Lloyd Tubman

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by loucatfan:
Why not have the courage to do the right thing here?

There was no evidence that a rape occurred. Otherwise believe me Ray's office would have prosecuted it.

Don't punish the lady for filing a false report.

Don't cowardly punish Tubman for having a false report filed against him just to CYA. Have the courage to do the right thing.

I asked a long time prosecutor what his finest moments were as a prosecutor. He said " The people I did not prosecute. You see in this office public pressure, media pressure and enemies all try to get you to prosecute someone they don't like based upon little or no evidence . I never succumbed to that to be a hero of the press and I am proud of that. Not sure how the guys and gals that do sleep at night."

Well tell us what the "right thing" is?

If their was any evidence that it was a false report then LT would have a leg to stand on to prove his innocence. A failure to indict in no way equates to a false report.
I've known several prosecutors in my life as well and most aren't going to try and put away a kid with no prior criminal history based on he said/she said evidence. We also know that the girl was his former girlfriend and she too may have not wanted to see the case go to trial.

I could almost guarantee you that by definition that there are multiple rapes on every college campus every day. He wants it, she doesn't but he insists and tells her, "You know you really want it...". She tells him to stop but he doesn't...she just doesn't call the cops when it's over.

Perhaps the "right thing" here is that neither party is forced to take part in a process that neither wants. Two people know the truth...and even with that their might be two truths in each's mind.

 

[jmalone7us]

Originally posted by fuzz77:


Well tell us what the "right thing" is?

If their was any evidence that it was a false report then LT would have a leg to stand on to prove his innocence.

You are innocent till proven guilty in this society you non bet paying moron.

 

[TransyCat09]

Originally posted by fuzz77:

I could almost guarantee you that by definition that there are multiple rapes on every college campus every day. He wants it, she doesn't but he insists and tells her, "You know you really want it...". She tells him to stop but he doesn't...she just doesn't call the cops when it's over.

You are an idiot. Not only have you confused the threshold for conviction with the threshold for indictment multiple times, you now say that multiple rapes occur EVERY DAY at EVER COLLEGE.

There are roughly 2,000 colleges and universities in the US with a campus. By your estimation (a low estimate, mind you), there are over 1.5 million rapes, not just in the US, but solely on campuses each year. I would tell you to pay Brady again, but I'm amazed you have access to/can operate a computer; let alone have $1,000 to spare.

 

[TransyCat09]

Just to further show how nonsensical fuzz's point is; there are currently 10 million women attending college. That would mean, if 1.5 million are raped each year, that over the course of 4 years, 60%+ of women in college will be raped. Just think about the stupidity it takes to think and type that.


Of course, this guy also thinks the difference between a grand jury indictment and a criminal trial is "semantics."

That is so laughably wrong it deserves nothing but ridicule

 

[johnnyrockets]

Originally posted by Beavis606:
Funny that you mention the girl who carried her mattress around campus. It was later proven that she falsely accused a male student who had done nothing wrong (but was kicked out of school nonetheless).
Posted from Rivals Mobile

A) No it wasn't. There was an article that provided the accused's side of the story which proved, not that anyone should have been surprised, that the case was not black and white. Almost none of these cases are black and white. It's possible for both parties to be positive about what happened and have entirely different opinions, which is what makes cases like this so challenging. Protecting the rights of the accused while respecting the safety concerns of the accuser when neither can "prove" their side of events is difficult. That said, to conflate the grand jury's decision not to indict Tubman with "proof" that the girl is lying is misguided at best.

B) All that said, not the point. UK doesn't want a national news story about a football player being allowed back in school and on the team while the woman who accused him of raping her is still a student. The cost is simply not worth the benefit, plain and simple.

I'm not saying it's right or fair, or that it's the decision I would make or anything like that. But the argument against letting him back in is a hell of a lot stronger than the argument for.

 

[BengalWACO]

I totally agree. It looks like the University is being very politically correct here.

Originally posted by loucatfan:
Why not have the courage to do the right thing here?

There was no evidence that a rape occurred. Otherwise believe me Ray's office would have prosecuted it.

Don't punish the lady for filing a false report.

Don't cowardly punish Tubman for having a false report filed against him just to CYA. Have the courage to do the right thing.

I asked a long time prosecutor what his finest moments were as a prosecutor. He said " The people I did not prosecute. You see in this office public pressure, media pressure and enemies all try to get you to prosecute someone they don't like based upon little or no evidence . I never succumbed to that to be a hero of the press and I am proud of that. Not sure how the guys and gals that do sleep at night."

