Lloyd Tubman Update...

[fuzz77]

Dude, we've been over this, once you're there certain rights are afforded to a student. One of those should be, and eventually will be, a balanced system with safeguards to protect every student and not put them in a position that strips them of their full right to due process. If you bother to read Bakke or Grutter SCOTUS decisions, public universities are clearly state actors. Dude.

I thought we were discussing today, what is.

Being a state actor doesn't preclude that schools will be forced to accept and deal with all behavior that isn't illegal but perhaps disruptive to school functions.

Forgive me if you aren't the one arguing that the school should wait until after the legal process concludes to act but...upon his arrest Tubman was basically under house arrest released to his mother's custody in Louisville. He wouldn't have been able to attend school in Lexington had he so desired. Yes, there must be a formality of a hearing where they expel him for the alleged transgressions. That hearing is a rubber stamp pending the end of the criminal process. Upon the end of the criminal process he was granted an appeal hearing where he would actively testify and seek reinstatement. Now because Tubman wasn't indicted he did risk having charges reapplied if new evidence of criminal activity was uncovered.

You seem to want the SRB to accept the GJ decision and forgive all...although we don't know if the two were deciding on the same things.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Cat, every rape has at least 2 eye witnesses. The person being raped and the person who is committing the rape. Please read below from a criminal defense lawyer website... also I challenge you to google "he said, she said convictions"...read what you find and come back and let's review what you have been saying.
You can only speak to what level of proof it would take to convince you that a crime had committed. There are others who would agree with you. However are also many people who will set a much lower bar.
You continue to want to argue that preponderance is some scientific standard that we can measure like feet and inches or weight. It isn't. Sometimes it may be clear, other times more murky.

Testimony at trial
At trial, the victim’s testimony and credibility will be extremely important, especially if other evidence is limited. Credibility refers to whether the witness is believable and seems to be telling the truth. If the defendant chooses to testify, his credibility also will be very important.

If both the victim and the defendant testify, each person will describe the events and likely will be permitted to testify as to what the other person said during the incident. The two descriptions of the event might be very different. The victim might testify that she said “no” and told the defendant to stop repeatedly and even tried to get away but was held down. The defendant might testify that the other person never said “no” and did not object at any point. In another case, the two descriptions of the incident might be very similar and it might be much less clear whether the victim said “no” or objected.

Trying to reach a verdict in this type of case can be particularly difficult for a jury because both parties might seem credible. The jury may have to decide whether the defendant actually knew that the victim was not consenting based on a fuzzy situation where the two people were not communicating clearly with each other, perhaps using body language subject to interpretation rather than words. Ultimately, the jury must decide whether all the evidence presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the sexual act even though he actually knew the victim was not consenting.


Here is another website where lawyers comment on "he said/she said" cases...the question was asked..."I have heard Juries are very reluctant to convict in a "he said/she said" case and prosecutors are reluctant to bring such cases before a jury for this reason and the cost of a jury trial. So prosecutors always try to add lot of charges & scare you so that you are tempted to take their plea agreement."

Here is what the lawyers had to say...

William Peter Daily Criminal Defense Attorney..."Not sure who you're getting your information from, but it is not accurate. Most DV cases are he said/she said cases, rarely are there other witnesses to what happened. The prosecute these cases daily in San Diego. Your best defense is an experience local attorney who knows the in's and out's of DV cases and can minimize your exposure."

