Minnesota football players suspended due to sex crime

[bjf1991]

This is currently the lead story on the cnn.com home page. There is a large picture of Minnesota players with the headline, "Not just skipping practice".

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/us/minnesota-gophers-football-boycott/index.html

I hope they do, indeed, stick to their principles


Maybe there is hope........

When the 20 year old kids - - - Mauti/Zordich.....Wolitarsky/Leidner......can "get it"........maybe if we can just find a way to not pollute them - not F them up with too much exposure to the hypocrites, the "political correctness" mafia, the "qualifiers", "yeah-buts", and the "fungible" principle crowd.......the empty-suits and the "what's in it for me / ya'-gotta'-do what-ya'-gotta'- do" crowd
Maybe they can keep some of that as they mature and take on the "real world"?

Maybe?

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

its pretty clear from the university report that she has sex w the recruit. It's also clear she knew he was a hs kid and did it anyway. The university report also states she was not drunk I think she is the one who should be investigated

Even if she knew he was some kind of visiting recruiting prospect does not mean that she knew he was under the age of 18. Many prospects are over the age of 18 even when visiting in September as they may be attending a private Prep School, may have been held back a year, etc...

 

[demlion]

Even if she knew he was some kind of visiting recruiting prospect does not mean that she knew he was under the age of 18. Many prospects are over the age of 18 even when visiting in September as they may be attending a private Prep School, may have been held back a year, etc...

I can almost guarantee you that if he is 16 or over, there is no problem with whether he could consent. He is not saying he did not consent. End of analysis. https://www.google.com/search?ie=UT...ce=android-browser&q=minnesota+age+of+consent

 

[BBrown]

The only way to settle this is to have Vicky Triponey investigate and Louis Freeh to file a report.

Please no, we just got all our scholarships back.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I hope they do, indeed, stick to their principles


Maybe there is hope........

When the 20 year old kids - - - Mauti/Zordich.....Wolitarsky/Leidner......can "get it"........maybe if we can just find a way to not pollute them - not F them up with too much exposure to the hypocrites, the "political correctness" mafia, the "qualifiers", "yeah-buts", and the "fungible" principle crowd.......the empty-suits and the "what's in it for me / ya'-gotta'-do what-ya'-gotta'- do" crowd
Maybe they can keep some of that as they mature and take on the "real world"?

Maybe?

Look, I think there are some real issues with regards to how this was handled by the Minny administration - especially the formal sanctioning of players....reinstatement of players after serving penalties......and then the arbitrary resanctioning of players outside the normal protocol (or at least it appears that way given the differing public statements of the Pres/AD and Claeys). If the school was conducting an "internal disciplinary investigation" concurrent with the original criminal investigation (i.e., initiated in early-Sept 2016) and the school's policy is to suspend until adjudicated (i.e., the Disciplinary Hearing is held - which has been scheduled for January 2017), why did the school reinstate the players in mid-October and tell them that they were clear to play having served their suspensions???

The fact that a recruit was involved does complicate the matter - was this element known by the University at the time the original sanctions were implemented?

 

[lein]

Even if she knew he was some kind of visiting recruiting prospect does not mean that she knew he was under the age of 18. Many prospects are over the age of 18 even when visiting in September as they may be attending a private Prep School, may have been held back a year, etc...

Being under 18 is completely meaningless. It is a red herring to make this event seem more severe. The age of consent in Minn. is 16. A 16 or 17 year old recruit can have consensual sex and the school has no say.

Now, is the woman in this 21? She stated in a police report to drinking 5-6 shots of vodka and anyone with two brain cells knows that was a contributing factor. Under age drinking surely violates the school's code of conduct.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Being under 18 is completely meaningless. It is a red herring to make this event seem more severe. The age of consent in Minn. is 16. A 16 or 17 year old recruit can have consensual sex and the school has no say.

Now, is the woman in this 21? She stated in a police report to drinking 5-6 shots of vodka and anyone with two brain cells knows that was a contributing factor. Under age drinking surely violates the school's code of conduct.

Yes, but the girl is not a "scholarship athlete" of the football program, nor is she the scholarship athlete hosting the recruit as one of his obligations under his scholarship (i.e., a representative of the University in regards to the recruit). Was the recruit being hosted by one of the scholarship player(s) residents of the apartment? Is that where the recruit was staying for his recruiting trip? Etc... But your notion that this girl, and not the scholarship players, were responsible for this situation is a bit off imho.

 

[sluggo72]

I can almost guarantee you that if he is 16 or over, there is no problem with whether he could consent. He is not saying he did not consent. End of analysis. https://www.google.com/search?ie=UT...ce=android-browser&q=minnesota+age+of+consent

How old is the girl?? If he's 16 and she is 22, very possible, there is an issue. Also if he's only 17 , and the other person a 'control' person , there could be an issue. She could be seen as a control person or made that way if someone could show she was part of his official visit. I did not see this addresed in the university report how they eliminated this possibility

 

[sluggo72]

Yes, but the girl is not a "scholarship athlete" of the football program, nor is she the scholarship athlete hosting the recruit as one of his obligations under his scholarship (i.e., a representative of the University in regards to the recruit). Was the recruit being hosted by one of the scholarship player(s) residents of the apartment? Is that where the recruit was staying for his recruiting trip? Etc... But your notion that this girl, and not the scholarship players, were responsible for this situation is a bit off imho.

