Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dogday63

SDSU alleged rapists - civil suit has been filed

Recommended Posts

On 8/26/2022 at 8:02 PM, AztecSU said:

Not every occurance is text book. Once SDPD told them to go ahead they did. Seems like they can’t win with you. They know better than the investigators who literally are asking them no to? 

I'm just reading the Title IX guidelines.  They make sense.  I don't want to see SDSU "torn down".  I want this to be an example to schools and police departments of how not to handle allegations of off campus rape.

 

On 8/26/2022 at 8:00 PM, Aztecmg said:

I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. Maybe I’m wrong, but this is my understanding. If it happens at SDSU, the school and campus police are ultimately responsible for both the criminal and the XI investigation. If it happens outside of campus, the school and the city are each responsible for either the XI investigation or the criminal investigation. In scenario one there is no way they interfere with eachother because they are essentially under the purview of the same entity. In scenario two they are not and you have the possibility of one interfering with the other.

This has only been the case since 2020.  Prior to 2020, schools were required to open title IX investigations for off campus assault involving students as well.  This change to the law drew a lot of outrage.  Now we see why  

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/12/new-title-ix-regulation-sets-location-based-boundaries-sexual-harassment-enforcement

So yes, in the history of title IX, the vast majority of sexual assault involving students that had criminal investigations had concurring title IX investigations, on or off campus.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 7:08 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I'm just reading the Title IX guidelines.  They make sense.  I don't want to see SDSU "torn down".  I want this to be an example to schools and police departments of how not to handle allegations of off campus rape.

 

This has only been the case since 2020.  Prior to 2020, schools were required to open title IX investigations for off campus assault involving students as well.  This change to the law drew a lot of outrage.  Now we see why  

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/12/new-title-ix-regulation-sets-location-based-boundaries-sexual-harassment-enforcement

So yes, in the history of title IX, the vast majority of sexual assault involving students that had criminal investigations had concurring title IX investigations, on or off campus.  

If it ends up leading to a conviction why would you want it to be an example of what not to do? Seems you’ve made up your mind. You could end up right. But if they nail everyone responsible try and remember that. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 8:24 PM, AztecSU said:

If it ends up leading to a conviction why would you want it to be an example of what not to do? Seems you’ve made up your mind. You could end up right. But if the nail everyone responsible try and remember that. 

If it ends up in a conviction of even one that would help towards giving some small part of closure to the victim.  However the emotional distress caused by the schools silence has been spoken about by the female students and student athletes.  Having alleged rapists on campuses endangers the community.  The victim is always first and foremost, but the health of the student body, mental and physical also needs to be considered and is a big part of Title IX.  If dangerous individuals can be removed from campus sooner than they can be put behind bars or criminally charged, they need to be removed from campus, that's the point of the legislation.  

Listen, the best thing that could come from this is a conviction.  The next best thing would be for schools around the country to address how they are going to handle off campus sexual assault allegations after the ridiculous change to the law two years ago, prior to that change, they would have been required to open their own investigation for off campus sexual assault.  I hope it leads to better outcomes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 5:54 PM, Headbutt said:

So the Title IX folks are an administrative body.  You would risk an actual criminal investigation being compromised by administrative actions.  OK.  I'd prefer they take the time to investigate the alleged perps so they can assure nothing compromises the final criminal case.

I suppose they could have made a bunch of statements warning women that if they aren't careful, they could be raped.  I suppose they should be making those same statements in a very aggressive manner anyway.  I'm not seeing anything special that SDSU could do that would make female students safer.  They're don't have the authority to arrest or prosecute on their own.

well according to halfbitchallmoron, THIS would be victim blaming.

 

LOL

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 5:54 PM, Headbutt said:

So the Title IX folks are an administrative body.  You would risk an actual criminal investigation being compromised by administrative actions.  OK.  I'd prefer they take the time to investigate the alleged perps so they can assure nothing compromises the final criminal case.

I suppose they could have made a bunch of statements warning women that if they aren't careful, they could be raped.  I suppose they should be making those same statements in a very aggressive manner anyway.  I'm not seeing anything special that SDSU could do that would make female students safer.  They're don't have the authority to arrest or prosecute on their own.

I think it might be about time for someone to design a modern day high tech chastity belt and take it to Shark Tank as the Pussy Protector. Just have your friend that stayed home for the night download the PP app for her smartphone, and only she can unlock it when you’re out partying on the town. So if the girl has to pee or chooses to get lucky, all she has to do is make a simple call or text to inform the friend that she wants it unlocked. 

If the lock gets jammed, or malfunctions, no problem. Pussy Protector Emergency Roadside, Bathroomside and Bedroomside Service is available 24/7 for an additional fee. 
 

 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 7:33 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

If it ends up in a conviction of even one that would help towards giving some small part of closure to the victim.  However the emotional distress caused by the schools silence has been spoken about by the female students and student athletes.  Having alleged rapists on campuses endangers the community.  The victim is always first and foremost, but the health of the student body, mental and physical also needs to be considered and is a big part of Title IX.  If dangerous individuals can be removed from campus sooner than they can be put behind bars or criminally charged, they need to be removed from campus, that's the point of the legislation.  