Vijay Dinakar Criminal Defense Attorney ..."Most DV (and sex cases) are "he said/she said" cases where there are no independent witnesses to the battery or sexual assault. While there may be "independent evidence" of injury (photos, medical evidence, etc) this surely doesn't prove who caused this to occur, whether it resulted from consent and can almost never a sustain a conviction without the alleged victim's live testimony (assuming there is no independent eyewitness to the alleged event). That said, I don't agree with your assumption that juries are very reluctant to convict in "he said/she said" cases; if they were there wouldn't be so many convictions in DV and sex cases. If the alleged victim takes the stand and the jury believes that he/she was battered or sexually assaulted, the jury will convict. There is much a good an attorney can do to undermine the alleged victim's credibility however so it is not hopeless if the alleged victim continues to tell a consistent story. I'm not aware of reliable numbers regarding DV conviction rates in San Diego but even if they exist surely there is an element of self selection where the worst cases result in pre-trial dismissals which skews the "conviction rate". Hire the best San Diego criminal attorney you can afford and allow him/her to investigate the matter and fight for your rights. Best of luck."
John M. Kaman Criminal Defense Attorney ... "
I agree with my colleagues in general but the person who started the case by calling 911 is usually the person the jurors believe. That doesn't mean you can't win but the first one to telephone the police has an advantage, particularly if it's the woman."

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on what is written here. You certainly can't judge what evidence there was in the cases being referred to that supported the testimony of the victim. As pointed out by one attorney, there may be independent evidence of injury that would make the victim's story believable. You still haven't shown me anything that says it is common to get a conviction without any other evidence to support one person's story over another person's story. If a jury is simply listening to two people tell a story and they pick one of them as being truthful, with nothing else to go on, then they aren't doing their job. I personally don't believe that is very common. If it is, out legal system is broken. There has to be evidence of some nature that supports what one side is saying in order to make their story believable. I would think this is very common. It would be a very short trial if all there was is the testimony of two people with no other evidence.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

When you enter my house, I set rules. When you take a job, your employer sets rules. When you buy a home in a subdivision, the HOA sets rules. When you register for classes at a school you agree to play by their rules...or did you not read the papers you had to sign for admission?

Every school puts freshman through orientation, they give you the code of conduct and they require that you attest that you will follow that code. It is clearly stated the consequences for failing to do so. Before your admission was fully accepted you agreed to that contract.

Piss poor analogy. "when you pay to come to my house, I can damage you for life."

 

[fuzz77]

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on what is written here. You certainly can't judge what evidence there was in the cases being referred to that supported the testimony of the victim. As pointed out by one attorney, there may be independent evidence of injury that would make the victim's story believable. You still haven't shown me anything that says it is common to get a conviction without any other evidence to support one person's story over another person's story. If a jury is simply listening to two people tell a story and they pick one of them as being truthful, with nothing else to go on, then they aren't doing their job. I personally don't believe that is very common. If it is, out legal system is broken. There has to be evidence of some nature that supports what one side is saying in order to make their story believable. I would think this is very common. It would be a very short trial if all there was is the testimony of two people with no other evidence.

cat, I think where you are struggling is that you are allowing your personal feelings, what you would do to affect your understanding of what happens, projecting to what others would do.
Any lawyer will tell you that you never know what a jury will decide.
Regardless if it is common or not is really not material to the discussion. Either it happens or it doesn't.
Two cases are never the same. Cases may have similarities but that's it. Add the fact that you have a relatively well known defendant adds even more variability.
Can you not concede that the possibility that one or more of the Grand Jury members were UK football fans? Could that not affect their objectivity when considering evidence?
You have to remove your feelings and consider the world around you. Chances are pretty high that 12 people in a room are all going to see things differently.
Why would an attorney say; "in general but the person who started the case by calling 911 is usually the person the jurors believe. That doesn't mean you can't win but the first one to telephone the police has an advantage"?
or... when it is suggested that juries would be reluctant to prosecute he said/she said cases...
"Not sure who you're getting your information from, but it is not accurate. Most DV cases are he said/she said cases, rarely are there other witnesses to what happened. They prosecute these cases daily..."

 

[catben]

So, a GJ can have their "objectivity" questioned, but the SRB cannot????