 

[loucatfan]

Fuzz,

I take it by your last sentence you agree with me that neither party should be punished further. It is not right or fair in this instance to destroy one's career and let the other get off scott free if the grand jury could not even muster up the minimal evidence to warrent probable cause to bring an indictment. Frankly, some legal scholars would argue that is a lower standard than the 50.1% standard in a civil action. Thus the old adage "a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he wants to"

Tubman has already lost a year of college . He has been through unmitigated hell wondering if he would be railroaded into a long term jail sentence destroying his life. In any event he is tainted for the remainder of his life. That is enough .

Let both parties go free. That is what is fair.

As a former prosecutor and a human being I find it obscene that anyone would wreck this young man's career on these facts simply to cover their own or UK's ass. I will have no respect whatsoever for them if they do.

Do you realize that any female student has the ability regardless of truth of allegations to destroy any male student if the politically correct CYA approach suggested by some on this board is taken. simply to act like Pontias Pilate and wash your hands of the mess so as to not get involved and let this young man be crucified is the coward's way out. . BOTH parties have rights that UK needs to protect. No minimal proof to bring a charge . it should be OVER.

Lou

This post was edited on 4/14 10:39 PM by loucatfan

This post was edited on 4/14 11:34 PM by loucatfan

This post was edited on 4/14 11:36 PM by loucatfan

 

[mtn cat1]

Does the video evidence showing that the female in question not only allowed Mr Tubman to enter her Dorm but escorted him to her room and then following sex, forced or voluntary, escorted Mr Tubman out of her room and out of the Dorm without "crying rape" one time. Should this not be a part of judgement rendered in this case? Sorry for the paragraphical sentence!!

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by loucatfan:
Fuzz,

I take it by your last sentence you agree with me that neither party should be punished further. It is not right or fair in this instance to destroy one's career and let the other get off scott free if the grand jury could not even muster up the minimal evidence to warrent probable cause to bring an indictment. Frankly, some legal scholars would argue that is a lower standard than the 50.1% standard in a civil action. Thus the old adage "a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he wants to"

Tubman has already lost a year of college . He has been through unmitigated hell wondering if he would be railroaded into a long term jail sentence destroying his life. In any event he is tainted for the remainder of his life. That is enough .

Let both parties go free. That is what is fair.

As a former prosecutor and a human being I find it obscene that anyone would wreck this young man's career on these facts simply to cover their own or UK's ass. I will have no respect whatsoever for them if they do.

Do you realize that any female student has the ability regardless of truth of allegations to destroy any male student if the politically correct CYA approach suggested by some on this board is taken. simply to act like Pontias Pilate and wash your hands of the mess so as to not get involved and let this young man be crucified is the coward's way out. . BOTH parties have rights that UK needs to protect. No minimal proof to bring a charge . it should be OVER.

Lou

This post was edited on 4/14 10:39 PM by loucatfan

This post was edited on 4/14 11:34 PM by loucatfan

This post was edited on 4/14 11:36 PM by loucatfan

Lou, I agree with much of what you say and I believe what UK is saying (if we are concluding that he won't be readmitted) is that he is free to pursue any and all other options...just not at UK.

As for the "female student has the ability regardless of truth of allegations to destroy any male student..."... isn't the other side of that coin the fact that any male student has the power to commit rape or sexual assault if he insures that it is behind closed door and unobserved by others?

Perhaps there is a lesson in there somewhere. Don't put yourself into a position that allows for either outcome. Don't go making booty calls with your crazy ex-girlfriend.

Neither you nor I know what happened in that room. Sometimes there is no fair outcome possible. Are we to totally disbelieve the girl's claim because there was no indictment? Go ask your prosecutor friend what a rape victim must endure if her case goes to trial. It has been said that often the cross-examination can be worse than the crime itself.

Call it CYA if you like but you cannot ignore today's political climate. Just ask Roger Goodell. It's easy to say what others should do when we won't be the ones taking the heat for those actions.

Lastly, several times in my life I have had decisions made for me where I had to choose a different path. Every single one of those times turned out to be blessings that put me in a better place. I truly hope that Tubman gets to return to UK and gets to play football...but if it doesn't I am sure he will make lemonade from the lemons life has served.

 

[WildcatGlory69]

yes it shows that.

Originally posted by mtn cat1:
Does the video evidence showing that the female in question not only allowed Mr Tubman to enter her Dorm but escorted him to her room and then following sex, forced or voluntary, escorted Mr Tubman out of her room and out of the Dorm without "crying rape" one time. Should this not be a part of judgement rendered in this case? Sorry for the paragraphical sentence!!

 

[JHB4UK]

Originally posted by BengalWACO:
I totally agree. It looks like the University is being very politically correct here.

Originally posted by loucatfan:
Why not have the courage to do the right thing here?

There was no evidence that a rape occurred. Otherwise believe me Ray's office would have prosecuted it.

Don't punish the lady for filing a false report.