Why?? Did you read the university report ??

 

[lein]

Yes, but the girl is not a "scholarship athlete" of the football program, nor is she the scholarship athlete hosting the recruit as one of his obligations under his scholarship (i.e., a representative of the University in regards to the recruit). Was the recruit being hosted by one of the scholarship player(s) residents of the apartment? Is that where the recruit was staying for his recruiting trip? Etc... But your notion that this girl, and not the scholarship players, were responsible for this situation is a bit off imho.

Reading is fundamental

I never said the girl is responsible but she did contribute by her behavior.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Reading is fundamental

I never said the girl is responsible but she did contribute by her behavior.

Still has nothing to do with the scholarship players grossly violating the terms & conditions of their scholarship (especially the "for cause" conduct provisions). Playing for and representing a school, especially under school-sponsored scholarship, is a privilege, not a right.

 

[demlion]

Being under 18 is completely meaningless. It is a red herring to make this event seem more severe. The age of consent in Minn. is 16. A 16 or 17 year old recruit can have consensual sex and the school has no say.

Now, is the woman in this 21? She stated in a police report to drinking 5-6 shots of vodka and anyone with two brain cells knows that was a contributing factor. Under age drinking surely violates the school's code of conduct.

Yeah it complicates the issue of whether she gave consent. If she was really trashed then a jury could conclude whe was not capable of giving consent.

 

[sluggo72]

Yeah it complicates the issue of whether she gave consent. If she was really trashed then a jury could conclude whe was not capable of giving consent.

The school's report as well as the police report both conclude she was sober. Which makes sense, as she said she had 6 shots after the game and didn't drink anymore This happened at like 3 am,cleary enough time to sober up even if the game was at night

 

[bjf1991]

Look, I think there are some real issues with regards to how this was handled by the Minny administration - especially the formal sanctioning of players....reinstatement of players after serving penalties......and then the arbitrary resanctioning of players outside the normal protocol (or at least it appears that way given the differing public statements of the Pres/AD and Claeys). If the school was conducting an "internal disciplinary investigation" concurrent with the original criminal investigation (i.e., initiated in early-Sept 2016) and the school's policy is to suspend until adjudicated (i.e., the Disciplinary Hearing is held - which has been scheduled for January 2017), why did the school reinstate the players in mid-October and tell them that they were clear to play having served their suspensions???

The fact that a recruit was involved does complicate the matter - was this element known by the University at the time the original sanctions were implemented?

Good grief

If you take a shotgun blast to the head.......I suppose you'd feel it is complicated by the skinned knee you suffered when you fell to the floor

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Why?? Did you read the university report ??

Directly from the report:

After returning to room A , RS spoke with A2 and the recruit. RS had never met either man before that night. At the time, RS believed that they were both University football players. (She later learned that the recruit was a high school student who was visiting the team as a possible recruit.)

This is excerpted directly from the report that you keep referencing which is placed directly prior to her description of going to "A2's" apartment initially with the "recruit" who she stated she DID NOT KNOW was a recruit until subsequent to the events (i.e., after she reported the events and the investigators looked into identities)! You are the one who lacks "reading comprehension" as it is virtually impossible to misunderstand this statement made in plain english:

"At the time, RS believed that they were both University football players.".​

And taken "in context", what is clearly meant by "at the time" is at the time of the events she is about to describe (i.e., her, A2 and the recruit going to A2's Apartment in the same building she lived in - on the 5th Floor - which is when the first of many sexual events occurred that night....she clearly states that she did not know either A2 or "the recruit" prior to meeting them at the party that night in apartment building where both she and A2 lived, but not in the apartment where they met sometime after 2am - she also states quite clearly that she thought they were BOTH Minnesota Football Players and did not come to understand that one was a "recruit" on a visit until AFTER the events!).

 

[sluggo72]

Directly from the report:

​

This is excerpted directly from the report that you keep referencing which is placed directly prior to her description of going to "A2's" apartment initially with the "recruit" who she stated she DID NOT KNOW was a recruit until subsequent to the events (i.e., after she reported the events and the investigators looked into identities)! You are the one who lacks "reading comprehension" as it is virtually impossible to misunderstand this statement made in plain english:

"At the time, RS believed that they were both University football players.".​

And taken "in context", what is clearly meant by "at the time" is at the time of the events she is about to describe (i.e., her, A2 and the recruit going to A2's Apartment in the same building she lived in - on the 5th Floor - which is when the first of many sexual events occurred that night....she clearly states that she did not know either A2 or "the recruit" prior to meeting them at the party that night in apartment building where both she and A2 lived, but not in the apartment where they met sometime after 2am - she also states quite clearly that she thought they were BOTH Minnesota Football Players and did not come to understand that one was a "recruit" on a visit until AFTER the events!).

