This doesn't sound good for Lloyd
- Thread starter BigBlueFanGA
- Start date
IMO if a kid can be accused and a court of law can not find enough evidence to indict him but he is then punish by loss of a valuable athletic SS that sets a very bad precedent . Male student better start getting signed releases from those co-eds before having sex with them. IMO this puts a lot of power in the hands of the female and males beware.
I have daughters and grand daughters and want them protected but I also have a grand son that is going to the Military Academy at West Point that I do not want to get screwed over.
I think when a false accusation is proven that a female should be dealt with seriously. Every false accusation makes it harder for those that are really raped to get justice
This has been a very soft rape case from the get go this girl did not have physical signs of being raped and did not act like she had been raped leading the male out of her dorm. Evidently she passively allowed herself to be raped if she was raped with little or no struggle and did not scream rape as soon as she would have been safe. She if she was raped was an abnormally passive rape victim. My daughters and grand daughter would have screamed rape as soon as they were in a safer situation at the check out desk of the dorm. I can not remember? How long did it take the female to actually report the rape. The longer it took the less I believe her.
I have daughters and grand daughters and want them protected but I also have a grand son that is going to the Military Academy at West Point that I do not want to get screwed over.
I think when a false accusation is proven that a female should be dealt with seriously. Every false accusation makes it harder for those that are really raped to get justice
This has been a very soft rape case from the get go this girl did not have physical signs of being raped and did not act like she had been raped leading the male out of her dorm. Evidently she passively allowed herself to be raped if she was raped with little or no struggle and did not scream rape as soon as she would have been safe. She if she was raped was an abnormally passive rape victim. My daughters and grand daughter would have screamed rape as soon as they were in a safer situation at the check out desk of the dorm. I can not remember? How long did it take the female to actually report the rape. The longer it took the less I believe her.
They do?
Since when? Why didn't TU (Thug U, not Transfer U in this particular case) have to protect itself from the liability of EIGHT of its imported thugs beating and kicking TWO men in the head in two separate incidents, sending one of them to the hospital with a concussion, easily attempted murder most places, including where I live where two men were charged with exactly that when caught on film in a parking lot. And that was only two men, and the assailant that was first in the fight wasn't a 6' 4" 320# athlete, AND the victim didn't go to the hospital..
Why wasn't anyone sued in that case? Why wasn't the police department sued for not asking for the surveillance tapes until the next morning, when, lo and behold, they weren't any good? ONE player missed the 52-0 cliffhanger against Tennessee Martin, LOL, they were lucky to beat them. NO CHARGES OR LAWSUITS against anyone that I heard of, although both victims could have been driving a new car shortly after the "incident".
The rape victims of the latest three criminals that they imported should sue the University that had PLENTY of warning of what kind of trash the one player was------but then he was a prime NFL draft prospect..
I assume from your posts that you are smarter than us peons and know that he is guilty, because your posts sound like it.
Actually, I don't know, and as stated before if whoever is in charge of this "board" can determine to his satisfaction that he is guilty then I don't want him representing my University, great player or not. On the other hand I don't want him kicked out of school to prove that UK is holier than thou, if he isn't guilty, and the evidence so far apparently points to that being the case.
I also don't like the idea of the "double jeopardy" involved here, with a much less stringent set of rules to kick him to the curb. I know that happens to people in the military a lot, where they can be judged innocent in a court of law but sentenced to life by a tribunal, and I know when I was in the army the joke was (only about article 15s that I know about) "Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, now bring the guilty SOB in".
The legal process and those whose job it is to handle this sort of thing for a living, that had access to every bit of information available, have made a decision to drop the charge, dismiss the charge, and clear the man of any wrongdoing. Anyone still trying to argue that either assumed he was guilty from the beginning, wants him to be guilty, or is a DBag that just wants to continue to run the free man's name through the mud. Which are you BBBlazing? The egotistical DBag, or the biased as hell moron?
I wonder when or if we hear what the sanctions are.
This post was edited on 2/15 1:56 PM by BigBlueFanGA
This post was edited on 2/15 1:56 PM by BigBlueFanGA
I clearly explained my reasoning for the kangaroo court. Perhaps you can explain to me how I'm so dumb in my statement.
BBBlazing, stop playing with semantics. The terms "not guilty" and "innocent" are often the same to laypersons. Yes, they are technically different. In Lloyds case no determination was reached, yes we know that too. You are missing the bigger issue by focusing on these details.
Welp here comes another troll, probably from 2nd chance U.
Context: Zero charges in the barfight so far but players have been publically shamed by Internet judges and juries, charge dismissed in this case but player booted off team and out of school, public shaming still continuing, and the airsoft gun resulted in team suspension, misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges that are still pending in the legal process, but would be a light punishment if not diverted or dismissed, and the players have been publically shamed by Internet judges and juries everywhere. Some don't care as much about such an incident that hurt no one and fully admit it like myself, I just don't care that they shot each other with tiny rubber pellets. I do hope they'd do it across the street next time in a backyard where it's perfectly legal.
Context: Zero charges in the barfight so far but players have been publically shamed by Internet judges and juries, charge dismissed in this case but player booted off team and out of school, public shaming still continuing, and the airsoft gun resulted in team suspension, misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges that are still pending in the legal process, but would be a light punishment if not diverted or dismissed, and the players have been publically shamed by Internet judges and juries everywhere. Some don't care as much about such an incident that hurt no one and fully admit it like myself, I just don't care that they shot each other with tiny rubber pellets. I do hope they'd do it across the street next time in a backyard where it's perfectly legal.