Ridiculous.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

cat, I think where you are struggling is that you are allowing your personal feelings, what you would do to affect your understanding of what happens, projecting to what others would do.
Any lawyer will tell you that you never know what a jury will decide.
Regardless if it is common or not is really not material to the discussion. Either it happens or it doesn't.
Two cases are never the same. Cases may have similarities but that's it. Add the fact that you have a relatively well known defendant adds even more variability.
Can you not concede that the possibility that one or more of the Grand Jury members were UK football fans? Could that not affect their objectivity when considering evidence?
You have to remove your feelings and consider the world around you. Chances are pretty high that 12 people in a room are all going to see things differently.
Why would an attorney say; "in general but the person who started the case by calling 911 is usually the person the jurors believe. That doesn't mean you can't win but the first one to telephone the police has an advantage"?
or... when it is suggested that juries would be reluctant to prosecute he said/she said cases...
"Not sure who you're getting your information from, but it is not accurate. Most DV cases are he said/she said cases, rarely are there other witnesses to what happened. They prosecute these cases daily..."

Absolutely there is a possibility that some of the Grand Jurors were UK football fans. I have never said otherwise.

Neither of the statements made by the attorneys indicate that the verdict was based solely on he said/she said testimony with no additional evidence. That is where you are jumping to conclusions that aren't in the text you quote. Just because there are no witnesses doesn't mean there aren't injuries, etc., that cause one person's story to be more believable than the other person's. Are you really saying that if a woman calls 911 and reports domestic violence and the police show up and find no injuries, no evidence of any kind of fight or struggle, none of the neighbors heard anything to indicate they were arguing, so no evidence at all. Nothing except her word of what happened.The woman says they had an argument and he hit her. The man says I cheated on her and she called the police to get revenge. The two stories are all you have. There is no way it is normal to get a conviction based on something like that. There has to be other evidence to suggest one person is telling the truth or there has to be reasonable doubt. Has it ever happened in the history of the world. Probably. Is that the point? No. Most jurors try to follow directions and rule based on what they are instructed to do. I doubt very seriously that 100% of the members of a jury commonly think a story with absolutely no supporting evidence rises to the level of the reasonable doubt standard. It just doesn't happen.

That being said, none of this really matters with respect to this situation.

 

[fuzz77]

So, a GJ can have their "objectivity" questioned, but the SRB cannot????

Ridiculous.

Really, that's what you think we have argued?

 

[Deeeefense]

686 posts about a guy this is never going to play a down of football for UK. I think everything that could ever possibly be said about this guy has been said. Give it up guys, Lloyd is history. Isn't it time to move on?

 

[Caveman Catfan]

It really is not about him. And, could potentially be about another football player yet to be named or a son or nephew or ...

 

[fuzz77]

Absolutely there is a possibility that some of the Grand Jurors were UK football fans. I have never said otherwise.

Neither of the statements made by the attorneys indicate that the verdict was based solely on he said/she said testimony with no additional evidence. That is where you are jumping to conclusions that aren't in the text you quote. Just because there are no witnesses doesn't mean there aren't injuries, etc., that cause one person's story to be more believable than the other person's. Are you really saying that if a woman calls 911 and reports domestic violence and the police show up and find no injuries, no evidence of any kind of fight or struggle, none of the neighbors heard anything to indicate they were arguing, so no evidence at all. Nothing except her word of what happened.The woman says they had an argument and he hit her. The man says I cheated on her and she called the police to get revenge. The two stories are all you have. There is no way it is normal to get a conviction based on something like that. There has to be other evidence to suggest one person is telling the truth or there has to be reasonable doubt. Has it ever happened in the history of the world. Probably. Is that the point? No. Most jurors try to follow directions and rule based on what they are instructed to do. I doubt very seriously that 100% of the members of a jury commonly think a story with absolutely no supporting evidence rises to the level of the reasonable doubt standard. It just doesn't happen.

That being said, none of this really matters with respect to this situation.

Do you think that in general that "fans" would judge players of their team the same way as they would some anonymous stranger? Did Jamis Winston or Chris Jones get the same benefit of the doubt as Tubman on this board???

The attorneys weren't referring to any verdict. They were responding to a question. The question only referred to he says/she says cases. It didn't qualify what if any other evidence might exist. Certainly other evidence does exist with Tubman. Text messages, phone records, friends...while none these might prove rape they may prove harassment. True?
Not enough evidence to indict for rape but enough to find them in violation of the CoC.

