Gloria Allred's NFL rapist not a Giant

In comment 11888192 B in ALB said:

Quote:

A headline and publicity grabber. She's no representative for victims and their rights. As soon as the PR and money wells run dry she quietly exuses herself from her so - called "clients". She represents her own self interests and perpetuates the public sentiment that we live in an overly litigious society plagued by parasites like herself. She creates nothing, produces nothing and preys upon the weak, desperate, and those looking to make a buck. She's filth.

Filth? Someone else said shitstain. I like that better.

Someone has accused a NFL player of rape. No investigation into the allegations has started, or if it has, it's so early that there's no determination if there's any reason to seek an indictment? And she wants that player to be suspended?

I'm not saying this is the case in this matter, but then what would stop someone crying rape to intentionally get a player suspended before a big game? For example, if the 49ers and Seahawks are getting set to play in a few days, and someone from San Francisco jumps up and screams, "Richard Sherman raped me last year!" Do they expect Richard Sherman to be suspended just long enough to miss the 49ers' game, after which the allegations are found to be without merit?

Yes, I realize the person who falsely accused would be opening herself to massive civil suits, but do you honestly think some people are smart or sane enough to think that far ahead? Remember when the guy stabbed Monica Seles back in the early 90s because he wanted Steffi Graf to be No. 1 again?

Please remember that in this country, the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Obviously there are some circumstances (Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson) where the guilt is so obvious that preemptive actions must be taken. But in cases like this, it's next to impossible to have such obvious guilt.

I get that there are $$$$$ to be had entrapping an athlete. I get why high profile celebs hire hookers, no misunderstanding, she knows why she is there.

In comment 11889338 manh george said:

Quote:

Yeah, the two pure hustlers, Jackson and Sharpton, made out fine. The two lawyers, Maddox and Mason, on the other hand, ended up getting disbarred. Apples and oranges. If Allred goes after a player who is ultimately proven innocent, it blows her up. And like I said, she doesn't need to go there. The pickings are far from slim. I am pretty confident she didn't just make an accusation. There is some corroboration floating around, too, I would bet.

How does it hurt her? She never goes to court or even files a suit. That's what a real lawyer does. Negotiating to make her client go away is her deal. She wrote a letter to the NFL. And made it public. As a public figure the player has few legal rights if she names him.

Let's assume there was sex. Allred can say that's proof enough. I'm sure the player will say it was consenaual. So while I'm certainly not going to absolve anyone of rape , unless there are physical signs, GHN on a tox report or a third party witness how does anyone know what happened. Allred can get up on a podium and repeat a baseless claim and not have any type of censure even if she knows what she is saying is false. She can just say she believed her client.

It's very sad but knowing Alleeds past leaves me
Personally with a very jaundiced eye. Especially w this leaked info about writing a letter to the NFL. She has other motivations by leaking that. What does that info going public do to help her client one bit?

might be categorized as originally consensual sexual encounters. (Let's leave aside for now, elements like drinking, drugs, etc.)

Without corroboration of any kind, it's then a he said-she said event and given today's culture, the tendency is to believe the woman over the man. College disciplinary anecdotes seem to suggest this.

If so, in my opinion, even publicizing a "rape" accusation is damaging and effin' unAmerican, but the media sharks feed off this stuff.

My suspicion is that many of the accusations, as I described above, might be feelings of regret on the part of the woman. If this regret is strong enough, and often it is, what is left for them but to suggest and/or accuse rape. There's no "regret" hotline center, there are no tox reports for regret and yet I believe women want some kind of justification for what they did.

None of these observations are meant to minimize the real and terrible instances of rape, domestic or otherwise.

In comment 11889536 Montreal Man said:

Quote:

might be categorized as originally consensual sexual encounters. (Let's leave aside for now, elements like drinking, drugs, etc.) Without corroboration of any kind, it's then a he said-she said event and given today's culture, the tendency is to believe the woman over the man. College disciplinary anecdotes seem to suggest this. If so, in my opinion, even publicizing a "rape" accusation is damaging and effin' unAmerican, but the media sharks feed off this stuff. My suspicion is that many of the accusations, as I described above, might be feelings of regret on the part of the woman. If this regret is strong enough, and often it is, what is left for them but to suggest and/or accuse rape. There's no "regret" hotline center, there are no tox reports for regret and yet I believe women want some kind of justification for what they did. None of these observations are meant to minimize the real and terrible instances of rape, domestic or otherwise.