My point. Laypersons need to quit equating them. They are not the same. Saying that we equate them as laypersons makes you ignorant (look up the definition.) I didn't say stupid and am not trying to offend. The bigger issue, as you put it, in my view at least, is that UK fans blindly support UK players and blindly criticize players at other schools when there are criminal charges. I support Lloyd Tubman and hope to see him on the field. I am just not a hypocrite. Winston at FSU was never even charged and people on here criticized FSU for letting him play. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of some UK fans. I realize that by reading this board, I am seeing comments by some of the more interested (can be read as fanatical) UK fans. I'm just asking that you all be intellectually and morally honest when dealing with our team, and other teams.
You seem like a complete tool. I don't know if you realize this or not, but trying to flex knowledge is demeaning, and offensive to most people. Nobody like feeling like they're being talked down to, and that's what you're doing by engaging in this pissing contest with anybody and everybody who will respond to you.
I want you to tell me the significant differences between being "innocent" (as pertaining to one case), and being "not guilty".
The definition of being guilty is to be culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing. To be "not-guilty" would be the opposite of that. You would be not-guilty if you are not responsible for a specified wrongdoing.
So, let's use two different definitions (if you were to Google the definition of innocent right now).
1. not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences
2. not guilty of a crime or offense.
Now, if you're demeaning laypersons for equating non-guilt and innocence, when the definitions of the two phrases are the same. you're ignorant, lack all understanding, and should lose all credibility in your argument.
I bet you're the kind of guy that argues whether or not the period comes before, or after a closed parenthesis. I bet you argue over whether it should be spelled "gray" or "grey" as well. You just seem to be that kind of guy.
Man, you are arrogant. You must be 18-30. The bigger issue is holding a hearing when the defendant can't defend himself. I see you didn't respond to why it is dumb to call it a kangaroo court. You also haven't responded to the issue of holding a hearing in this situation. I'm not for or against Lloyd. I have a big issue with whether or not someone is railroaded. Maybe you'll get off your smug pedestal long enough to join in the actual conversation.
The posters trying to explain the law to the indignant in this thread are probably young attorneys, or those aspiring to the status. Most older attorneys would tell you flatly it is a waste of time trying to explain the law to you in this circumstance, and/or refuse to address the subject off the clock. This is, simply put, exactly the kind of situation that leaves a lot of people convinced the legal profession is a cancer, when they really don't understand what is happening in the least. Sometimes that is what the public and the profession are left with. Unfortunate, but true.
Is "not orange" the opposite of orange? Blue is not orange, so blue is the opposite of orange?
Innocent is a normal word that means you didn't do it. "Not guilty" is a legal phrase that means you have not been convicted. OJ Simpson is not, and never was innocent, but he is not guilty. I'm done beating this horse.
"Here's the skinny of the situation as I understand it. After the charges were filed, Lloyd Tubman was suspended from the Kentucky football team pending legal investigation. He withdrew from school and stayed with his mother until the case was resolved. The University of Kentucky has a review board that has to hear cases like this within 60 days of an incident, well before the criminal case was dismissed. Any lawyer worth their salt would not allow Tubman, as client, to testify at such hearing before a real criminal case was tried. It seems that the board, having only one side of the evidence and a time crunch to get it over with expelled Lloyd Tubman from UK. Now that his name has been cleared, he wants to return to the football team and Mark Stoops wants him back. The only thing standing in the way of that is the University of Kentucky itself."
Article
Article
No, you're "done beating this horse" because you're running out of things to beat it with.
"Not orange" can be a number of things. Blue, green, red, purple, yellow, so on and so forth.
There is no such thing as a "normal word". Words are words, how you use them in different contexts determines what it's supposed to mean.
If you're taken to trial, and you truly didn't rape a person, so you get a ruling of "not guilty", then you're innocent. If you're taken to trial, and you truly didn't rape a person, but you get convicted on a guilty ruling (which does happen, and you know it), you're innocent, but screwed nonetheless.
Yes, guilty and not guilty are rulings in the court of law, if you use them in that context, but fact is, to be innocent of a crime means that you are not guilty of it.
Context is everything, now, quit getting into pissing contests with people over it. You've done little except insult the intelligence of others and acted passive-aggressively towards anybody with a view other than your own, even if it's perfectly logical.
There are people smarter than you, and judging by the way you act, you'll be crushed when you run into one of them. Best is to just stop beating that horse, as you said.
BBBlazing, you're a waste of time. You refuse to answer direct questions and continue with your debate on semantics. You've nver even conceded that a jury who votes "not guilty" may also believe a person to be innocent, making any difference in the terms moot. Now go to bed before your mom gets mad.
This post was edited on 2/15 11:06 PM by BigBlueFanGA
This post was edited on 2/15 11:06 PM by BigBlueFanGA
Yes,you and a few others have pointed out the exact issue,it would seem reasonable that a hearing officer or ALJ could revisit the review board findings.I don't think Tubman's attorney would allow him to testify even now,but statements and reports of others might be introduced that could provide more details.
Frankly if I was him I would tell UK to take their SS and stuff it. I wish He could stay at UK but the way things are coming down he would be wise to move on. This is shaping up like a he goes to UofL and comes back to haunt us for 3 years situation.
Be that as it may. The effort is still one I would expect of that group. Wasn't trying to label you. Congrats on your longevity and wise choice of a different career.