Well at least you read it, but wrong again she knew he was a HS kid that night in the room and also he said he wasn't coming. Copied from the report
reentered the bedroom and the recruit sta1ted to get dressed. A2 apperu·ed disappointed that the recruit did not ejaculate. A2 referred to the recruit as a "recruit." RS asked what A2 meant by · A2 explained that the recruit was a football recruit visiting for the weekend. RS was taken aback and asked the recruit if he was in high The recruit said yes and that he was not going to come to the University because "it was

too ****ed up." RS did not see the recruit again.

Not after some investigation as you suggest

i.e., after she reported the events and the investigators looked into identities)!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Well at least you read it, but wrong again she knew he was a HS kid that night in the room and also he said he wasn't coming. Copied from the report
reentered the bedroom and the recruit sta1ted to get dressed. A2 apperu·ed disappointed that the recruit did not ejaculate. A2 referred to the recruit as a "recruit." RS asked what A2 meant by · A2 explained that the recruit was a football recruit visiting for the weekend. RS was taken aback and asked the recruit if he was in high The recruit said yes and that he was not going to come to the University because "it was

too ****ed up." RS did not see the recruit again.

Not after some investigation as you suggest

i.e., after she reported the events and the investigators looked into identities)!

It was AFTER the sexual contact occurred - not before! She clearly stated that she had never met A2 or the party referred to as "the recruit" prior to meeting them at the party & BEFORE going up to A2's Room. She also states that she thought both parties - A2 & his friend - were Minnesota Football Players when they went up to the room. It was not until AFTER the seminal sexual contact between A2 & his friend that she found out that he was allegedly a "recruit" making a visit - she had no way of knowing if it was true or who the heck he was and she absolutely said she thought he was a Minny FB player prior to the sexual contact (which she alleges she was largely pressured into via their actions including demanding she come out of bathroom and blocking her exit/path to appartment). Again, she told Minny investigators that she thought he was a Minny FB Player until long after she originally met him & AFTER sexual contact occurred - even then she reported what she was subsequently told but had no way of knowing whether it was true or if he was just trying to provide cover for his true identity. She would have had no way of knowing what the real truth of the matter was until INVESTIGATORS looked into the matter! She did not hide the information of what she was told AFTER THE FACT from investigators OR that she was horrified when the party alleged to be a high school student on a recruiting visit AFTER THE FACT. But you are completely full of $hit she would have had any way of knowing what the truth of the matter was until INVESTIGATORS looked into it and confirmed that he was indeed a recruit on a visit, not a FB Player.

 

[MoonOverMyHammy]

Actually, I think it depends on "knowledge" as well in most states - for instance, it is absolutely "statutory rape" for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old if the 17 year old tells the 19 year old that they are only 17...

I can't imagine it would be a crime to have sex with someone 2 years younger than yourself in 90% of the states.

It's also clear she knew he was a hs kid and did it anyway. The university report also states she was not drunk I think she is the one who should be investigated

Funny, all the MRA types are saying she should be "investigated" with no info on how old she is, or how old the recruit is. And yet they are attacking others for leaping to conclusions.

 

[UncleLar]

Whanna bet? In most states, that's not true.

First of all, many states set the age at 16 or younger not 18. Secondly, many states also require that there be at least 3 or 4 year age difference between the parties. The number of states where a 19 year old could face charges for having consensual sex with a 17 year old is almost certainly in the single digits..

 

[sluggo72]

Whanna bet? In most states, that's not true.

First of all, many states set the age at 16 or younger not 18. Secondly, many states also require that there be at least 3 or 4 year age difference between the parties. The number of states where a 19 year old could face charges for having consensual sex with a 17 year old is almost certainly in the single digits..

For what I've read, minny is 16 and also has the 4 yr differantial requirement, but if it's a 'control' person all bets are off. So did the university investigate this aspect? I don't see a mention of it. Many assumed the recruit to be a SR but he could have been a Jr or a Soph on an unofficial visit. Could the girl be deemed a control person? As she was representing the AD interests?
It would be good to know they at least addressed this aspect

 

[sluggo72]

It was AFTER the sexual contact occurred - not before! She clearly stated that she had never met A2 or the party referred to as "the recruit" prior to meeting them at the party & BEFORE going up to A2's Room. She also states that she thought both parties - A2 & his friend - were Minnesota Football Players when they went up to the room. It was not until AFTER the seminal sexual contact between A2 & his friend that she found out that he was allegedly a "recruit" making a visit - she had no way of knowing if it was true or who the heck he was and she absolutely said she thought he was a Minny FB player prior to the sexual contact (which she alleges she was largely pressured into via their actions including demanding she come out of bathroom and blocking her exit/path to appartment). Again, she told Minny investigators that she thought he was a Minny FB Player until long after she originally met him & AFTER sexual contact occurred - even then she reported what she was subsequently told but had no way of knowing whether it was true or if he was just trying to provide cover for his true identity. She would have had no way of knowing what the real truth of the matter was until INVESTIGATORS looked into the matter! She did not hide the information of what she was told AFTER THE FACT from investigators OR that she was horrified when the party alleged to be a high school student on a recruiting visit AFTER THE FACT. But you are completely full of $hit she would have had any way of knowing what the truth of the matter was until INVESTIGATORS looked into it and confirmed that he was indeed a recruit on a visit, not a FB Player.