Do you realize that most rapes are very similar to the Tubman case?
Most accusing rape victims know the person they are accusing...60-90% of the time. The most common defense for rape is "it was consensual". Torn clothing, minor injuries? She likes it rough.
Point being that MOST cases consist of circumstantial evidence and testimony from the victim.

 

[fuzz77]

It really is not about him. And, could potentially be about another football player yet to be named or a son or nephew or ...

...or daughter.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Do you think that in general that "fans" would judge players of their team the same way as they would some anonymous stranger? Did Jamis Winston or Chris Jones get the same benefit of the doubt as Tubman on this board???

The attorneys weren't referring to any verdict. They were responding to a question. The question only referred to he says/she says cases. It didn't qualify what if any other evidence might exist. Certainly other evidence does exist with Tubman. Text messages, phone records, friends...while none these might prove rape they may prove harassment. True?
Not enough evidence to indict for rape but enough to find them in violation of the CoC.

Do you realize that most rapes are very similar to the Tubman case?
Most accusing rape victims know the person they are accusing...60-90% of the time. The most common defense for rape is "it was consensual". Torn clothing, minor injuries? She likes it rough.
Point being that MOST cases consist of circumstantial evidence and testimony from the victim.

I think it depends on the person. I take sitting on a jury very seriously, and the identity of person being accused, plays no role in how I go about making a decision. Are most people like that? Who knows. They should be, but who knows. I'm not sure what your point is here with regard how common it is to convict someone based on nothing but their word versus the word of the accused.

Other evidence existing is the point, be it circumstantial or otherwise. Other evidence, along with testimony, can be enough to conclude a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You argued before that he said/she said testimony alone is enough to convict.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I thought we were discussing today, what is.

Being a state actor doesn't preclude that schools will be forced to accept and deal with all behavior that isn't illegal but perhaps disruptive to school functions.

Forgive me if you aren't the one arguing that the school should wait until after the legal process concludes to act but...upon his arrest Tubman was basically under house arrest released to his mother's custody in Louisville. He wouldn't have been able to attend school in Lexington had he so desired. Yes, there must be a formality of a hearing where they expel him for the alleged transgressions. That hearing is a rubber stamp pending the end of the criminal process. Upon the end of the criminal process he was granted an appeal hearing where he would actively testify and seek reinstatement. Now because Tubman wasn't indicted he did risk having charges reapplied if new evidence of criminal activity was uncovered.

You seem to want the SRB to accept the GJ decision and forgive all...although we don't know if the two were deciding on the same things.

Almost, I want serious cases like this to not be heard by the school at all. If they are going to have amateurs making these life altering decisions they should at least allow full representation by an attorney with the right to face your accuser and cross examine every witness. Being a state actor means you have certain Constitutional responsibilities, free speech, due process..... why do you think so many schools are learning the hard way that they just can't shut down student speech because of their "rules" and "areas of free speech" and so on. Schools seem to think they are a bit like the Vatican, they can set their own rules.

 

[fuzz77]

I think it depends on the person. I take sitting on a jury very seriously, and the identity of person being accused, plays no role in how I go about making a decision. Are most people like that? Who knows. They should be, but who knows. I'm not sure what your point is here with regard how common it is to convict someone based on nothing but their word versus the word of the accused.

Other evidence existing is the point, be it circumstantial or otherwise. Other evidence, along with testimony, can be enough to conclude a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You argued before that he said/she said testimony alone is enough to convict.

Good grief! Must I spell out every detail?
I assumed that you would take as a given that the nature of the relationship between two people who know one another would be reviewed. I'm sure that I've said as well as others advocating my position that there would always be some other evidence.
Silly me.

Most people...what percentage makes up "most"? It only takes 1 holdout on a jury to block a conviction. It only takes 4 to sway an indictment. Most people could have voted to indict and it still not happen.

