Report: all charges to be dropped in Duke rape case

[Bill Swerski]

IMO you are 100% correct and think these guys are opportunistic pricks who should have stayed the hell out of it.

 

In the post I wrote earlier in this thread, my only contention with the list of required apologies were those from the faculty, community, and women of the world. None of whom owed these guys the benefit of the doubt when this went down.

 

The fact that these douchebags hired strippers for one of their parties and one sent a (supposedly joking) e-mail about killing one of them speaks volumes about their character. There's no doubt in my mind that they're a bunch of obnoxious a$$holes.

[dmarc117]

Spain has demanded an apology from the faculty that wanted these guys expelled. My main point is that they'd done plenty to get expelled before being accused of rape and certainly had done nothing to show that they were prepared to stay in line by simply having the party to begin with. Once again, you're a professor. You have members of a certain sports team in your classes and they always act like complete a-holes. You, along with other faculty take the time to detail your issues in a letter to the AD. Nothing seems to get done and the next thing you know, a hired stripper is accusing them of raping her at a party where it is pretty much established that there was drinking. Wouldn't that be enough for you to think that enough is enough even if no rape actually occurred? What, exactly would they have to be guilty of for you to think that they weren't getting the message?

 

I do understand what you are saying but sense an enormous hipocracy in those rush to the defense of the team. Perhaps it is because I'm seeing plenty of the same guys who support the admin's convenient lack of due process when it comes to guys named Abdul but get outraged when Joe America gets caught in the same trap. Again, I've made it clear that these guys got a raw deal from the DA. However, the court of public opinion is given more leeway and that's just a lesson of life. If you treat people like crap, don't expect them to get your back.

 

 

 

is it documented that these kids were problems in the classroom and in school?

[detlef]

You are 100% wrong. At least in America...

 

So, every day on the way home from school, my kid beats up yours. Not really really badly but let's just say it's like a black eye or something. Let's say this is a known fact. So, you come over to our house and tell me to keep my kid in line or you'll call the cops. The very next day, your kid comes home. This time he's beat up really, really badly and says my kid did it.

 

So. Do you come over and ask, very calmly if my kid did this? If I say, "My kid says he didn't". Do you simply say, "Thanks, just thought I'd check and see. If he says no, then there's obviously no problem here."

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it doesn't quite go down like that.

 

Once again, the court of public opinion owes nobody anything. The rules are simple, play with fire, you'll likely get burned. And when you do, don't come crying to us.

[tonorator]

has imus commented on the duke players?

[wiegie]

If you treat people like crap, don't expect them to get your back.

 

Nobody is saying that anybody had an obligation to defend them from the allegations. But not defending somebody and calling them guilty are two different things.

[AtomicCEO]

Nope--you always owe somebody the benefit of the doubt (publicly at least) when they have been accused of a crime such as this. You might privately think that they are indeed guilty, but if you go public in calling somebody a rapist and it turns out that they are not rapists, you absolutely need to apologize.

 

 

troof

[detlef]

is it documented that these kids were problems in the classroom and in school?

 

I did not have time to find anything but it has been talked about at length that several members of the Duke faculty had gone to the AD with specific complaints about the conduct of team members. That is rather key to my argument in regards to the faculty being justified in wanting their expulsion or supsension. The party itself was enough to prove that their complaints went unheeded.

[AtomicCEO]

I did not have time to find anything but it has been talked about at length that several members of the Duke faculty had gone to the AD with specific complaints about the conduct of team members. That is rather key to my argument in regards to the faculty being justified in wanting their expulsion or supsension. The party itself was enough to prove that their complaints went unheeded.

 

 

Does it surprise you to learn that I was called to the Dean's office more than once regarding conduct unbecoming a student of my fine learning establishment?

 

They threatened myself and my party-house roommates with suspension and expulsion if we didn't stop our ways. There were allegations of underage drinking, drug use, and even unseemly behaivior.

 

Do I deserve to be accused of rape on a national stage?

 

Maybe so... but only because of all the actual rapes.

[Azazello1313]

So, every day on the way home from school, my kid beats up yours. Not really really badly but let's just say it's like a black eye or something. Let's say this is a known fact. So, you come over to our house and tell me to keep my kid in line or you'll call the cops. The very next day, your kid comes home. This time he's beat up really, really badly and says my kid did it.

 

So. Do you come over and ask, very calmly if my kid did this? If I say, "My kid says he didn't". Do you simply say, "Thanks, just thought I'd check and see. If he says no, then there's obviously no problem here."

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it doesn't quite go down like that.

 

Once again, the court of public opinion owes nobody anything. The rules are simple, play with fire, you'll likely get burned. And when you do, don't come crying to us.

 

 

that is a stupid analogy. let's say instead your kid is always getting beat up by other neighborhood kids who happen to be mexican. so he comes home beat up one day and says the mexicans did it, so you go down the street and beat the crap out of the first three mexican kids you come across. this is a dumb analogy too, but it's probably closer to the actual facts here than yours.