Don't cowardly punish Tubman for having a false report filed against him just to CYA. Have the courage to do the right thing.

I asked a long time prosecutor what his finest moments were as a prosecutor. He said " The people I did not prosecute. You see in this office public pressure, media pressure and enemies all try to get you to prosecute someone they don't like based upon little or no evidence . I never succumbed to that to be a hero of the press and I am proud of that. Not sure how the guys and gals that do sleep at night."

No, I think UK is being politically smart here. The situation sucks folks, with the current politics and media sensation about domestic violence, sexual assault, college sexual assault, and football players UK would be roasted over the fire if they let Tubman back on campus.

I guarantee, GUARANTEE you that national news would get this girl and/or her family on camera, for them to say the University of Kentucky is more concerned with winning football games than being sensitive to a poor little girl who was the victim of rape. As I've said a dozen times, go ask the little Pizza restaurant up in Indiana, or really the entire state of Indiana what it feels like when the current mob mentality in this country decides to jump on you with both feet. There would be cries of boycotts, incoming freshmen would be shamed into changing colleges, corporate sponsors of UK would be hounded into cutting us off, a firestorm.

And yeah, life ain't fair, nobody in the media will do the same to UL for admitting a knowing domestic violence player onto their team. Deal with reality, we are the State's University, we are the SEC member, we are held to a little bit higher standard than them.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by WildcatGlory69:
yes it shows that.

Originally posted by mtn cat1:
Does the video evidence showing that the female in question not only allowed Mr Tubman to enter her Dorm but escorted him to her room and then following sex, forced or voluntary, escorted Mr Tubman out of her room and out of the Dorm without "crying rape" one time. Should this not be a part of judgement rendered in this case? Sorry for the paragraphical sentence!!

This has always been a sticking point to me in this matter. I just do not believe any female would be that passive while and after being raped. Did she tell him to stop while they were having sex which would have technically made it rape? Maybe. Girls good luck getting a male to stop after the sex act begins.

 

[sluggercatfan]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:

Originally posted by BengalWACO:
I totally agree. It looks like the University is being very politically correct here.

Originally posted by loucatfan:
Why not have the courage to do the right thing here?

There was no evidence that a rape occurred. Otherwise believe me Ray's office would have prosecuted it.

Don't punish the lady for filing a false report.

Don't cowardly punish Tubman for having a false report filed against him just to CYA. Have the courage to do the right thing.

I asked a long time prosecutor what his finest moments were as a prosecutor. He said " The people I did not prosecute. You see in this office public pressure, media pressure and enemies all try to get you to prosecute someone they don't like based upon little or no evidence . I never succumbed to that to be a hero of the press and I am proud of that. Not sure how the guys and gals that do sleep at night."

No, I think UK is being politically smart here. The situation sucks folks, with the current politics and media sensation about domestic violence, sexual assault, college sexual assault, and football players UK would be roasted over the fire if they let Tubman back on campus.

I guarantee, GUARANTEE you that national news would get this girl and/or her family on camera, for them to say the University of Kentucky is more concerned with winning football games than being sensitive to a poor little girl who was the victim of rape. As I've said a dozen times, go ask the little Pizza restaurant up in Indiana, or really the entire state of Indiana what it feels like when the current mob mentality in this country decides to jump on you with both feet. There would be cries of boycotts, incoming freshmen would be shamed into changing colleges, corporate sponsors of UK would be hounded into cutting us off, a firestorm.

And yeah, life ain't fair, nobody in the media will do the same to UL for admitting a knowing domestic violence player onto their team. Deal with reality, we are the State's University, we are the SEC member, we are held to a little bit higher standard than them.

I will guarantee, GUARANTEE that Petrino, Jurich and all their cronies have all this on speed dial as soon as it all goes down and will open their arms to "save" this young man from himself and you WILL NOT hear a peep out of the Louisville media about it or heads will roll..

 

[Cats78]

Originally posted by johnnyrockets:

Originally posted by Beavis606:

Originally posted by fuzz77:

Nobody including the Grand Jury has said that the woman's claims weren't true. They said in essence that her claim couldn't be proven.

How does a university expel a student -- any student, not just Tubman -- without proof? How do you impose any form of discipline for any offense if there is no proof?





This post was edited on 4/14 3:35 PM by Beavis606

Think about it from the University's standpoint. You essentially have 3 options:

1) Refuse to allow Tubman back into school. Result: take some heat from football fans and maybe lose some football games you may not have lost.

2) Ask the woman in question to leave school. So laughable not worth discussing, but included for completeness.