 

[fuzz77]

Almost, I want serious cases like this to not be heard by the school at all. If they are going to have amateurs making these life altering decisions they should at least allow full representation by an attorney with the right to face your accuser and cross examine every witness. Being a state actor means you have certain Constitutional responsibilities, free speech, due process..... why do you think so many schools are learning the hard way that they just can't shut down student speech because of their "rules" and "areas of free speech" and so on. Schools seem to think they are a bit like the Vatican, they can set their own rules.

All jurors are amatures.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Good grief! Must I spell out every detail?
I assumed that you would take as a given that the nature of the relationship between two people who know one another would be reviewed. I'm sure that I've said as well as others advocating my position that there would always be some other evidence.
Silly me.

Most people...what percentage makes up "most"? It only takes 1 holdout on a jury to block a conviction. It only takes 4 to sway an indictment. Most people could have voted to indict and it still not happen.

You act like you have said that all along, but I have been very specific in what I was talking about and you disagreed. I have been very specific in saying conflicting testimony alone, without any evidence to support that testimony, should not rise to the standard of proof. I don't know how to be anymore specific than that. You have continually disagreed with that position and now you say of course there would be other evidence to support the testimony.

 

[fuzz77]

You act like you have said that all along, but I have been very specific in what I was talking about and you disagreed. I have been very specific in saying conflicting testimony alone, without any evidence to support that testimony, should not rise to the standard of proof. I don't know how to be anymore specific than that. You have continually disagreed with that position and now you say of course there would be other evidence to support the testimony.

Sorry, I thought reality existed somewhere in your world. Never is there a total vacuum so why should we consider it?

Perhaps from now on when discussing things that would never happen we should surround those discussions with these tags. <RealityHalt> .... </RealityHalt>

IIRC back in the early days of this thread the existence of txt messages between the two was presented for consideration and those supporting the anti-SRB crowd poop-pood on those claims making excuses why they were somehow not relevant.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

...or daughter.

I doubt many daughters will find themselves accused of rape and facing a premature SRB hearing where they cannot defend themselves or tell their version of the events. But, it could happen.

 

[fuzz77]

I doubt many daughters will find themselves accused of rape and facing a premature SRB hearing where they cannot defend themselves or tell their version of the events. But, it could happen.

No, but they could find themselves having been raped. I somehow doubt were your daughter raped that you wouldn't want a SRB to believe her claims and not require that she have actual video of the rape to act.

 

[jauk11]

Cat, every rape has at least 2 eye witnesses. The person being raped and the person who is committing the rape. Please read below from a criminal defense lawyer website... also I challenge you to google "he said, she said convictions"...read what you find and come back and let's review what you have been saying.
You can only speak to what level of proof it would take to convince you that a crime had committed. There are others who would agree with you. However are also many people who will set a much lower bar.
You continue to want to argue that preponderance is some scientific standard that we can measure like feet and inches or weight. It isn't. Sometimes it may be clear, other times more murky.

Testimony at trial
At trial, the victim’s testimony and credibility will be extremely important, especially if other evidence is limited. Credibility refers to whether the witness is believable and seems to be telling the truth. If the defendant chooses to testify, his credibility also will be very important.

If both the victim and the defendant testify, each person will describe the events and likely will be permitted to testify as to what the other person said during the incident. The two descriptions of the event might be very different. The victim might testify that she said “no” and told the defendant to stop repeatedly and even tried to get away but was held down. The defendant might testify that the other person never said “no” and did not object at any point. In another case, the two descriptions of the incident might be very similar and it might be much less clear whether the victim said “no” or objected.

Trying to reach a verdict in this type of case can be particularly difficult for a jury because both parties might seem credible. The jury may have to decide whether the defendant actually knew that the victim was not consenting based on a fuzzy situation where the two people were not communicating clearly with each other, perhaps using body language subject to interpretation rather than words. Ultimately, the jury must decide whether all the evidence presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the sexual act even though he actually knew the victim was not consenting.


Here is another website where lawyers comment on "he said/she said" cases...the question was asked..."I have heard Juries are very reluctant to convict in a "he said/she said" case and prosecutors are reluctant to bring such cases before a jury for this reason and the cost of a jury trial. So prosecutors always try to add lot of charges & scare you so that you are tempted to take their plea agreement."

