Minnesota football team ends boycott over sexual assault case
Minnesota's university football team have reversed a pledge to boycott games over the suspension of 10 players over an alleged sexual assault.
The team had threatened not to play until the school authorities gave "satisfactory answers".
The university earlier suspended the 10 players without providing any reasons, following an internal inquiry. ( Read more... )
The team had threatened not to play until the school authorities gave "satisfactory answers".
The university earlier suspended the 10 players without providing any reasons, following an internal inquiry. ( Read more... )
The problem is that I'm extremely skeptical your reasoning is backed up with anything evidentiary. But since that's the case, and since even taking you at your word would not clear up the logical inconsistencies in your position, that's neither here nor there.
that isn't not is what needs to change
Okay, but frankly you have to deal with the now. The now is that it isn't a crime. The now is that that might not change for years. So now what is the philosophical virtue of treating them differently?
I meant that it leaves room for doubt and questions.
You were clear, it's just that the implication of your words, both here and in your previous comments is that the current system is untrustworthy (not trustworthy enough to replace with a completely different system means not trustworthy).
yes I am white and in the US.
Okay, this is where I gently says that your privilege may be blinding you to the systemic faults of the system and I greatly encourage you to broaden your understanding. If you want something specific on the racial inequities then I suggest starting with The New Jim Crow, it's a good primer. But there is no balance with the system between what it gets right and wrong. It mirrors the problems of society's oppression and simply cannot be said to "work more than it doesn't," without suggesting the oppression it manifests is justified. And no offense, but this isn't about being a legal expert. It's about being receptive when someone tells you have holes of knowledge which is reflected in your reasoning.
the right go do to any public, or open to the public, location is
Nope that's not a right either. And even if it was, what you're saying is that private colleges should have more control than public ones. Again, what is the philosophical virtue of treating those places differently, especially when your note implicated private groups in your disapprobation also, which suggests that you don't want them treated differently?
it's out of their hands to decide if the crime happened
They're not deciding whether a crime (i.e. rape) happened. They're deciding whether a violation of the code of conduct (i.e gross disrespect) happened. Because they are not defining their code violations necessarily as the definition of the state's criminal code, you can't even say that the code violation which involve things that could be crime are them deciding crimes. Is there a reason you can't see the difference?
Reply
I need evidence to show why I think 12 people from the general public are less likely to decline to prosecute someone (or a team of someone) than a single DA who has to worry about keeping his job? I have no idea what evidence I'd show.
The now is that that might not change for years. So now what is the philosophical virtue of treating them differently? and what I want (courts dealing with it and not schools) isn't now either so if one is changes the other would need to change too. I see no problem with thinking both need to change.
You were clear, it's just that the implication of your words, both here and in your previous comments is that the current system is untrustworthy (not trustworthy enough to replace with a completely different system means not trustworthy).
I guess I'm giving the wrong implications. It's not a completely different system I want. A grand jury are already a part of the system, I just want them used more to improve the system.
Okay, this is where I gently says that your privilege may be blinding you to the systemic faults of the system and I greatly encourage you to broaden your understanding.
I'm not blind to it's faults. I know the system has problems but I also believe that most (but not all) of the problems are down to the people in the system and not the system itself.
It's about being receptive when someone tells you have holes of knowledge which is reflected in your reasoning.
Which is the point of conversation and discussion, to both clarify and learn.
And even if it was, what you're saying is that private colleges should have more control than public ones. Again, what is the philosophical virtue of treating those places differently, especially when your note implicated private groups in your disapprobation also, which suggests that you don't want them treated differently?
I do believe that we have the right to go and be in any open public place. I don't think anyone but the police and courts should be investing crimes.
A private collage is a fully private organization, of course they have more control over themselves than a government supported/owned one. Public control always comes with more rules.
Is there a reason you can't see the difference?
They call it a different thing but are they or are they not trying to determine if person a raped person b? If they are, I don't care if they call it something different it's still a crime they're looking into. If they are in fact looking for something else altogether then okay they can investigate.
So, what it is they are actually trying to find out because I was under the impression it's whether or not the players had sex with a fellow students without her consent which is a crime to my knowledge.
Reply
Yes. And again, grand juries are larger than petit juries of 12. Check the adjectives.
I see no problem with thinking both need to change.
Because the law will always be slightly behind what should be criminalized and therefore it's a re-occurring problem without end? Problems which keep coming up have to be dealt with as if they are permanent. So again, what's the virtue?
I just want them used more to improve the system.
By removing a vital and substantial part. Drastic changes, and this would be drastic, suggest that you don't actually trust in the functionality as it exists.