3) Allow Tubman back into school and back on team. Result: woman on campus forced to attend school and share a campus with someone she believes to have raped her. Potential downstream effects include her carrying her mattress around with her until graduation, the NY Times or some other newspaper doing a national story on how at UK, football matters more than safety, and other nationally bad press for the university at a time when the federal government is investigating over 100 universities for their failure to protect adequately female students from sexual assault on their campuses. God freaking forbid Tubman ever do anything else (or even be accused of doing anything else), because if you want to see a lawsuit...

There aren't any good options above, but #1 is clearly the least intolerable.

I know your list is theoretical but people on here act like Tubman is Jadaveon Clowney or something so.....I'm confused on number 1. Are you saying that not having Tubman (a guy who has never played college football) could result in UK losing multiple football games they would not have lost with him??? LOL. Everyone needs to chill out with this Tubman stuff. Since when is he the difference between winning and losing? Yes, I know the coaches liked him in practice and he is talented but he is one player. Calm down.

 

[johnnyrockets]

Originally posted by Cats78:

Originally posted by johnnyrockets:

Originally posted by Beavis606:

Originally posted by fuzz77:


Nobody including the Grand Jury has said that the woman's claims weren't true. They said in essence that her claim couldn't be proven.

How does a university expel a student -- any student, not just Tubman -- without proof? How do you impose any form of discipline for any offense if there is no proof?





This post was edited on 4/14 3:35 PM by Beavis606

Think about it from the University's standpoint. You essentially have 3 options:

1) Refuse to allow Tubman back into school. Result: take some heat from football fans and maybe lose some football games you may not have lost.

2) Ask the woman in question to leave school. So laughable not worth discussing, but included for completeness.

3) Allow Tubman back into school and back on team. Result: woman on campus forced to attend school and share a campus with someone she believes to have raped her. Potential downstream effects include her carrying her mattress around with her until graduation, the NY Times or some other newspaper doing a national story on how at UK, football matters more than safety, and other nationally bad press for the university at a time when the federal government is investigating over 100 universities for their failure to protect adequately female students from sexual assault on their campuses. God freaking forbid Tubman ever do anything else (or even be accused of doing anything else), because if you want to see a lawsuit...

There aren't any good options above, but #1 is clearly the least intolerable.

I know your list is theoretical but people on here act like Tubman is Jadaveon Clowney or something so.....I'm confused on number 1. Are you saying that not having Tubman (a guy who has never played college football) could result in UK losing multiple football games they would not have lost with him??? LOL. Everyone needs to chill out with this Tubman stuff. Since when is he the difference between winning and losing? Yes, I know the coaches liked him in practice and he is talented but he is one player. Calm down.

I think we're on the same side of this issue. I have no idea if Tubman is a game changer or not. You'll notice I said "maybe" lose some games you wouldn't have lost. As in, worst case. Best case, no change at all to the football team. Even stronger argument against his being allowed back into school.

And I really don't think Tubman's life is being as ruined by UK's not letting him back in as many people seem to think. The sexual assault charge, if untrue, is of course an unfairly negative mark on him as a person. But if he doesn't get back into UK, he'll find somewhere to get a free college education and a shot at pro football. He'll be OK in the grand scheme.

 

[Cats78]

Originally posted by johnnyrockets:

Originally posted by Cats78:

Originally posted by johnnyrockets:

Originally posted by Beavis606:

Originally posted by fuzz77:


Nobody including the Grand Jury has said that the woman's claims weren't true. They said in essence that her claim couldn't be proven.

How does a university expel a student -- any student, not just Tubman -- without proof? How do you impose any form of discipline for any offense if there is no proof?





This post was edited on 4/14 3:35 PM by Beavis606

Think about it from the University's standpoint. You essentially have 3 options:

1) Refuse to allow Tubman back into school. Result: take some heat from football fans and maybe lose some football games you may not have lost.

2) Ask the woman in question to leave school. So laughable not worth discussing, but included for completeness.

3) Allow Tubman back into school and back on team. Result: woman on campus forced to attend school and share a campus with someone she believes to have raped her. Potential downstream effects include her carrying her mattress around with her until graduation, the NY Times or some other newspaper doing a national story on how at UK, football matters more than safety, and other nationally bad press for the university at a time when the federal government is investigating over 100 universities for their failure to protect adequately female students from sexual assault on their campuses. God freaking forbid Tubman ever do anything else (or even be accused of doing anything else), because if you want to see a lawsuit...

There aren't any good options above, but #1 is clearly the least intolerable.

I know your list is theoretical but people on here act like Tubman is Jadaveon Clowney or something so.....I'm confused on number 1. Are you saying that not having Tubman (a guy who has never played college football) could result in UK losing multiple football games they would not have lost with him??? LOL. Everyone needs to chill out with this Tubman stuff. Since when is he the difference between winning and losing? Yes, I know the coaches liked him in practice and he is talented but he is one player. Calm down.