Here is what the lawyers had to say...

William Peter Daily Criminal Defense Attorney..."Not sure who you're getting your information from, but it is not accurate. Most DV cases are he said/she said cases, rarely are there other witnesses to what happened. The prosecute these cases daily in San Diego. Your best defense is an experience local attorney who knows the in's and out's of DV cases and can minimize your exposure."

Vijay Dinakar Criminal Defense Attorney ..."Most DV (and sex cases) are "he said/she said" cases where there are no independent witnesses to the battery or sexual assault. While there may be "independent evidence" of injury (photos, medical evidence, etc) this surely doesn't prove who caused this to occur, whether it resulted from consent and can almost never a sustain a conviction without the alleged victim's live testimony (assuming there is no independent eyewitness to the alleged event). That said, I don't agree with your assumption that juries are very reluctant to convict in "he said/she said" cases; if they were there wouldn't be so many convictions in DV and sex cases. If the alleged victim takes the stand and the jury believes that he/she was battered or sexually assaulted, the jury will convict. There is much a good an attorney can do to undermine the alleged victim's credibility however so it is not hopeless if the alleged victim continues to tell a consistent story. I'm not aware of reliable numbers regarding DV conviction rates in San Diego but even if they exist surely there is an element of self selection where the worst cases result in pre-trial dismissals which skews the "conviction rate". Hire the best San Diego criminal attorney you can afford and allow him/her to investigate the matter and fight for your rights. Best of luck."
John M. Kaman Criminal Defense Attorney ... "
I agree with my colleagues in general but the person who started the case by calling 911 is usually the person the jurors believe. That doesn't mean you can't win but the first one to telephone the police has an advantage, particularly if it's the woman."

My my, where do you find the time? Two full pages in this one post, and most of the posts on here are yours, along with two or three other posters that I had never heard of on here before this debacle.

Oh, by the way, often the second witness is incapacitated so they aren't a witness, as in the Ohio teenagers and the Vandy idiots, although there were plenty of other witnesses in those two cases.

As I said before if you aren't getting paid for all your defenses of UK and mitch on here you are a lot dumber than you look And I usually add that seems impossible, (but then thankfully I have never been invited to your house so I don't know or care what you look like, and who knows what house rules you have in place for the unwary), I can't stand a closet full of new shoes with new ones being bought every day , how do you stand it? But I guess that does give you bragging rights on here, sort of like the Ugly American.

I was going to reply to your latest insult but while I am retired apparently I still don't have nearly the time to spend on here as you do, so I will reply later Kind of like when I used to just list the LONG list of mitch's glaring lack of support for football before you realized that defending him just caused me to list them again, NOT a good thing for you or him. I'm sure that was boring for those that had to read them also, but then lots of new "fans" on here that haven't heard them yet.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

No, but they could find themselves having been raped. I somehow doubt were your daughter raped that you wouldn't want a SRB to believe her claims and not require that she have actual video of the rape to act.

WTF? You complain about hyperbole, yet you offer it often.

You pretend to know a great deal, but your comments suggest otherwise.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Fuzz, you are the non-sequitur strawman award winner.

Who, ANYWHERE, suggested a women need have a video to prove a rape? What an inane comment.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

All jurors are amatures.

But a trained and skilled judge presides, not to mention a skilled defense attorney who may be able to able to trip up an accuser if she is lying.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I'll enjoy fuzz's to that one. One thing through all of this has become clear. So far as I know, everyone except fuzz sees the potential for lack of due process under the current student code of conduct. Most see a much bigger problem when the school is holding a hearing over violent crimes. Our universities should represent the best of us. It is high time they change some procedures so that ALL students are protected equally as would be expected in any other court of record.