See when you attack people you end up contradicting yourself. You said she didn't know the kid was a recruit until after the fact. Well okay maybe, I'd use more like during , but that's splitting hairs. Then you say,,
"But you are completely full of $hit she would have had any way of knowing what the truth of the matter was until INVESTIGATORS looked into it and confirmed that he was indeed a recruit on a visit, not a FB Player." Which is the exact opposite of what's in the report. A2 told her that night the other guy was a recruit. Again from the report
"
that the recruit did not ejaculate. A2 referred to the recruit as a "recruit." RS asked what A2 meant by · A2 explained that the recruit was a football recruit visiting for the weekend. RS was taken aback and asked the recruit if he was in high school The recruit said yes and that he was not going to come to the University "
She knew that night, no investergater had to tell her, unlike what you said in your attack on me. Go read your last lines again and apologize to me or not

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

See when you attack people you end up contradicting yourself. You said she didn't know the kid was a recruit until after the fact. Well okay maybe, I'd use more like during , but that's splitting hairs. Then you say,,
"But you are completely full of $hit she would have had any way of knowing what the truth of the matter was until INVESTIGATORS looked into it and confirmed that he was indeed a recruit on a visit, not a FB Player." Which is the exact opposite of what's in the report. A2 told her that night the other guy was a recruit. Again from the report
"
that the recruit did not ejaculate. A2 referred to the recruit as a "recruit." RS asked what A2 meant by · A2 explained that the recruit was a football recruit visiting for the weekend. RS was taken aback and asked the recruit if he was in high school The recruit said yes and that he was not going to come to the University "
She knew that night, no investergater had to tell her, unlike what you said in your attack on me. Go read your last lines again and apologize to me or not

Again you're full of it and twisting the FACTS as reported to suit your needs! RS also told investigators that she originally met BOTH MEN at the party she was at in the apartment building where she lived (and it turned out A2 lived as well on the 5th Floor - I believe it said the party was being held in an apartment in the building on the 1st or 2nd Floor, but I can't remember....also can't remember what Floor RS lived on). In any event, RS stated unequivocally that she had no idea who either man was prior to meeting them at the party and had never met them before. AT THE TIME A2 told her he lived in the building and asked her if she wanted to go check out the floorplan of the his apartment on the 5th Floor with he and his friend, RS again UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED that she thought both men were Minnesota Football Players! Your attribution above is what she said she found out a COUPLE HOURS later in subsequent conversation that took place AFTER the sexual contact! Anybody with READING COMPREHENSION skills would understand that she told INVESTIGATORS that she first thought they were both Minnesota FB Players and continued to think that through the entire FIRST SEXUAL ENCOUNTER and then a couple hours later after the event was told that A2's friend was a "recruit" (which she was "taken aback" by because it implied he was in high school). However, she would have NO WAY OF KNOWING what the ACTUAL TRUTH of the matter was in regards to either man's true identity, clearly stated that she originally thought they were both Minnesota FB players and then SUBSEQUENTLY was told something else - no way she could tell INVESTIGATORS what the actual TRUTH of the matter was because she CLEARLY stated that she had never met either party before, nor had any idea who they were beyond the CONFLICTING statements she just gave! IOW, the only people who could figure out the PRECISE and TRUE identities of the parties, including whether they both were Minny FB players, one a FB - one a recruit, both recruits, etc.... would be INVESTIGATORS who DEFINITIVELY RESEARCHED actual identities and the specific information applicable to each identity!

Again, she had NO WAY OF KNOWING who either man was OR whether her first thoughts were correct OR what she was subsequently told was correct! For all she knew, she could have been lied to so as to confuse her and make her identification of the men confusing and therefore unreliable (i.e., to provide cover and hide their true identities). She NEVER told police that she absolutely knew who either man was AND UNEQUIVOCALLY said the diametric opposite (i.e., that she had never met either of them before and had no idea who either of them were). The only parties who could decipher the TRUE IDENTITIES based on her statement would be INVESTIGATORS! (i.e., she clearly told INVESTIGATORS that they may have both been FB Players, may have been a FB and a recruit, both could have been recruits, both could have been completely lying and not been FB Players or recruits, etc... IOW, she told them the circumstances and that she really had no idea who either of them were!!!).