I think we're on the same side of this issue. I have no idea if Tubman is a game changer or not. You'll notice I said "maybe" lose some games you wouldn't have lost. As in, worst case. Best case, no change at all to the football team. Even stronger argument against his being allowed back into school.

And I really don't think Tubman's life is being as ruined by UK's not letting him back in as many people seem to think. The sexual assault charge, if untrue, is of course an unfairly negative mark on him as a person. But if he doesn't get back into UK, he'll find somewhere to get a free college education and a shot at pro football. He'll be OK in the grand scheme.

Gotcha. Agreed.

 

[Mashburned]

If Tubman's HS coach is still around here, I think he owes us an apology. He vehemently stated that he knew for a fact that Tubman was not guilty. I believed him based on the lack of evidence, and the general vibe of the ordeal. I told him, in not so kind words, that he needed to speak up ASAP to the right people, so Tubman would be cleared before it was too late. I was banned for that. I assume HS coach did not take what he knew to the right people, and now look what happened with Tubman. Whole situation could have been avoided if someone spoke up for the kid, or someone knew for a 100% fact that Tubman was innocent. UK's actions in this are very shameful, imo, but it's even more shameful to not come forward on behalf of a kid who knew for a 100% fact was innocent.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

What disturbs me about some of the these comments is that some seem to think it is OK to deny admittance based on public perception or what the news media might report. None of that is acceptable in my mind. The university should have an objective standard, that is public, and has been scrutinized, that when applied to a students conduct, determines whether or not a student can be admitted to the University. The standard should be applied to all cases before the student conduct committee and should be consistently applied to everyone. Concerns over media reporting, public perception, other students feelings, should not come into play. The provable actions of the student in question should be measured against the standard to determine if the student will be admitted or not. That is the only fair way of treating everyone involved and is the only appropriate way for a taxpayer funded institution to treat students.

 

[Mashburned]

Originally posted by fuzz77:

Nobody including the Grand Jury has said that the woman's claims weren't true. They said in essence that her claim couldn't be proven.

Wanna elaborate on this part, Einstein? I'm sure you got a very smart explanation.

 

[JHB4UK]

There was not enough evidence present to present to a jury which would be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Tubman raped the girl. DA's dont bring cases to trial that have little shot of obtaining convictions. It ain't complicated.

UK isnt dealing with the beyond a reasonable doubt question. They are dealing with one student who still vehemently, along with their family, says she was raped by a now former student who was seeking to return to being a student.

 

[USMC Cat]

Originally posted by fuzz77:

Originally posted by GD4UK:
There are females out there that purposefully set up guys for this kind of charge. It happened to my own son. And I have a daughter and my spouse was a rape victim. Truth is young women these days are crazy as hell and they know how to use their resources to get what they want. You guys bemoaning the problem of sex crimes, etc. on campus are delusional. The woman who accused Tubman of this is a sex criminal herself if her accusations weren't proven to be true, which they weren't. But she will have no action taken against her. Typical.

Frankly GD, you're an idiot.
Nobody including the Grand Jury has said that the woman's claims weren't true. They said in essence that her claim couldn't be proven.
We only know what happened in the Ray Rice incident because there was a camera that captured the event. We only know that the cop in SC murdered the man he had stopped for a broken tail light because there was a camera there to catch what actually happened. The rape at Vanderbilt could have never been prosecuted without the video evidence.

How do you know your son was set up? Was that proven or was the girl's claim simply not provable?
Was anyone prosecuted in the rape of your wife and daughter? If not, why?

Given you attitude I'd say there's a 99% chance that you are lying about your wife, son and daughter because anyone who has truly had a member of their family raped wouldn't make such stupid comments.

^^ This guy is oblivious

 

[TransyCat09]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
There was not enough evidence present to present to a jury which would be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Tubman raped the girl. DA's dont bring cases to trial that have little shot of obtaining convictions. It ain't complicated.

UK isnt dealing with the beyond a reasonable doubt question. They are dealing with one student who still vehemently, along with their family, says she was raped by a now former student who was seeking to return to being a student.

The grand jury wasn't dealing with the beyond a reasonable doubt question either.

This isn't a hard concept. The grand jury determined that there was no evidence to prove a crime even occurred. That is not the same thing as the beyond a reasonable doubt question. It is not true that he DA didn't take it to trial because he knew he couldn't get a conviction. He didn't take it trial because there was no evidence a crime was committed in the first place. Of course, the grand jury decides if it goes to trial, not the DA (unless the DA is refusing to move forward with the case, which is NOT what happened here).

Under your interpretation a DA would never pursue a case that they could reasonably lose. That's nonsense. Cases go to trial all of the time with less than rock solid evidence.