 

[TheThack]

I have to say we are an adamant and determined lot with regard to this conversation. I wonder if we all had the chance to actually set down and discuss face to face if we might be able to find some common ground or at least some understanding and better perspective of the other person's point of view. Setting in front of a computer reading posts on a lighted screen often results in losing context that a face to face conversation allows. Body language, facial expressions and quicker back and forth conversation usually help to understand where the other person is coming from and their actual reasons.

I have read comments on here, most multiple times and thought, does that person actually realize what they wrote? How can they possible believe the words they wrote either make sense or even apply to the point being made. I am sure others have those same thoughts when they read my responses as well. This, I think, leads to frustration with the other persons involved. The reality is no two people are alike. We all see things through the prism of our own life experiences, education, faith, biases, and day to day realities. As a result, what impacts me in a particular manner is not likely to impact someone else the same and vice-versa.

Despite what each of us who have posted think are well thought out and logical comments that cannot be disputed, someone else invariably sees it different. No one here is changing their mind and no here is moving to the other side on the issue. We simply see this issue differently from our own perspective and no unknown person on another computer somewhere out there on the interweb is going to change our position.

I remain unimpressed for the most part with those who have made comments or posted links that offer a position that is different than my own, just as I am sure those who disagree with my position are not swayed by my comments no matter how brilliant I think they are.

I will continue to marvel as I read continued posts on this topic at how people can have such wrong opinions (from my perspective) but I have decided, at least for now that this is an exercise in futility. Who was it that said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Einstein maybe? Regardless, I have put in my time proving my insanity on this issue so for now I walk away in the realization that everyone who disagrees with me is just wrong! Just kidding well for the most part anyway. Good luck to those who soldier on. Good luck in your attempts to persuade.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Good post but I am pretty sure you admitted you could see where the current system can cause a problem for the accused.

 

[FickusDuckus]

A message board reveals a persons true identity. In a face to face situation 90% of the population holds back what they are really thinking. In person they may be thinking about how I am the biggest moron they have ever met but they smile and move along. On the other side of the coin when someone is typing a message board response all filters are off for many. Common courtesy and basic manners are thrown aside. Its no place for the meek. At any moment it may be 3 PM on the school playground and you have been called to the mat! Its a self control issue brought on by the "security" of the lack of actual verbal and/or physical confrontation. Put that same rouge message board poster on a blog site with his/her real name and a large audience and once again restraint generally wins out. Anonymity (even if its perceived) is a powerful drug.

 

[BBBLazing]

I have to say we are an adamant and determined lot with regard to this conversation. I wonder if we all had the chance to actually set down and discuss face to face if we might be able to find some common ground or at least some understanding and better perspective of the other person's point of view. Setting in front of a computer reading posts on a lighted screen often results in losing context that a face to face conversation allows. Body language, facial expressions and quicker back and forth conversation usually help to understand where the other person is coming from and their actual reasons.

I have read comments on here, most multiple times and thought, does that person actually realize what they wrote? How can they possible believe the words they wrote either make sense or even apply to the point being made. I am sure others have those same thoughts when they read my responses as well. This, I think, leads to frustration with the other persons involved. The reality is no two people are alike. We all see things through the prism of our own life experiences, education, faith, biases, and day to day realities. As a result, what impacts me in a particular manner is not likely to impact someone else the same and vice-versa.

Despite what each of us who have posted think are well thought out and logical comments that cannot be disputed, someone else invariably sees it different. No one here is changing their mind and no here is moving to the other side on the issue. We simply see this issue differently from our own perspective and no unknown person on another computer somewhere out there on the interweb is going to change our position.

I remain unimpressed for the most part with those who have made comments or posted links that offer a position that is different than my own, just as I am sure those who disagree with my position are not swayed by my comments no matter how brilliant I think they are.

I will continue to marvel as I read continued posts on this topic at how people can have such wrong opinions (from my perspective) but I have decided, at least for now that this is an exercise in futility. Who was it that said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Einstein maybe? Regardless, I have put in my time proving my insanity on this issue so for now I walk away in the realization that everyone who disagrees with me is just wrong! Just kidding well for the most part anyway. Good luck to those who soldier on. Good luck in your attempts to persuade.