That's like saying "with all due respect..." It is not really in dispute that only a minority of rapes are ever reported, an even smaller minority ever result in charges, a smaller minority still result in convictions, and that many of those are for lesser charges that may not even be of a sexual nature. So the fact that colleges have quasi-kangaroo courts (with severe consequences for the accused, no doubt, but without the means of incarcerating someone or putting him on a registry) does not mean that rape does not occur, or that the innocent are frequently found guilty. We don't subject the victim in an assault and battery or a robbery case to that sort of scrutiny, assuming he or she is lying or overreacting. Why do we do it to victims of a crime where the investigation is the most physically intrusive of all and where merely coming forward is to subject oneself to shame and embarrassment?

Thanks for your response.

But, 'with all due respect,' it doesn't come anywhere near addressing the specific point I was making, which is the existence of a great deal of remorse and regret young college women and adults feel after consensual sex, especially of the quick "hook-up," kind and generally with first time strangers. And I'm guessing that that remorse and regret can morph into a rape allegation as these women try to make sense of what they did and justify in some way what happened.

I have no disagreement with your post. I'm trying to open up discussion of the issue to other aspects of rape allegations. I think this is an aspect of human nature separate from whether a rape, legitimate or otherwise, is reported or not.

I'm not trying to single you out because I usually find a lot in your posts with which I agree, but it's the mentality that views a rape charge as instantly suspect that is a good bit of the problem. Does the scenario you're talking about happen? Sure. Is there a bit of a disconnect between hammering men for what they do when they're drunk while absolving women of any responsibility for their conduct when they're drunk? Absolutely. But the overwhelming majority of rape accusations that are taken to law enforcement can be overcome by abiding a handful of simple rules.

1. No means no. If you prevent her from saying no by putting your hand over her mouth, that also means no.
2. Don't put something in a girl's drink and then have sex with her when she is incapacitated.
3. If you're sober or close to it, don't try to bed girls who are falldown drunk.

There are certainly cases that aren't covered by the above three rules, but most accusations that are investigated by law enforcement are encompassed by one of those three rules.

A number of studies suggest strongly that a majority of on-campus rapes are committed by serial rapists.

Quote:

Much of the research that shows a small number of men commit most of the campus rapes has been conducted by the man who pushed for this conference, former UMass Boston psychology professor David Lisak. “It’s pretty clear that in a community like a college campus, you will expect and you will see that there are serial offenders, and they account for the vast majority of sexual assaults that occur in that community,” he said.

Not a remourse accusation in this bunch, of course.

The cover story on NY Magazine this week is about a young woman who carries a mattress everywhere she goes on campus as a form of protest over the fact that her rapist is still on campus. Two other women accused him in credible and similar testimony, but a hearing centering on remarkably stupid investigation techniques let him walk, and a dean confirmed the result.

Yeah, there are some remourse accusations, but that isn;t the main problem. There are three main problems.

1) Universities have no clue as to how to conduct a proper investigation, often losing massive amounts of forensic evidence, if it is collected at all;

2) Until the recent, growing wave of Title IX investigations against 70+ Universities (and growing), the basic goal was to minimize damage to a University's reputation; and

3) Actual cops and detectives know how to do these investigations, but there are agreements with Universities, who are primary local employers, that keep them out.

Drunken sex + remorse absolutely exists. But it isn't the main problem, particularly where only the female is drunk.

Link - ( New Window )

The NY Magazine cover story was at Columbia U.

Quote:

Ridolfi-Starr said campus activism has drawn out more survivors, including some with complex cases. In one involving domestic violence, for example, the university allegedly disciplined a woman for fighting back in a hallway, while the male escaped sanctions and graduated, Ridolfi-Starr said. "He dragged her by her hair into the hallway and was beating her there," Ridolfi-Starr said. "How did they find her responsible? I don't know how those people came to that assessment. I can't fathom it." Columbia unveiled a new sexual assault policy this summer, after activists said school administrators told them there would be no overhaul without their input.

Link - ( New Window )

In comment 11889338 manh george said:

Quote:

If Allred goes after a player who is ultimately proven innocent, it blows her up. And like I said, she doesn't need to go there. The pickings are far from slim.

I'm not sure this is accurate. If she never takes it through trial it most likely just quietly fades away. And she rarely goes to trial.