This post was edited on 4/15 3:45 PM by TransyCat09

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by Mashburned:

Originally posted by fuzz77:

Nobody including the Grand Jury has said that the woman's claims weren't true. They said in essence that her claim couldn't be proven.

Wanna elaborate on this part, Einstein? I'm sure you got a very smart explanation.

Not sure what part you don't understand?
There are many truths in this world that cannot be proven. There are two people who know what happened in that dorm room. Just as you cannot prove the claims to be false, you can neither prove them to be true. We have the words of two people as evidence. Who's words do you believe?
Perhaps they could both pass a polygraph...if so, what would that prove?

 

[sluggercatfan]

Originally posted by fuzz77:

Originally posted by Mashburned:

Originally posted by fuzz77:

Nobody including the Grand Jury has said that the woman's claims weren't true. They said in essence that her claim couldn't be proven.

Wanna elaborate on this part, Einstein? I'm sure you got a very smart explanation.

Not sure what part you don't understand?
There are many truths in this world that cannot be proven. There are two people who know what happened in that dorm room. Just as you cannot prove the claims to be false, you can neither prove them to be true. We have the words of two people as evidence. Who's words do you believe?
Perhaps they could both pass a polygraph...if so, what would that prove?

Ever heard the phrase...Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!!...My understanding is that it may apply in this case...

 

[loucatfan]

SluggerCatin ,

Almost posted that myself.

This is one of the longest lasting and most heavily viewed threads with most posters thinking the kid is getting railroaded due to PC and CYA.

I think UK takes a hit either way they rule which is another reason why the powers that be should just forget PC and do the right thing. Take both kids back to zero and reinstate Tubman without any penalty for the accuser for false accusations. Tubman has already paid a horrendous price.

If they want to say he can't date in the dorm she lives in or take any of the same classes she takes, must immediately leave any party she is at ok. But don't ruin someone's life over unsubstantiated allegations.

Who knows what happened. In the absence of evidence the best course of action is to do nothing.

Lou

 

[robo222]

Originally posted by loucatfan:
SluggerCatin ,

Almost posted that myself.

This is one of the longest lasting and most heavily viewed threads with most posters thinking the kid is getting railroaded due to PC and CYA.

I think UK takes a hit either way they rule which is another reason why the powers that be should just forget PC and do the right thing. Take both kids back to zero and reinstate Tubman without any penalty for the accuser for false accusations. Tubman has already paid a horrendous price.

If they want to say he can't date in the dorm she lives in or take any of the same classes she takes, must immediately leave any party she is at ok. But don't ruin someone's life over unsubstantiated allegations.

Who knows what happened. In the absence of evidence the best course of action is to do nothing.

Lou

I lean your way Loucatfan.... Guess we both run the risk of being called out as "idiots" as Fuzz77 did another poster...
I didn't think such name calling was allowed on the board but apparently with Fuzz77 it's okay???....

I don't know what happened but I know this much.... When you let kids this age live and visit in the same dormitories as they do now bad news can be written easily.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Yes this is unfair. Yes this is a different process than the legal process, with apparently different standards, etc. But whatever process they're using, they're clearly basing the decision on something other than the evidence.

Spin it how you want, but the what's happening to this young man is shameful. To anyone who disagrees, I ask you this:

If the facts were EXACTLY the same, except that Tubman was the one claiming he'd been raped - would this outcome be the same? Of course not.

 

[JHB4UK]

If you truely think UK faces the same backlash and negative reaction for not readmitting Tubman as they would for readmitting him, then I'm sorry to say you are very out of touch with the current legal and political environment facing colleges and football teams in this country.

The President of the United States isnt pressuring colleges to admit football playing males. The President IS pressuring colleges, with the mighty weight of the US government boot, to treat sexual assault allegations with a harsh and punitive and unfair manner.

 

[TheFolker]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
If you truely think UK faces the same backlash and negative reaction for not readmitting Tubman as they would for readmitting him, then I'm sorry to say you are very out of touch with the current legal and political environment facing colleges and football teams in this country.

The President of the United States isnt pressuring colleges to admit football playing males. The President IS pressuring colleges, with the mighty weight of the US government boot, to treat sexual assault allegations with a harsh and punitive and unfair manner.

And there is the problem. We are punishing people for merely being accused. Some country we have these days.

This post was edited on 4/16 9:03 AM by TheFolker

 

[sluggercatfan]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
If you truely think UK faces the same backlash and negative reaction for not readmitting Tubman as they would for readmitting him, then I'm sorry to say you are very out of touch with the current legal and political environment facing colleges and football teams in this country.

The President of the United States isnt pressuring colleges to admit football playing males. The President IS pressuring colleges, with the mighty weight of the US government boot, to treat sexual assault allegations with a harsh and punitive and unfair manner.