This is a great post. I will finally, and I do finally mean finally, end my participation in this thread by saying the following:
1. I have no idea whether Lloyd Tubman raped the girl he is accused of raping.
2. I have no idea why the UK board kicked Lloyd Tubman out of UK
3. I don't have enough information to criticize the UK board (my main point all along)
4. I respect everyone's opinion on here. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect.

Can we all now wish Lloyd Tubman the best and move on?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

This is a great post. I will finally, and I do finally mean finally, end my participation in this thread by saying the following:
1. I have no idea whether Lloyd Tubman raped the girl he is accused of raping.
2. I have no idea why the UK board kicked Lloyd Tubman out of UK
3. I don't have enough information to criticize the UK board (my main point all along)
4. I respect everyone's opinion on here. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect.

Can we all now wish Lloyd Tubman the best and move on?

That too is a good post and succinctly states why so many of us have been butting heads for so many posts. My issue isn't with the Tubman decision alone, my issue is with the process.

 

[loucatfan]

This is a great post. I will finally, and I do finally mean finally, end my participation in this thread by saying the following:
1. I have no idea whether Lloyd Tubman raped the girl he is accused of raping.
2. I have no idea why the UK board kicked Lloyd Tubman out of UK
3. I don't have enough information to criticize the UK board (my main point all along)
4. I respect everyone's opinion on here. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect.

Can we all now wish Lloyd Tubman the best and move on?

Well stated. I have moved on.

 

[jauk11]

This is a great post. I will finally, and I do finally mean finally, end my participation in this thread by saying the following:
1. I have no idea whether Lloyd Tubman raped the girl he is accused of raping.
2. I have no idea why the UK board kicked Lloyd Tubman out of UK
3. I don't have enough information to criticize the UK board (my main point all along)
4. I respect everyone's opinion on here. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect.

Can we all now wish Lloyd Tubman the best and move on?

My only problem with this is that as one of the several that loudly proclaim that you know nothing you all sure as hell persecuted him to no end..

You should feel good, he is as good as dead and buried at UK, and no doubt the last year of banishment and restrictions and damage to his future opportunities and reputation, even with the GJ declaring there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him, looks like a win for you and Fuzz to me.

I hope he sues the pants off UK and wins, and no, I don't want him to win if he is a rapist, if he does win it will be because they will decide he didn't do it. But he probably just wants the nightmare to end so we will never know for sure.

But then, in a atmosphere that is really death on any offense like this the GJ did let him go, and I still think the DA has more resources at hand than you or Fuzz-----although you wouldn't think so from your posts. And the very well educated and BIASED faculty made a dumb decision in not LOANING the money to Football (which football had GIVEN them) to do the scoreboards and the even more highly educated and respected Texas Bar Association made an even worse decision in letting the DA that framed a man for murder and caused another murder escape with NO penalties, showing that they DO let their biases affect their judgement.

I tend to agree with the 24 Harvard lawyers.

Congratulations, seems like your side won, usually these kind of things die out after a short while.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

It is my hope that more states will start dealing with this issue. For whatever reason, public universities get away with murder on a daily basis. No other "state actor" could get away with what they do. It disgusts me.

 

[13space82]

 

[Andre3k]

So much for innocent til proven guilty.

Feel sorry for the young man. Grand jury returns no indictment and his school rewards him by banning him until his eligibility is gone.

I'm as die hard of a fan as it gets. But the man is a terrible human being. I wouldn't say that for no reason if I didn't know he was. Pretty much all I can say as far as that goes.

 

[Andre3k]

It's not what you know. It's what you can prove. She has zero proof. The fact you have to keep asking people to use their imagination to conjure up proof that maaaaaybe she could present tells you all you need to know.

Ok. Unless you know like a victim, witness, defendant, lawyer or someone who is directly involved in the case in which even these people aren't even allowed to speak about until everything is 100% resolved. So unless you're a close friend to any one of those people. You can't just claim that she has zero proof without actually being in the know.

 

[BlueTick2]

Why bring up a thread from May?