 

i mean, i get what you're saying....most of these guys are asssholes (i wonder though, do you have any experience with these 3 guys in particular, or are you just imputing this asssholeness to them via stereotype?), and when bad things happen to asssholes, even unfairly, we don't shed many tears. fine, whatever, i can't say i disagree. that doesn't reduce the disgracefulness of the DA pushing this terrible FALSE charge, or of the faculty and everyone else jumping to conclusions about guilt based on their past impressions of the lax team. there is really no good defense for that stuff.

[detlef]

that is a stupid analogy. let's say instead your kid is always getting beat up by other neighborhood kids who happen to be mexican. so he comes home beat up one day and says the mexicans did it, so you go down the street and beat the crap out of the first three mexican kids you come across. this is a dumb analogy too, but it's probably closer to the actual facts here than yours.

 

i mean, i get what you're saying....most of these guys are asssholes (i wonder though, do you have any experience with these 3 guys in particular, or are you just imputing this asssholeness to them via stereotype?), and when bad things happen to asssholes, even unfairly, we don't shed many tears. fine, whatever, i can't say i disagree. that doesn't reduce the disgracefulness of the DA pushing this terrible FALSE charge, or of the faculty and everyone else jumping to conclusions about guilt based on their past impressions of the lax team. there is really no good defense for that stuff.

 

I have not said that these three players weren't done a great injustice by the DA. I think I've made it abundantly clear that all parties in anyway associated with the US government and thusly required to uphold the constitution have failed horribly and should be punished.

 

My point is this. The faculty who called for expulsion were the same faculty who'd been complaining about their behavior already and the simple fact that they held the party and hired a stripper is, in itself, enough forthem to demand punishment. Once again, they lodged a formal complaint about continuing behavior problems and then this happens. Who among us would turn the other cheek?

 

My point is also that the public at large is not required to follow the constitution. Anyone who gets randomly drug-tested at work knows this. A random drug test is the equivalent of an illegal search if it was conducted by the police but your employer is not required to follow the same guidelines. Does your employer owe you an apology if it is found that your pee is clean? The public did not accuse these guys of rape, the public simply did not challenge the accusation of the DA and they are free to not do so. If they must offer an apology, the players better expect one that is very qualified.

 

I think this should do:

 

"As a member of the Durham community at large, I was too quick to believe the DA's assertions that you were guilty of the specific crime of rape. It should be noted that I came to this conclusion because you and the organization you have chosen to join have proven yourselves to be disrespectful of others including their property and have routinely conducted yourselves in a disgraceful manner. In my heart of hearts I am convinced that you are likely guilty of many other crimes that you have never faced judgement on but it appears you are not guilty of this one. Hooray for you. As a citizen of the US, I will accept the fact that you were not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and thus are free to do as you please. I should also say that it is within my rights to continue to feel that you are the product of unfit parents who have coddled and sheltered you to the extent that you don't seem to have any sense of personal obligation.

 

For the record, I do not have any specific experiences with the three named players. I will also say that I have never implied that they were guilty of rape. I did not picket their home or any such.

[untateve]

apologies!?!?!? fruck apologies!!! these poor kids lives were ruined by this.....she should be thrown in jail with nifruck....he should be sued as well. make him pay for the rest of his life.

 

 

 

Does anyone know if anything is going to happen to this woman? She should be locked away for ruining 3 lives.

 

Again, if the show was on the other foot and it was a white girl accusing a black Lacrosse (oops I mean basketball) team of this and they found out the white girl was lying you would have Jackson and Sharpton all over the place claiming racism and trying to burn the girl at the stake.

 

She should have everything possible thrown at her and put away for as long as possible and hopefully ruin her pathetic lying life.

 

 

Again, are these three lives really ruined? I mean, at the age of 19-21 they have been accused of rape and the accusation was false. On average, they have about 55 years to live. I'm really hoping that their life is not ruined.

 

------------------------------------

 

Q: Oh, so unta, you think it's okay that this b1ltch made this accusation?!?

Q: Oh, so unta, it's fine with you that the state attorney used this as a means of gaining re-election?!?

Q: Oh, so unta, you're cool with the school kicking them out and killing lacrosse for the season?!?

 

A: Um, no. I just don't believe that these kids lives are "ruined."

[Bill Swerski]

My point is also that the public at large is not required to follow the constitution. Anyone who gets randomly drug-tested at work knows this. A random drug test is the equivalent of an illegal search if it was conducted by the police but your employer is not required to follow the same guidelines. Does your employer owe you an apology if it is found that your pee is clean?

 

I believe that there's a presumption of innocence there, as most companies give new employees offers pending their passing of a drug test. So, no, there would be no "apology" issued because it's presumed that the newly-hired employee doesn't do drugs. It's also assumed that current employees do not use illicit drugs either.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[detlef]

I believe that there's a presumption of innocence there, as most companies give new employees offers pending their passing of a drug test. So, no, there would be no "apology" issued because it's presumed that the newly-hired employee doesn't do drugs.