What's next getting the IRS involved...They are being allowed to do everything else these days

 

[sluggercatfan]

Originally posted by fuzz77:

Originally posted by loucatfan:
Why not have the courage to do the right thing here?

There was no evidence that a rape occurred. Otherwise believe me Ray's office would have prosecuted it.

Don't punish the lady for filing a false report.

Don't cowardly punish Tubman for having a false report filed against him just to CYA. Have the courage to do the right thing.

I asked a long time prosecutor what his finest moments were as a prosecutor. He said " The people I did not prosecute. You see in this office public pressure, media pressure and enemies all try to get you to prosecute someone they don't like based upon little or no evidence . I never succumbed to that to be a hero of the press and I am proud of that. Not sure how the guys and gals that do sleep at night."

Well tell us what the "right thing" is?

If their was any evidence that it was a false report then LT would have a leg to stand on to prove his innocence. A failure to indict in no way equates to a false report.
I've known several prosecutors in my life as well and most aren't going to try and put away a kid with no prior criminal history based on he said/she said evidence. We also know that the girl was his former girlfriend and she too may have not wanted to see the case go to trial.

I could almost guarantee you that by definition that there are multiple rapes on every college campus every day. He wants it, she doesn't but he insists and tells her, "You know you really want it...". She tells him to stop but he doesn't...she just doesn't call the cops when it's over.

Perhaps the "right thing" here is that neither party is forced to take part in a process that neither wants. Two people know the truth...and even with that their might be two truths in each's mind.

"We also know that the girl was his former girlfriend and she too may have not wanted to see the case go to trial. "...Fuzz, again I will go back to the "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" phrase or "I don't get mad I get even"...

 

[LordEgg]

the whole thing is a damn shame.

 

[johnnyrockets]

Originally posted by loucatfan:
SluggerCatin ,

Almost posted that myself.

This is one of the longest lasting and most heavily viewed threads with most posters thinking the kid is getting railroaded due to PC and CYA.

I think UK takes a hit either way they rule which is another reason why the powers that be should just forget PC and do the right thing. Take both kids back to zero and reinstate Tubman without any penalty for the accuser for false accusations. Tubman has already paid a horrendous price.

If they want to say he can't date in the dorm she lives in or take any of the same classes she takes, must immediately leave any party she is at ok. But don't ruin someone's life over unsubstantiated allegations.

Who knows what happened. In the absence of evidence the best course of action is to do nothing.

Lou

Problem is, letting Tubman back into school is, in and of itself, a punishment for the woman. Unless you can prove that she's lying (well aware this is not the standard for criminal convictions in this country), it's really hard to justify compromising her sense of safety on campus by letting him back in. I'm also well aware that this is a slippery slope, but I'm not sure what other recourse the school has.

Will ask again what the "punishment" in this case is for Tubman. He will be allowed to transfer, go to college for free, and pursue his future endeavors. He has already paid the (perhaps unjust) penalty for being accused. That is a sunk cost. He'll never go back to being a guy that wasn't accused of sexual assault. It seems that some fans perceive themselves to be punished by this decision--and that is the problem. The opinions of football fans matter not one iota in this situation.

 

[loucatfan]

Originally posted by johnnyrockets:

Originally posted by loucatfan:
SluggerCatin ,

Almost posted that myself.

This is one of the longest lasting and most heavily viewed threads with most posters thinking the kid is getting railroaded due to PC and CYA.

I think UK takes a hit either way they rule which is another reason why the powers that be should just forget PC and do the right thing. Take both kids back to zero and reinstate Tubman without any penalty for the accuser for false accusations. Tubman has already paid a horrendous price.

If they want to say he can't date in the dorm she lives in or take any of the same classes she takes, must immediately leave any party she is at ok. But don't ruin someone's life over unsubstantiated allegations.

Who knows what happened. In the absence of evidence the best course of action is to do nothing.

Lou

Problem is, letting Tubman back into school is, in and of itself, a punishment for the woman. Unless you can prove that she's lying (well aware this is not the standard for criminal convictions in this country), it's really hard to justify compromising her sense of safety on campus by letting him back in. I'm also well aware that this is a slippery slope, but I'm not sure what other recourse the school has.

Will ask again what the "punishment" in this case is for Tubman. He will be allowed to transfer, go to college for free, and pursue his future endeavors. He has already paid the (perhaps unjust) penalty for being accused. That is a sunk cost. He'll never go back to being a guy that wasn't accused of sexual assault. It seems that some fans perceive themselves to be punished by this decision--and that is the problem. The opinions of football fans matter not one iota in this situation.

Problem with your logic is you are assuming she is telling the truth and he is lying. I don't think it is fair to make that assumption.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Originally posted by johnnyrockets:

Originally posted by loucatfan:
SluggerCatin ,

Almost posted that myself.

