiple felonies to me. Especially when the other person involved can't even remember what was going on because they were blitzed too.
All IMO of course. I just think the law is incredibly slow to catch up with reality sometimes.
Obviously there may be details here that are not yet public.
October 20th, 2015 at 9:31 PM ^
October 21st, 2015 at 9:41 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 21st, 2015 at 9:55 AM ^
Maybe its the lawyer in me - but I don't really think what he did was all that bad - SO LONG AS he did not redistribute the video to anyone else and kept it for himself/partner.
Of course he should have alerted her to the fact that he was taping them banging - but perhaps too, he felt as if she was aware that he was doing it because he was holding up the damn phone to her while they were banging.
Who knows how it all went down, however, if he was clandestinely taping her so as not to alert her to the fact they were banging - then yes I see some criminal culpability especially if he redistributed the video without her consent.
Just a terrible story all around for all parties involved.
October 21st, 2015 at 12:05 PM ^
So, if you-azian6er--were LTT's lawyer, isn't this the first question you ask: How did LTT access the woman's phone without her consent if the phone was Passcode locked?
October 21st, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^
Maybe LTT was just in football mindset, and took the coaches advice to watch plenty of film to help work on technique. He took that film study mindset into the bedroom to work on technique.
October 21st, 2015 at 12:46 PM ^
you guys take these reps/points things more serious than they do at the bodybuilding forums
Bodybuilding forums now? Rather than this?