 

[bjf1991]

Again you're full of it and twisting the FACTS as reported to suit your needs! RS also told investigators that she originally met BOTH MEN at the party she was at in the apartment building where she lived (and it turned out A2 lived as well on the 5th Floor - I believe it said the party was being held in an apartment in the building on the 1st or 2nd Floor, but I can't remember....also can't remember what Floor RS lived on). In any event, RS stated unequivocally that she had no idea who either man was prior to meeting them at the party and had never met them before. AT THE TIME A2 told her he lived in the building and asked her if she wanted to go check out the floorplan of the his apartment on the 5th Floor with he and his friend, RS again UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED that she thought both men were Minnesota Football Players! Your attribution above is what she said she found out a COUPLE HOURS later in subsequent conversation that took place AFTER the sexual contact! Anybody with READING COMPREHENSION skills would understand that she told INVESTIGATORS that she first thought they were both Minnesota FB Players and continued to think that through the entire FIRST SEXUAL ENCOUNTER and then a couple hours later after the even was told that A2's friend was a "recruit" (which she was "taken aback" by because it implied he was in high school). However, she would have NO WAY OF KNOWING what the ACTUAL TRUTH of the matter was in regards to either man's true identity, clearly stated that she originally thought they were both Minnesota FB players and then SUBSEQUENTLY was told something else - no way she could tell INVESTIGATORS what the actual TRUTH of the matter was because she CLEARLY stated that she had never met either party before, nor had any idea who they were beyond the CONFLICTING statements she just gave! IOW, the only people who could figure out the PRECISE and TRUE identities of the parties, including whether they both were Minny FB players, one a FB - one a recruit, both recruits, etc.... would be INVESTIGATORS who DEFINITIVELY RESEARCHED actual identities and the specific information applicable to each identity!

WOW!


Just......WOW!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Whanna bet? In most states, that's not true.

First of all, many states set the age at 16 or younger not 18. Secondly, many states also require that there be at least 3 or 4 year age difference between the parties. The number of states where a 19 year old could face charges for having consensual sex with a 17 year old is almost certainly in the single digits..

"Many" or most? I never said that ALL states set the "statutory rape" age at 18, I said "most states" (i.e., that would imply 26 or more). You are attempting to twist the statement to suit your needs - never said I absolutely knew the age in MN either, just said that in most states, the age for "Statutory Rape" is 18, not 16. But I could be wrong about even the 18, because this is what I had always heard, but have no way of knowing if it is so (i.e., I was always told that consent and "age of majority" were the same.....but maybe that is not so).

 

[sluggo72]

Again you're full of it and twisting the FACTS as reported to suit your needs! RS also told investigators that she originally met BOTH MEN at the party she was at in the apartment building where she lived (and it turned out A2 lived as well on the 5th Floor - I believe it said the party was being held in an apartment in the building on the 1st or 2nd Floor, but I can't remember....also can't remember what Floor RS lived on). In any event, RS stated unequivocally that she had no idea who either man was prior to meeting them at the party and had never met them before. AT THE TIME A2 told her he lived in the building and asked her if she wanted to go check out the floorplan of the his apartment on the 5th Floor with he and his friend, RS again UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED that she thought both men were Minnesota Football Players! Your attribution above is what she said she found out a COUPLE HOURS later in subsequent conversation that took place AFTER the sexual contact! Anybody with READING COMPREHENSION skills would understand that she told INVESTIGATORS that she first thought they were both Minnesota FB Players and continued to think that through the entire FIRST SEXUAL ENCOUNTER and then a couple hours later after the even was told that A2's friend was a "recruit" (which she was "taken aback" by because it implied he was in high school). However, she would have NO WAY OF KNOWING what the ACTUAL TRUTH of the matter was in regards to either man's true identity, clearly stated that she originally thought they were both Minnesota FB players and then SUBSEQUENTLY was told something else - no way she could tell INVESTIGATORS what the actual TRUTH of the matter was because she CLEARLY stated that she had never met either party before, nor had any idea who they were beyond the CONFLICTING statements she just gave! IOW, the only people who could figure out the PRECISE and TRUE identities of the parties, including whether they both were Minny FB players, one a FB - one a recruit, both recruits, etc.... would be INVESTIGATORS who DEFINITIVELY RESEARCHED actual identities and the specific information applicable to each identity!

Buschwood you can capitalize all you want but she knew right after the fact A2 told her that night after the recruit couldnt get off

the recruit did not ejaculate. A2 referred to the recruit as a "recruit." RS asked what A2 meant by · A2 explained that the recruit was a football recruit visiting for the weekend. RS was taken aback and asked the recruit if he was in high school The recruit said yes and that he was not going to comn't get off read it for the third time

There was no investigation, A2 told RS right then and there!!'
Now the real question is , knowing this , why didn't the U of Minnesota investigate the possible rape by RS of a minor?? If you check footnote #2? The university said , basically since he wasn't a student they washed their hands of this. But still knowing the recruit was a minor, RS should have been investigated as she is a student
Don't you agree??