This is one of the longest lasting and most heavily viewed threads with most posters thinking the kid is getting railroaded due to PC and CYA.

I think UK takes a hit either way they rule which is another reason why the powers that be should just forget PC and do the right thing. Take both kids back to zero and reinstate Tubman without any penalty for the accuser for false accusations. Tubman has already paid a horrendous price.

If they want to say he can't date in the dorm she lives in or take any of the same classes she takes, must immediately leave any party she is at ok. But don't ruin someone's life over unsubstantiated allegations.

Who knows what happened. In the absence of evidence the best course of action is to do nothing.

Lou

Problem is, letting Tubman back into school is, in and of itself, a punishment for the woman. Unless you can prove that she's lying (well aware this is not the standard for criminal convictions in this country), it's really hard to justify compromising her sense of safety on campus by letting him back in. I'm also well aware that this is a slippery slope, but I'm not sure what other recourse the school has.

Will ask again what the "punishment" in this case is for Tubman. He will be allowed to transfer, go to college for free, and pursue his future endeavors. He has already paid the (perhaps unjust) penalty for being accused. That is a sunk cost. He'll never go back to being a guy that wasn't accused of sexual assault. It seems that some fans perceive themselves to be punished by this decision--and that is the problem. The opinions of football fans matter not one iota in this situation.

Absolutely, 100% false. A punishment for the woman? Why does her account of what happened carry any more weight than his? It shouldn't.

His punishment is having his freedom of choice restricted. Like I said before, if HE claimed she raped him; this would've already been dismissed and over with no repercussions for her. The only reason we have this outcome, is because of the gender making the complaint. That's the true injustice.

 

[jauk11]

Originally posted by loucatfan:
SluggerCatin ,

Almost posted that myself.

This is one of the longest lasting and most heavily viewed threads with most posters thinking the kid is getting railroaded due to PC and CYA.

I think UK takes a hit either way they rule which is another reason why the powers that be should just forget PC and do the right thing. Take both kids back to zero and reinstate Tubman without any penalty for the accuser for false accusations. Tubman has already paid a horrendous price.

If they want to say he can't date in the dorm she lives in or take any of the same classes she takes, must immediately leave any party she is at ok. But don't ruin someone's life over unsubstantiated allegations.

Who knows what happened. In the absence of evidence the best course of action is to do nothing.

Lou

Excellent take on the situation.

LOL at those that thinnk she should ever worry about him bothering her again.

 

[UK Cats Rock]

Originally posted by robo222:



Guess we both run the risk of being called out as "idiots" as Fuzz77 did another poster...
I didn't think such name calling was allowed on the board but apparently with Fuzz77 it's okay???....

If you have a question about moderating, drop us an email. We can't monitor the boards 24/7. But since you asked publically, I'll answer publically.....

Name calling is not allowed at all and gets an auto-ban from me once it's caught.

It's frustrating because I am having to ban people I actually like (which is most everybody on this board). But, we simply can't allow name calling ......

I'm not moving or locking the thread nor going through and editing/deleting all of the name calling posts, so please, continue the discussion and leave the "extra stuff" out of it.
This post was edited on 4/16 11:45 AM by UK Cats Rock

 

[Beavis606]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
If you truely think UK faces the same backlash and negative reaction for not readmitting Tubman as they would for readmitting him, then I'm sorry to say you are very out of touch with the current legal and political environment facing colleges and football teams in this country.

The President of the United States isnt pressuring colleges to admit football playing males. The President IS pressuring colleges, with the mighty weight of the US government boot, to treat sexual assault allegations with a harsh and punitive and unfair manner.

What kind of backlash did UF face when their best QB was accused of rape during the season last year? He missed what, one game, then assumed the starter's role. I don't seem to recall any protesting on CNN. Did Outside the Lines show up?

I don't want any male student to get away with any kind of sexual assault. But with an absence of evidence, why do you all want the default = the woman is always right? "Only 2 people know what happened. We don't know what happened, so we'll just pretend the female is telling the truth and the male is lying."

 

[JHB4UK]

Originally posted by Beavis606:

What kind of backlash did UF face when their best QB was accused of rape during the season last year? He missed what, one game, then assumed the starter's role. I don't seem to recall any protesting on CNN. Did Outside the Lines show up?

Then you also seem to not recall how the accusing female publicly to both the Gainsville police and the University of Florida that she retracted her allegations, and did so less than a week after making them. The exact opposite of the case here unfortunately. 6 months later the girl along with her family are adamant to UK the accusations and are not backing up one second.

 

[Beavis606]

^ And Tubman and his parents are just as adamant on the other side. Why choose to believe with one over the other?




This post was edited on 4/16 12:26 PM by Beavis606