The analogy to the NFL seems fundamentally flawed, IMO. Colleges compete with each other for students. While a university might adopt stringent consent rules as a matter of moral or religious principle, another important motivation would be differentiation in a crowded market. (That's a nice way of saying that by cracking down on rapists, a university president is branding his/her product to appeal to the protective parents of seventeen-year-old girls.) If you don't like a school's rules, for whatever reason, find another school.

The NFL, by contrast, is a monopoly. A player who doesn't like the NFL's disciplinary policies can't make comparable money playing in another league.

I'm actually in favor of a tough personal-conduct policy for professional sports leagues. I just don't see college campuses providing a relevant model.

It seems as though the accuser got in touch with Glory Holed very quickly. There must be proximity.

To be PC, its also likely that the victim was socioeconomically advantaged because she found high-powered representation on short notice. To be crude, I'm thinking white. I just hope the player isn't black.

In comment 11890200 WideRight said:

Quote:

To be PC, its also likely that the victim was socioeconomically advantaged because she found high-powered representation on short notice. To be crude, I'm thinking white. I just hope the player isn't black.

You have to remember, ability to get her on TV is almost as important as the ability to pay. I'm not sure you're right.

1) Mainly, I was responding to MM's suggestion that a large number of rape accusations are the result of remourse. Patterns on campuses do not suggest that to be the case, imo.

2) Pro FB players all used to be college FB players. If they saw/experienced patterns of feeble responses by universities, they may have learned a bad lesson from that.

Its open season on the NFL.

At the players expense. Even if guilty, the implication that due process should be trampled over is shameful.
Name names or shut up - ( New Window )

The back-and-forth about campus assaults gave me the impression that some broader analogy was being drawn.

In comment 11890200 WideRight said:

Quote:

It seems as though the accuser got in touch with Glory Holed very quickly. There must be proximity. To be PC, its also likely that the victim was socioeconomically advantaged because she found high-powered representation on short notice. To be crude, I'm thinking white. I just hope the player isn't black.

"I'm thinking white." Who gives a fuck? The operative feature isn't that the girl is affluent, she may be or she may not be. The operative feature is that the player, and moreover the league, is wealthy, and shaming it could be lucrative.

It's not really like a female high school student can select a college where there is no rape. The market analysis sounds awfully cynical to me. At best, a college that values and provides for the safety and well being of its female students should be a baseline for ALL colleges. It is hardly a selling point.

No institution should get credit for prosecuting rape and treating it at least as seriously as any other crimes, including assault and property damage, or for treating the victims of rape with the same respect as the victims of any other kind of crime. That ought to be a baseline.

If they're suspending players for DV prior to conviction, there's no principled basis for excluding rape.

"Innocent until proven guilty" means little when the system is biased to favor athletic stars. Ray Rice's criminal diversion program is not supposed to be provided for violent criminals. But a football star doesn't meet the stereotype of a criminal.

And for every Duke Lacrosse Team, there are hundreds if not thousands of cases of acquaintance and gang rape where the case is suppressed, and the victim is pressured to disappear into obscurity. Only very recently has criticism focused on the common practice of minimizing the offense by citing the intoxication of the victim. The more frequent situation in universities and elite institutions has been to suppress and cover up such cases...and to shame the victim into dropping charges and out of school.

You all can kill the messenger in Allred, but the fact is that only 10% of all civil cases actually go to trial. She is not doing anything different than what any other trial lawyer does. 90% of all civil cases end up being settled. Nothing new there, and thank goodness for that. Is there some other trial attorney, experienced in women's rights, who would be better?

and both overbroad and underbroad. They often abide an understanding of sexual assault that most criminal courts wouldn't brook and so capture behavior that probably shouldn't be criminal in the process, and with a burden of proof that is often far less than beyond a reasonable doubt, and so are overbroad. But as MG said their law enforcement can be rudimentary, their "due process" is a joke, and their kangaroo courts can serve to spare the offenders from the actual criminal justice system (relying instead on expulsion as the sanction) so that someone who has committed something that in a civilian court might result in incarceration or registration is merely kicked out of school, and so is underbroad.

The DA has been vilified and probably rightly so, but plenty of prosecutors are very happy to find a deferred solution or a TUA one for a first-time offender when they have an uncooperative victim, even when the situation seems provable by extrinsic evidence. Is this the star treatment or is this an SOP for dealing with DV.

the DA was perfectly willing to put a young mother in prison for up to 10 years for having a gun licensed 5 miles away in Pennsylvania, and she spent 46 days in lockup before the pressure got to him. He's a piece of shit.