 

[bjf1991]

"Many" or most? I never said that ALL states set the "statutory rape" age at 18, I said "most states" (i.e., that would imply 26 or more). You are attempting to twist the statement to suit your needs - never said I absolutely knew the age in MN either, just said that in most states, the age for "Statutory Rape" is 18, not 16. But I could be wrong about even the 18, because this is what I had always heard, but have no way of knowing if it is so (i.e., I was always told that consent and "age of majority" were the same.....but maybe that is not so).

WOW!

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Buschwood you can capitalize all you want but she knew right after the fact A2 told her that night after the recruit couldnt get off

the recruit did not ejaculate. A2 referred to the recruit as a "recruit." RS asked what A2 meant by · A2 explained that the recruit was a football recruit visiting for the weekend. RS was taken aback and asked the recruit if he was in high school The recruit said yes and that he was not going to comn't get off read it for the third time

There was no investigation, A2 told RS right then and there!!'
Now the real question is , knowing this , why didn't the U of Minnesota investigate the possible rape by RS of a minor?? If you check footnote #2? The university said , basically since he wasn't a student they washed their hands of this. But still knowing the recruit was a minor, RS should have been investigated as she is a student
Don't you agree??

What laughable nonsense - in your world, A2 - who engaged in all kinds of duplicitous behavior in regards to this girl - telling RS something AFTER THE FACT, which was different than what she believed.....AND she unequivocally stated that she had no idea who either party was and had NEVER MET THEM prior to the party....means that she knew for sure that A2 (and his "friend") were telling the truth AFTER THE FACT??? The report doesn't even say that she knew A2's last name - only that he purportedly lived in the apartment on the 5th Floor they went to (i.e., investigators would know the identity as he was one of the 4 residents of that apartment). She unequivocally stated that she had no idea who either man was and had only just met them that evening at the party.....she also stated that she thought they were both Minny FB players when she went with them to check out A2's apartment and its floorplan....she then thought something different AFTER THE FACT based on statements of A2 and "his friend" who had already acted in a DUPLICITOUS manner towards her according to her own statement.....and all of this adds up to RS knowing with absolute certainty who both parties were and that one of them with certainty was a high school "recruit" and the investigators didn't need to verify any information as to who either of these parties were because she knew who they were with absolute certainty..... Hysterical, simply hysterical that you can selectively read all of the statements by RS and draw this conclusion!

 

[sluggo72]

What laughable nonsense - in your world, A2 - who engaged in all kinds of duplicitous behavior in regards to this girl - telling RS something AFTER THE FACT, which was different than what she believed.....AND she unequivocally stated that she had no idea who either party was and had NEVER MET THEM prior to the party....means that she knew for sure that A2 (and his "friend") were telling the truth AFTER THE FACT??? The report doesn't even say that she knew A2's last name - only that he purportedly lived in the apartment on the 5th Floor they went to (i.e., investigators would know the identity as he was one of the 4 residents of that apartment). She unequivocally stated that she had no idea who either man was and had only just met them that evening at the party.....she also stated that she thought they were both Minny FB players when she went with them to check out A2's apartment and its floorplan....she then thought something different AFTER THE FACT based on statements of A2 and "his friend" who had already acted in a DUPLICITOUS manner towards her according to her own statement.....and all of this adds up to RS knowing with absolute certainty who both parties were and that one of them with certainty was a high school "recruit" and the investigators didn't need to verify any information as to who either of these parties were because she knew who they were with absolute certainty..... Hysterical, simply hysterical that you can selectively read all of the statements by RS and draw this conclusion!

I didn't draw any conclusion I just read the report, which is clear she know the recruit was a HS kid around the time of their encounter. you are one making valued judgements

 

[UncleLar]

"Many" or most? I never said that ALL states set the "statutory rape" age at 18, I said "most states" (i.e., that would imply 26 or more). You are attempting to twist the statement to suit your needs - never said I absolutely knew the age in MN either, just said that in most states, the age for "Statutory Rape" is 18, not 16. But I could be wrong about even the 18, because this is what I had always heard, but have no way of knowing if it is so (i.e., I was always told that consent and "age of majority" were the same.....but maybe that is not so).

LOL. Before you dug yourself into that hole any deeper, I would have thought that you might have done a bit of research (the internet is a wonderful thing and it's available to pretty much everyone). Plus, if anyone is twisting statements to suit their needs, it's you.

What you actually said is the following, and I'll quote it:

"it is absolutely "statutory rape" for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old if the 17 year old tells the 19 year old that they are only 17"

That is patently false - and it's for two reasons. The first is the age of consent. The second is what's referred to as the close-in-age exception. In order for your statement to be true, the incident would have to take place in a state where where the age of consent was 18 and there was no close-in-age exception.

My claim was (and I'll quote it too):

"The number of states where a 19 year old could face charges for having consensual sex with a 17 year old is almost certainly in the single digits."