I also believe that most (but not all) of the problems are down to the people in the system and not the system itself
Which is the point of conversation and discussion, to both clarify and learn
So let's recap. When told you were incorrect in the specific (about grand juries) and in general (about the systemic problems in the justice system) you have doubled down even when egregiously incorrect and when told that you need to do some actual research (hell when pointed in the right direction to that research) to determine what you are saying is correct before you open your mouth. And you expect me to believe that you think discussion and conversation is you willing to learn? Being willing to learn is being willing to note that a challenge to your knowledge has some merit, and being willing to fill in the gaps yourself, not stumbling around in confident and determined ignorance offering opinions you couldn't logically back up with a thumbdrive and then doubling down when someone calls bullshit. That's a hell of a drug. If someone tells me I'm wrong about something, I make sure I'm not wrong by finding the evidence I'm right. And if I am wrong, I admit it before someone has to show me where I fucked up, I don't say I've done research anyone can see I haven't done, and then claim I'm open to learning.
I do believe that we have the right to go and be in any open public place
Okay but you don't. If the government decides that you have done something, even something less than a crime, which merits your banning, they will ban you from public property. This simply isn't a right.
I don't think anyone but the police and courts should be investing crimes...A private collage is a fully private organization, of course they have more control over themselves than a government These two statements don't jive. You don't have the right to be on private property, and therefore you must acknowledge that a private organization can make rules as to who can be there and partake of the facilities and develop methods of determining whether a situation merits that a banning action. If so, you can't also insist that their power to ban is abrogated just because another organization can possibly find it necessary to determine if a crime occured, as the private institutions power to remove is already, within the bounds of the law, inviolate. IF McD can kick someone out, and they can, then they don't have to wait for the police to determine that there was public indecency before they remove a flasher, even if they only saw the dude from behind, and they have to ask the people in the restaurant what happened (or investigating as it's called).
If they are, I don't care if they call it something different it's still a crime they're looking into.
Anyway, I think you don't seem to understand why something being a crime matters. Something being defined as a crime is relevant only to the removal of rights, such as liberty. If rights aren't being removed, and again expulsion is not abrogating any rights in both private and public universities, then private action on the matter has always been permissible. The whole point of settlement is so that private citizens can investigate the illegal action they think was committed against them, yes including crimes like rapes, and determine with the accused what remedy should happen based on what both people believe they can prove. A school hearing is that situation with the rules and remedies already laid forth. So private organizations shouldn't get involved in crimes is lol.
Reply
But any decision made by a grand jury is made by half or more, 12+, which is why I keep saying 12 because as you informed me the vote itself isn't public so I'd never know if it was just 12 people or all 23 so I'm defaulting to the lower number.
And again I have no idea what proof I'd show that makes me believe that more people make better choices in small groups than a single person. it's just what I believe.
So again, what's the virtue?
Because I'm talking about what I believe should be, not that I think will likely happen. If I'm limited to what I think is realistic then nothing. Schools will still be allowed to investigate and DAs will sometimes not advance charges because of reasons what have nothing to do with law.
Drastic changes, and this would be drastic
I don't think doing more grand jurys is drastic. They're already used.
When told you were incorrect in the specific (about grand juries)
You mean when I stopped believing they are public and focusing on group vs one person making the choice?
If the government decides that you have done something, even something less than a crime,
If it's not a crime why is the government do anything?
These two statements don't jive.
And I think they do. There are lots of things private colleges can do that public ones can't, investing crimes is just something neither should be doing.
If they want to remove anyone who is being investigated sure it's their choice and if they have rules about things that are not crimes no problem but if it is a crime they should wait, let the courts do their thing, then act.
The whole point of settlement is so that private citizens can investigate the illegal action they think was committed against them, yes including crimes like rapes, and determine with the accused what remedy should happen based on what both people believe they can prove.
And I still don't think it should be done by private groups. I know it is, this article says the school is holding hearing. But I simple don't like that and I'm much rather it all be investigated by the police/courts and then the school decide what they are going to do with that information.
Reply
The fact that you used "stop believing" when what happened was that you were wrong, were told you were wrong, insisted that you were right and that you had some due diligence behind you and folded when asked for proof is lmao. i can't tell if you're playing dumb or are just ridiculous. And then to insist that removing prosecutorial discretion in whole or in part isn't drastic as if you have a clue about the justice system, when we both know that you are low information at best.
Like the hilarity of someone insisting a restaurant should wait to remove a flasher until the courts or the police have decided whether or not he's doing something illegal! You can't argue with someone's irrational feelings and lord knows that is all you are bringing to this.
Reply
Is it fair to say neither of us see any point in continuing this conversation?
Reply
Leave a comment