In NJ, only 1% of violent offenders get deferred prosecution. What a coincidence that it happened to be a star football player.

In comment 11890801 manh george said:

Quote:

the DA was perfectly willing to put a young mother in prison for up to 10 years for having a gun licensed 5 miles away in Pennsylvania, and she spent 46 days in lockup before the pressure got to him. He's a piece of shit. In NJ, only 1% of violent offenders get deferred prosecution. What a coincidence that it happened to be a star football player.

I'm with you on the gun law enforcement, but what is a violent offender? Likely a very narrow class of felons that does not include misdemeanor A&B or A&B on a family member, which is probably where this was headed with an uncooperative victim.

Our daughter can't choose a school where rape never happens. But she can choose one that has awareness programs in place (for both sexes, and for campus security) to reduce risks. She can choose one with a proven commitment to respecting the rights of victims, zero tolerance for predators and a track record of effective collaboration with law enforcement to prosecute abusers.

As for the possible cynicism of university administrators, they are running corporations. Branding matters, and so does damage control. If a college does the right thing partly for commercial reasons, that's better than not doing it at all.

This is what the NY Magazine article was about--a new kind of "activism" aimed at forcing college administrators to take the pressures from rape victims seriously. This is the girl who has been carrying her mattress around with her all day, every day, until her attacker is kicked out. Even if he never is, the pressure on Columbia Presidnet Bollinger has been enormous, and there is finally a new policy for dealing with rape accusations in place, after years and years of awful behavior by one of the otherwise great universities in the world.


Link - ( New Window )

I read that NY article. Terrible stuff, no doubt.

Read your post and agree with almost all of it. First, I don't think I said "MOST" of the accusations were a result of remorse or regret. But I think it's a factor and given human nature, I bet there are more than one thinks. And, of course, it doesn't fit the rape narrative to acknowledge it or instances where that's the case. You're savvy enough to know that "remorse" (for want of a better term) isn't eyeball worthy, rape is. It's the times we live in.

You offer as a rebuttal that "patterns on campus don't reflect the remorse or regret" possibilities.

What patterns? Not being snarky here, but what is the evidence that shows these patterns?

[i]"Yeah, there are some remourse accusations, but that isn;t the main problem."[/]

Never said that it was. In fact, I'm in totally agreement with the problems you've indicated and the shitty way rape "survivors" have been treated. I'm limiting my posts to my one specific concern.

This is not to diminish at all the legitimacy of rape accusations, but the national dialogue here and elsewhere rings of the Olivia Benson SVU certainty that all women who cry rape are truly raped by sexual bad guys. This mindset is fairly overwhelming and I'm afraid a lot of innocent men will be caught up in it. And it's not dismissive of rape accusations to be concerned about that, is there?

Let's look at a scenario. A young lady has some drunken consensual sex with a guy she met at a bar. She feels awful. She's not that kind of girl, she thinks. And maybe she really isn't. And yet she did it, against her better judgment, her upbringing, or just on the legitimate sense of her own dignity. In an effort to salvage her self-image, and maybe even to rehabilitate her social image, she accuses the guy of rape.

So ... the wheels are in motion. Do you think, realistically, that this woman will recant that accusation? If she does, she will be vilified and lose whatever shred of authenticity she ever had.

That's kind of why I need to know what these "patterns" are, and how they've been measured.

Good talking with you. (BTW) Send me an E-mail. My address is above. Got an extra seat for Sunday's game.

Quote:

Let's look at a scenario. A young lady has some drunken consensual sex with a guy she met at a bar. She feels awful. She's not that kind of girl, she thinks. And maybe she really isn't. And yet she did it, against her better judgment, her upbringing, or just on the legitimate sense of her own dignity. In an effort to salvage her self-image, and maybe even to rehabilitate her social image, she accuses the guy of rape.

How about a slight variation:

Quote:

Let's look at a scenario. A young lady has some drunken consensual sex with a guy she met at a bar. She feels awful. She's not that kind of girl, she thinks. And maybe she really isn't. And yet she did it, against her better judgment, her upbringing, or just on the legitimate sense of her own dignity. In an effort to salvage her self-image, and maybe even to rehabilitate her social image, she shoots the guy in the head.