So let's see how our claims stack up. This site lists the age of consent by state.

There are only 11 states where the age of consent is 18 (the typical age is 16). So right off the bat, both your original statement regarding the 19 and 17 year olds and the "most states" statements are way wrong.

Of those 11 states, four have the close-in-age exception. That leaves just seven states where potentially a 19 year old could be charged for sleeping with a 17 year old.

That makes my "single digit" statement clearly true.


I'm easily right and you are way wrong.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

LOL. Before you dug yourself into that hole any deeper, I would have thought that you might have done a bit of research (the internet is a wonderful thing and it's available to pretty much everyone). Plus, if anyone is twisting statements to suit their needs, it's you.

What you actually said is the following, and I'll quote it:

"it is absolutely "statutory rape" for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old if the 17 year old tells the 19 year old that they are only 17"

That is patently false - and it's for two reasons. The first is the age of consent. The second is what's referred to as the close-in-age exception. In order for your statement to be true, the incident would have to take place in a state where where the age of consent was 18 and there was no close-in-age exception.

My claim was (and I'll quote it too):

"The number of states where a 19 year old could face charges for having consensual sex with a 17 year old is almost certainly in the single digits."


So let's see how our claims stack up. This site lists the age of consent by state.

There are only 11 states where the age of consent is 18 (the typical age is 16). So right off the bat, both your original statement regarding the 19 and 17 year olds and the "most states" statements are way wrong.

Of those 11 states, four have the close-in-age exception. That leaves just seven states where potentially a 19 year old could be charged for sleeping with a 17 year old.

That makes my "single digit" statement clearly true.


I'm easily right and you are way wrong.

I am wrong - I was under the impression that "age of consent" and "age of majority" are the same in most states. Never had any reason to research it, to be honest. Clearly, I was wrong about that assumption regardless of how I came to believe it.

 

[STPGopherfan]

Minnesota football players suspended due to sex crime

Breaking news about 10 Minn football players suspended. I don't have any details other then it sounds very serious.

Edit - Here is an article I just saw:

In two weeks, Minnesota will head to San Diego to take on Washington State in the Holiday Bowl, but they’ll go without 10 of their players, including several starters in their secondary. The Star Tribune reported on the suspensions this evening, which apparently stem from an incident in September. Four players were suspended for three games due to a restraining order by a victim of an alleged sexual assault. They only missed home games, and were reinstated once the restraining order expired.

However, the University of Minnesota’s Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action office conducted their own investigation and has now decided to indefinitely suspend Ray Buford, Carlton Djam, Seth Green, KiAnte Hardin, Dior Johnson, Tamarion Johnson, Kobe McCrary, Antonio Shenault, Antoine Winfield Jr., and Mark Williams. According to the Star Tribune, Williams, Shenault, Winfield Jr., McCrary, and Green were not involved in the alleged assault, but were in the same apartment at the time.

Yup It's a huge $h!T sandwich up here. Us fans don't like the taste of it... Mismanaged all the way around. Ugly days ahead for sure. The University will most likely be sued for equally implicating one or more players that may have not even been their. Four of the players that did the deed were already suspended, but reenstated after they were cleared of legal charges. 5 or 6 were suspended from home games due to the plaintiff filing a restraining order later. That was settled with, surprise, the players involved at that point agreeing not to sue the plaintiff.

The AD should have kept the originally named players suspended. The A.D. and president do not appear to be totally forthcoming. The lack of transparency and due process for those accused by the EOAA, namely the five not directly involved, was what the boycott was all about.

 

[bjf1991]

Yup It's a huge $h!T sandwich up here. Us fans don't like the taste of it... Mismanaged all the way around. Ugly days ahead for sure. The University will most likely be sued for equally implicating one or more players that may have not even been their. Four of the players that did the deed were already suspended, but reenstated after they were cleared of legal charges. 5 or 6 were suspended from home games due to the plaintiff filing a restraining order later. That was settled with, surprise, the players involved at that point agreeing not to sue the plaintiff.

The AD should have kept the originally named players suspended. The A.D. and president do not appear to be totally forthcoming. The lack of transparency and due process for those accused by the EOAA, namely the five not directly involved, was what the boycott was all about.

The folks at UMinn are getting just a SLIGHT taste of what has been going on at PSU and throughout PA for the last 5+ years.


I doubt it happens.....

But I hope those kids sue the pants off of UMinn (and the Jesters running that Kangaroo Court)

This bizarre-world "Crime and Punishment" system so prevalent at institutes of higher education is insane.


Its like having a self-imposed mandate that your Health Care treatments fall under the auspices of your local auto mechanic.

 

[STPGopherfan]

The folks at UMinn are getting just a SLIGHT taste of what has been going on at PSU and throughout PA for the last 5+ years.


I doubt it happens.....

But I hope those kids sue the pants off of UMinn (and the Jesters running that Kangaroo Court)

This bizarre-world "Crime and Punishment" system so prevalent at institutes of higher education is insane.