Listen, the best thing that could come from this is a conviction.  The next best thing would be for schools around the country to address how they are going to handle off campus sexual assault allegations after the ridiculous change to the law two years ago, prior to that change, they would have been required to open their own investigation for off campus sexual assault.  I hope it leads to better outcomes.  

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I vehemently disagree that “the best thing that could come from this is a conviction.”  That’s not close to being right and just, and you know it. The best thing that could happen is everyone finding out the TRUTH of what actually happened.  None of us know that right now. We might think we do through the bits and pieces that have been provided through the media and the dumbass attorneys in the civil suit, but we all really don’t have much of a clue as to what truly transpired that evening.

I haven’t once commented on this situation for good reason. First, I have no idea what actually happened so I have no basis upon which to stand to make an argument.  Second, there is a young woman who, regardless of the facts in this matter, is hurting and needs help IMO.  At the very least she should be seeing a counselor every week or two.  I believe that should be provided for her irrespective of the facts in this case and SDSU should take the lead in providing that to her. If SDSU chooses not to provide that, then I will offer to pay for her to see someone who is appropriate to help her.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 2:12 AM, Fowl said:

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I vehemently disagree that “the best thing that could come from this is a conviction.”  That’s not close to being right and just, and you know it. The best thing that could happen is everyone finding out the TRUTH of what actually happened.  None of us know that right now. We might think we do through the bits and pieces that have been provided through the media and the dumbass attorneys in the civil suit, but we all really don’t have much of a clue as to what truly transpired that evening.

I haven’t once commented on this situation for good reason. First, I have no idea what actually happened so I have no basis upon which to stand to make an argument.  Second, there is a young woman who, regardless of the facts in this matter, is hurting and needs help IMO.  At the very least she should be seeing a counselor every week or two.  I believe that should be provided for her irrespective of the facts in this case and SDSU should take the lead in providing that to her. If SDSU chooses not to provide that, then I will offer to pay for her to see someone who is appropriate to help her.  

You are absolutely right.  I should amend that to say "if the allegations are true, the best thing that could happen would be a conviction"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 6:49 PM, Headbutt said:

What Title IX investigation?  They had an alleged off campus assault, with no witnesses willing to come forward, and didn't even know who the alleged victim or attackers were without information from the criminal investigation.  You can't begin such an investigation based on nothing more than a rumor.  All the university had was a rumor.  You can look into it, but it ain't going anywhere without evidence.  Kicking one student off campus (and it would have been only one) based on a rumor just opens up the university to a pretty big lawsuit, along with risking achieving justice for the alleged victim.

SDSU'S Title IX office as well as the SDSUPD did confer with the Cal State University's General Counsel where it was agreed that the SDPD investigation took precedence. SDSU, however, did increase sexual assault education on campus:

 

Quote

Second: The editorial’s statement that “university officials stood by idly” is both a falsehood and a dangerous characterization of the situation. Our Title IX office immediately assessed what actions were appropriate for it to take, including moving forward with fact finding. The Title IX office and university police department made decisions regarding policy and communications after close consultation with the California State University system’s Office of General Counsel. It was determined that it was necessary and in the interest of justice to cooperate fully with the San Diego Police Department. Not doing so could jeopardize its criminal investigation, leading to potential collusion and evidence tampering. This does not mean for a moment that SDSU failed to take any action — we did take action. Our university voluntarily shared with the San Diego Police Department all information we had available, including information shared through the university’s anonymous reporting system from individuals who confirmed they did not have first-hand knowledge and were not witnesses. We asked the San Diego Police Department to share SDSU Title IX contact information and resources with the alleged victim, and to encourage her to reach out to us. And we increased sexual assault education and prevention trainings among students, including student-athletes across several athletic teams. To date, the alleged victim has not reported the incident to SDSU. - Adel de la Torre, SDSU President

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2022-06-13/sdsu-president-rape-investigation-football-team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 7:08 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I'm just reading the Title IX guidelines.  They make sense.  I don't want to see SDSU "torn down".  I want this to be an example to schools and police departments of how not to handle allegations of off campus rape.

 

This has only been the case since 2020.  Prior to 2020, schools were required to open title IX investigations for off campus assault involving students as well.  This change to the law drew a lot of outrage.  Now we see why  

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/12/new-title-ix-regulation-sets-location-based-boundaries-sexual-harassment-enforcement

So yes, in the history of title IX, the vast majority of sexual assault involving students that had criminal investigations had concurring title IX investigations, on or off campus.  

SDSU was in contact with the CSU's general counsel office and all were in agreement, SDSU was to cooperate with the SDPD and to comply with their wishes. SDSU provided all information they had including statements made to their anonymous reporting system, though those statements were made by students who did not have first hand knowledge of the incident. Once the SDPD finished their investigation, SDSU opened their own. Only one of the suspects remains at SDSU and has been suspended from the team.