The two scenarios make roughly equal sense. Just because a woman feels regret and/or shame, that doesn't mean she's likely to act out her misgivings by destroying her partner's life. People do stuff they regret all the time. Very few seek solace by accusing another person of a major felony.

.

Girl goes out, has fun flirting, drinks a little too much, then gets raped by a guy who doesn't know what "no" means.

Out of shame and guilt- "she was asking for it"- she doesn't tell anyone.

The above is BY FAR the bigger issue and much more common than, "I don't want people to think I'm a slut, so I'll cry rape" mental gymnastics being performed above.

I AM better than that. And so are you. The equivalence you pose is so off base, I don't know where to begin to rebut it.

Just one comment, of many possibilities: It's way safer and accepted socially and culturally and politically to call rape than to shoot someone dead. Good lord, how are those choices 'roughly equal?'

Those who make those accusations are scum- but their reasons IMV aren't anywhere near "feeling dirty" about consensual sex. It's a rejection/revenge action.

But maybe not so far. You're saying a woman would ruin a man's life - and risk ruining her own - to make herself feel better about an indiscretion. I guess it happens. I just can't imagine it being statistically significant.

They're not. We need to treat rape the way we treat other crime and not reflexively distrust the victim or minimize the offense until it is not one. That's what the George Wills of the world don't get. It is a poisonous notion that keeps victims, yes real victims, from coming forward and comforts and reassures those who commit acts of sexual violence.

In comment 11891274 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

They're not. We need to treat rape the way we treat other crime and not reflexively distrust the victim or minimize the offense until it is not one. That's what the George Wills of the world don't get. It is a poisonous notion that keeps victims, yes real victims, from coming forward and comforts and reassures those who commit acts of sexual violence.

I think the push to get universities to set up what are essentially kangaroo courts has something to do with the "Will" attitude. Yes, treat it the way we treat other crimes. But that means the defendant can retain counsel and can question his accuser.

In comment 11891214 Cam in MO said:

Quote:

Those who make those accusations are scum- but their reasons IMV aren't anywhere near "feeling dirty" about consensual sex. It's a rejection/revenge action.

Sure. I agree. The reasons are as complex as is a human being. My only point was that these false accusations happen and we won't really know how many. Meanwhile, some college kid's reputation is ruined for life.

In comment 11891271 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

But maybe not so far. You're saying a woman would ruin a man's life - and risk ruining her own - to make herself feel better about an indiscretion. I guess it happens. I just can't imagine it being statistically significant.

Going off the deep end is one of my pastimes. No problem.

I also don't know if it's statistically significant. My belief is that we'll never know because of the stigma attached to recanting. Haven't you read the many stories of women recanting years and years after the event, often with the rapist doing twenty to life? Google it up.

Meanwhhile --- Beat the Falcons.

In comment 11891271 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

But maybe not so far. You're saying a woman would ruin a man's life - and risk ruining her own - to make herself feel better about an indiscretion. I guess it happens. I just can't imagine it being statistically significant.

I'm also not convinced that if a woman were to find herself in a scenario where she felt regret for having sex with someone (consensually), that a) she'd lie about being raped thinking it would make herself feel better while b) at the same time ruining someone else's life.

I haven't seen any data suggesting this happens enough to make this aspect worth discussing.

That isn't remotely the same as women holding wealthy men (pro athletes, for example) hostage with the rape allegation as a tactic to obtain money from them. Nor is it to say that even in this case, that the number in question even approaches a significant percent. We've seen how many of these young (and sometimes not-so-young) men conduct themselves poorly so that sexual misconduct wouldn't be an outlandish claim.

.

In comment 11891329 njm said:

Quote:

In comment 11891274 Dunedin81 said: Quote: They're not. We need to treat rape the way we treat other crime and not reflexively distrust the victim or minimize the offense until it is not one. That's what the George Wills of the world don't get. It is a poisonous notion that keeps victims, yes real victims, from coming forward and comforts and reassures those who commit acts of sexual violence. I think the push to get universities to set up what are essentially kangaroo courts has something to do with the "Will" attitude. Yes, treat it the way we treat other crimes. But that means the defendant can retain counsel and can question his accuser.