Its like having a self-imposed mandate that your Health Care treatments fall under the auspices of your local auto mechanic.

Yeah I can see one parallel. Lack of transparency at the top. I don't have an issue with the guys directly involved being expelled. I think they should have waited on the others till they had there day in "court". Disapointed in those that actually participated(consentual or not). Even more disapointed in the A.D. There was no new evidence. He knew then what he knows now. Fluster Cuck.

That is why I backed away for the most part from the PSU situation a long time ago. I think because the situation was so unusual, some didn't know what to do. Others decided to fill the vacuum and takeover the case. In the Minnesota situation, I think the EOAA decided to make an example. It may be revealled in due time, but what didn't make sense to me was the EOAA coming to the conclusion that descrepancies in testimony on one side was explained away as unclear thinking. The other side it was assumed to be untruthfulness.

 

[STPGopherfan]

LOL. Before you dug yourself into that hole any deeper, I would have thought that you might have done a bit of research (the internet is a wonderful thing and it's available to pretty much everyone). Plus, if anyone is twisting statements to suit their needs, it's you.

What you actually said is the following, and I'll quote it:

"it is absolutely "statutory rape" for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old if the 17 year old tells the 19 year old that they are only 17"

That is patently false - and it's for two reasons. The first is the age of consent. The second is what's referred to as the close-in-age exception. In order for your statement to be true, the incident would have to take place in a state where where the age of consent was 18 and there was no close-in-age exception.

My claim was (and I'll quote it too):

"The number of states where a 19 year old could face charges for having consensual sex with a 17 year old is almost certainly in the single digits."


So let's see how our claims stack up. This site lists the age of consent by state.

There are only 11 states where the age of consent is 18 (the typical age is 16). So right off the bat, both your original statement regarding the 19 and 17 year olds and the "most states" statements are way wrong.

Of those 11 states, four have the close-in-age exception. That leaves just seven states where potentially a 19 year old could be charged for sleeping with a 17 year old.

That makes my "single digit" statement clearly true.


I'm easily right and you are way wrong.

I believe the plaintiff was/ is 22.

 

[sluggo72]

Yup It's a huge $h!T sandwich up here. Us fans don't like the taste of it... Mismanaged all the way around. Ugly days ahead for sure. The University will most likely be sued for equally implicating one or more players that may have not even been their. Four of the players that did the deed were already suspended, but reenstated after they were cleared of legal charges. 5 or 6 were suspended from home games due to the plaintiff filing a restraining order later. That was settled with, surprise, the players involved at that point agreeing not to sue the plaintiff.

The AD should have kept the originally named players suspended. The A.D. and president do not appear to be totally forthcoming. The lack of transparency and due process for those accused by the EOAA, namely the five not directly involved, was what the boycott was all about.

so who is A2?

 

[sluggo72]

I believe the plaintiff was/ is 22.

you mean the women is 22?? Yikes if so, there is probably more worms.

 

[step.eng69]

you mean the women is 22?? Yikes if so, there is probably more worms.

from the linked article:
A 22-year-old woman told police she drank 5-6 shots of 100 proof vodka in the hours before the alleged assault. The police report says she claimed to have sex with several players -- some consensual, some not.

 

[sluggo72]

from the linked article:
A 22-year-old woman told police she drank 5-6 shots of 100 proof vodka in the hours before the alleged assault. The police report says she claimed to have sex with several players -- some consensual, some not.

okay I have to go here, we know she was with a recruit, has it ever been investigated if she raped an under age boy?? If the kid is 17, I believe there is only a 4 year band between when a 17 can give consent, (17 & 21 yr old) so if he is outside this band, he cant give consent no matter what. So far as to what I've read, this aspect has not been investigated, and from the footnote in the University's report, they could care less about him as he was not a student. But maybe they should.

 

[UncleLar]

okay I have to go here, we know she was with a recruit, has it ever been investigated if she raped an under age boy?? If the kid is 17, I believe there is only a 4 year band between when a 17 can give consent, (17 & 21 yr old) so if he is outside this band, he cant give consent no matter what. So far as to what I've read, this aspect has not been investigated, and from the footnote in the University's report, they could care less about him as he was not a student. But maybe they should.

You believe wrong. The age of consent in Minnesota is 16 so all of your musing is irrelevant (plus it contains one helluva lot of victim blaming).

 

[sluggo72]

You believe wrong. The age of consent in Minnesota is 16 so all of your musing is irrelevant (plus it contains one helluva lot of victim blaming).

no its not, re read that , it is 16 if the two aren't more than 4 years apart, or if the other person is not a control person. We don't know the age of the recruit, if say he were a sophomore on an official visit, the kid could be 15, if he is 17 and she 22 he cant give consent. But how do we know it there isn't an investigation. I am not trying to blame a victim, I am just trying to figure out who the victim actually is.
Get a high price enough lawyer and the female Minny student could be considered a control person, as someone representing Minny athletic interests.