 

My point is that the constitution protects us from police showing the brand of "presumed innocence" that is pending a search of, for instance, the trunk of your car, without probable cause. However, an employer is allowed to show the brand of "presumed innocence" that requires "proof of innocence" through a random drug test.

 

There is a major, major difference there and no amount of sugar coating on the part of the employer, ie "our insurance carrier requires that we do this" changes that. It is still search without cause and would not hold up in a court of law.

 

That's all.

[Bill Swerski]

My point is that the constitution protects us from police showing the brand of "presumed innocence" that is pending a search of, for instance, the trunk of your car, without probable cause. However, an employer is allowed to show the brand of "presumed innocence" that requires "proof of innocence" through a random drug test.

 

If everybody is subjected to these tests and nobody is singled out, I don't see what the problem is. If one objects to it on a civil liberties basis, they can go work for an employer that does not drug-test.

 

There is a major, major difference there and no amount of sugar coating on the part of the employer, ie "our insurance carrier requires that we do this" changes that. It is still search without cause and would not hold up in a court of law.

 

Um, I'm pretty sure that it WOULD hold up in a court of law with regard to employers, given that they do it all of the time.

[detlef]

Lastly, as someone who lives in the area, I can assure you that Nifong did not use this as a means of being re-elected. Even the very liberal Independent newspaper that actually supported him in that election made a point of doing so despite his handling of the case. While I did not agree with them, I do recall them making a big deal of saying that one case should not define a DA. Well, needless to say, this one pretty much did. I also recall that he was running almost uncontested and it wasn't until this screw-up that someone from the other party even bothered joining the race. I recall that among the Indy's arguments in favor of voting for Nifong was the fact that the guy "running" against him had made it clear not much earlier that he had no interest in the office and had been pressured to run because of what a f-up Nifong had proven himself to be.

 

So, like many other things, using these boys as a vehicle for re-election is a bit overblown.

[detlef]

If everybody is subjected to these tests and nobody is singled out, I don't see what the problem is. If one objects to it on a civil liberties basis, they can go work for an employer that does not drug-test.

Um, I'm pretty sure that it WOULD hold up in a court of law with regard to employers, given that they do it all of the time.

 

Make sure you read this really slowly. The government protects us from search without probable cause by the government not from our employers. That is my freaking point!!!!!! When I said it wouldn't hold up in court I meant that search without cause would not if done by the cops or other government agency.

 

I am not saying that random drug testing by employers should not be allowed, rather explaining that it is evidence that private citizens do not need to follow the same level of due process that the government must.

 

You are not arguing against me as much as you are proving my freaking point.

[Bill Swerski]

Make sure you read this really slowly. The government protects us from search without probable cause by the government not from our employers. That is my freaking point!!!!!! When I said it wouldn't hold up in court I meant that search without cause would not if done by the cops or other government agency.

 

I am not saying that random drug testing by employers should not be allowed, rather explaining that it is evidence that private citizens do not need to follow the same level of due process that the government must.

 

You are not arguing against me as much as you are proving my freaking point.

 

Yes, I understand the difference. However, your last post suggested otherwise...

 

There is a major, major difference there and no amount of sugar coating on the part of the employer, ie "our insurance carrier requires that we do this" changes that. It is still search without cause and would not hold up in a court of law.

 

Thanks for clearing that up. Try re-reading what you posted last time before going bezerk on somebody for not understanding your point.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[detlef]

Yes, I understand the difference. However, your last post suggested otherwise...

Thanks for clearing that up. Try re-reading what you posted last time before going bezerk on somebody for not understanding your point.

 

My first post on the subject was 100% clear down to the bit about everyone who'd ever been subjected to a random drug test realizing the situation. Since you responded to that, I suppose I thought I didn't have to re-state everything I said the first time in my second post. My bad.

[TDFFFreak]

Is it 1998?

 

There should be an awful lot of apologies in this case.

 

First and foremost, the drunken lying stripper should apologize to past and future rape victims for making it so much harder to win their cases. I hope she gets slapped with false reporting to the police, and that it gets a lot of media attention.

 

Just thought this post by Atomic was worth posting again. I agree with it 100%.

[AtomicCEO]

Just thought this post by Atomic was worth posting again. I agree with it 100%.

 

 

People love me. There's no denying it.

[TDFFFreak]

People love me. There's no denying it.

 

Don't make me retract the above statement...

[untateve]

People love me. There's no denying it.

 

 

Yea, they love you, but they don't "love-love" you.

[AtomicCEO]

Yea, they love you, but they don't "love-love" you.

 

 

I'll take it. I'll take pity or scorn, too. All I crave is attention.

[TDFFFreak]

I'll take it. I'll take pity or scorn, too. All I crave is attention.

 

Who are you, Spain?

[AtomicCEO]

Who are you, Spain?

 

 

Please do not change the subject from me.