Will is conflating the two. As I mentioned above, kangaroo courts are both overbroad and underbroad. On the one hand they probably bring in a class of alleged offender whose actions perhaps ought not be criminal, and they subject him to serious consequences. On the other hand they can preclude prosecution of serious criminals - some of whom really are predators - by mucking up evidence and by purporting to stand in for the criminal justice system. And I don't minimize the importance of this to the former class. But understand that those individuals, while we should certainly attempt to prevent inappropriate punishment of them, pale in number compared to the women who do not come forward. Here in Central Virginia a local politician was accused of forcible sodomy. When he was finally in shackles multiple victims came forward and said the same thing had been done to them. It STILL resulted in misdemeanor charges because it is very difficult to prove.

And the fact is that the University involvement has resulted in a 2-tier criminal law system: University proceedings for comparative wealthy college boys and public criminal courts for the working class and poor.

Of course the University proceedings are lame and don't even do a good job at adjudication over the matters they do have jurisdiction over, but I'm sure a guy facing serious jail time would take that over the worst sanctions a University proceeding could mete out: Expulsion, kicking a frat off campus, bring kicked off a team or suspended from school.

Universities should be required by law to turn all sexual assault cases over to the police, not campus police. Such matters belong with a criminal justice system that is competent to adjudicate them.

Universities do have internal codes of conduct, and they do have the right to impose University sanctions of expulsion, suspension, etc. But it is wrong that these kinds of proceedings have evolved into an alternative to criminal prosecution. They can and should run parallel to criminal proceedings.

In comment 11891449 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 11891329 njm said: Quote: In comment 11891274 Dunedin81 said: Quote: They're not. We need to treat rape the way we treat other crime and not reflexively distrust the victim or minimize the offense until it is not one. That's what the George Wills of the world don't get. It is a poisonous notion that keeps victims, yes real victims, from coming forward and comforts and reassures those who commit acts of sexual violence. I think the push to get universities to set up what are essentially kangaroo courts has something to do with the "Will" attitude. Yes, treat it the way we treat other crimes. But that means the defendant can retain counsel and can question his accuser. Will is conflating the two. As I mentioned above, kangaroo courts are both overbroad and underbroad. On the one hand they probably bring in a class of alleged offender whose actions perhaps ought not be criminal, and they subject him to serious consequences. On the other hand they can preclude prosecution of serious criminals - some of whom really are predators - by mucking up evidence and by purporting to stand in for the criminal justice system. And I don't minimize the importance of this to the former class. But understand that those individuals, while we should certainly attempt to prevent inappropriate punishment of them, pale in number compared to the women who do not come forward. Here in Central Virginia a local politician was accused of forcible sodomy. When he was finally in shackles multiple victims came forward and said the same thing had been done to them. It STILL resulted in misdemeanor charges because it is very difficult to prove.

But would the additional victims in the Central Virginia case have come forward if the case had gone to a university panel?

but probably not. The publicity, the understanding that these women were not alone, is what brought them out. And even in campus kangaroo courts, that sort of publicity is rarely effected. The point is that focusing on the supposed kangaroo courts becomes just another way to deflect attention from the suffering of those women and onto the handful of men who are allegedly railroaded.

...than the schools? The criminal justice system has plenty of authority to compel cooperation if they really want the cases. I understand that there may be a problem with the handling of evidence, but that seems like a solvable training issue - one that comes into play any time private security acts in the capacity of first responder. It's not unique to campuses, or to sex crimes.

you don't want the same folks that patrol public housing and the rundown neighborhoods to be responding to noise complaints in campus dorms. You want a college kids will be college kids approach to everything but serious crime. Otherwise all it takes is one profiling incident, one excessive force complaint, to turn the narrative from preventing sexual assault to out of control police.

In comment 11891505 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

but probably not. The publicity, the understanding that these women were not alone, is what brought them out. And even in campus kangaroo courts, that sort of publicity is rarely effected. The point is that focusing on the supposed kangaroo courts becomes just another way to deflect attention from the suffering of those women and onto the handful of men who are allegedly railroaded.

But aren't there more viable alternatives, methods of support which are CLEARLY needed, than the university panels? Not for one minute am I suggesting that these women be left in the cold. I'm just questioning whether this is the best solution.

Is that the panels suck, that Schnitzies solution is probably as good as it gets, and that my concern is that people who are wistful for the old reasonable force standard are happy to conflate this with court treatment of rapists when they're basically two issues.

Any updates?

reporting... CJ Spillman being investigated.. not sure if it's the same deal as this

[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/cowboys-player-accused-sexually-assaulting-woman-article-1.1960275?cid=bitly?$242424&utm_content=bufferc0d5f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw[/url]

cowboys

not sure why the link didn't work..copy and paste boys