Soon after the incident happened SDSU increased their education of students and student athletes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 8:34 AM, Aztec1984 said:

SDSU was in contact with the CSU's general counsel office and all were in agreement, SDSU was to cooperate with the SDPD and to comply with their wishes. SDSU provided all information they had including statements made to their anonymous reporting system, though those statements were made by students who did not have first hand knowledge of the incident. Once the SDPD finished their investigation, SDSU opened their own. Only one of the suspects remains at SDSU and has been suspended from the team.

Soon after the incident happened SDSU increased their education of students and student athletes. 

Link?  

Still, alerting the community would not be interfering with any investigation or not cooperating.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2022 at 6:57 PM, Headbutt said:

We certainly don't know all the particulars, but he can't be feeling great about his case if he's chosen to try it in public as opposed to just in court.  It appears to me that if you're looking for a settlement, this is the way to go.  If you're looking for a conviction there might be better avenues.  I'd rather see the conviction.

He's not a prosecutor, so he can't go for a conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 10:11 AM, Brew_Poke said:

He's not a prosecutor, so he can't go for a conviction.

That's kind of my point.  He's only worried about the paycheck, to hell with whether those guys lose any freedom or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 10:05 AM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Link?  

Still, alerting the community would not be interfering with any investigation or not cooperating.  

Because no pool of potential jurors was ever affected by strategic indirect leaks by prosecutors.

You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 9:05 AM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Link?  

Still, alerting the community would not be interfering with any investigation or not cooperating.  

Already posted it, I guess you react rather than read:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2022-06-13/sdsu-president-rape-investigation-football-team

So, SDPD asks SDSU not to investigate or interfere with their investigation and SDSU complies after conferring with the CSU general counsel. SDSU adds more education into sexual assault to the student body and student athletes. They cannot name names because the SDPD was undergoing an investigation which included SDPD monitored calls from the alleged victims to the alleged suspects. I am sure one of the things the SDPD asked was that no names be made public.

So tell me, what more could SDSU have done other than employ their time travel machine and go back to stop the alleged crime?

Early reports said 5 players were involved and now the civil suit is 3 players. Do you factor that in? I find that rather significant myself. By the way. normally, a criminal case precludes the civil suit and I have never seen the plaintiff's attorney make everything public, including texts between him and the defendant's attorney, public. Hell, he is now making his whole case public. Plaintiff's attorney is either a moron, lots of them practicing law so I wouldn't be surprised, or he has a lousy case. Just my opinion of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 9:05 AM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Link?  

Still, alerting the community would not be interfering with any investigation or not cooperating.  

Which was done, numbnuts. SDSU was prohibited by their agreement with the SDPD from providing names.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 1:09 PM, Aztec1984 said:

Already posted it, I guess you react rather than read:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2022-06-13/sdsu-president-rape-investigation-football-team

So, SDPD asks SDSU not to investigate or interfere with their investigation and SDUS complies after conferring with the CSU general counsel. SDSU adds more education into sexual assault to the student body and student athletes. They cannot name names because the SDPD was undergoing an investigation which included SDPD monitored calls from the alleged victims to the alleged suspects. I am sure one of the things the SDPD asked was that no names be made public.

So tell me, what more could SDSU have done other than employ their time travel machine and go back to stop the alleged crime?

Early reports said 5 players were involved and now the civil suit is 3 players. Do you factor that in? I find that rather significant myself. By the way. normally, a criminal case precludes the civil suit and I have never seen the plaintiff's attorney make everything public, including texts between him and the defendant's attorney, public. Hell, he is now making his whole case public. Plaintiff's attorney is either a moron, lots of them practicing law so I wouldn't be surprised, or he has a lousy case. Just my opinion of course. 

I that you had something newer than that old article that does not speak to an ongoing communication with the cal state general counsel. That was an immediate decision to consult them, sure but nothing speaking to what happened with any consultation the next 9 months.  It seems neither SDSU or the SDPD gave the matter the urgency it deserved and the communication between the two appears extremely poor from the outside.   There is no excuse for waiting 9 months to open their own Title IX investigation and not alert the community.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 1:12 PM, Aztec1984 said:

Which was done, numbnuts. SDSU was prohibited by their agreement with the SDPD from providing names.

 

No, it was not, numb nuts.  There was no statement by the school alerting students and faculty to a sexual assault allegation.  Your own article states and attempts to justify why they did not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 12:14 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I that you had something newer than that old article that does not speak to an ongoing communication with the cal state general counsel. That was an immediate decision to consult them, sure but nothing speaking to what happened with any consultation the next 9 months.  It seems neither SDSU or the SDPD gave the matter the urgency it deserved and the communication between the two appears extremely poor from the outside.   There is no excuse for waiting 9 months to open their own Title IX investigation and not alert the community.  

Old article? This was the official statement of the President of SDSU that addresses the claims made in the LA Times article. Does she need to repeat it to make it new? Would those facts have changed? No.

The SDPD investigation is unrelated to any SDSU investigation. SDSU was given the go ahead to continue their investigation less than a month ago, which is proceeding. 

"Alert the community" how? What should have SDSU done to "alert the community," Please be specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...