JJ decision

[grizpaws]

Goes to show you can't believe everything you read online.... It should be an interesting call. What it breaks down to is a guy is: accused of rape He can no longer be tried on campus under the standards he used to because between the time the supposed rape occured and the trial, the federal government decided that new rules should be used so now. what is the school to do apply the old rules and get in trouble with the feds? apply the new rules and get in trouble with the accused's lawyer (who can't say anything anyway under either set of rules) or let a possible rapist walk around campus and get in trouble by everyone else.

Like I said a 200 page missive from a lawyer and federal judges musings isn't going to solve it.

What? That's the most misleading chronology I've seen put forth. The federal government did not "decide new rules should be used" between the time this charge was brought and the hearing took place. Who the hell told you that? Good luck finding anything to support that spin.
The Department of Education rolled out the preponderance of evidence standard April 4, 2011.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the first requirements is that everyone be notified of the change in standards, which UM did not do. UM kept its old standards posted and then, surprise!!, opted for new ones without proper notice.

And what's up with your reference to "torn leggings." Don't you mean "torn leggings?" presented as a question by the medical examiner, rather than a statement of fact as Couture, and now you tnt, have tried to spin it?

Don't stroke that narrative too much, tnt. You'll hurt yourself.

This!

 

[Umista]

Just curious tnt, do you operate a drive thru expresso shop? Your biased prejudice is a juicy harbinger.

Rants of a hugger-mugger drinking his own brew and not mountain drew!

 

[getgrizzy]

And what's up with your reference to "torn leggings." Don't you mean "torn leggings?" presented as a question by the medical examiner, rather than a statement of fact as Couture, and now you tnt, have tried to spin it?

Don't stroke that narrative too much, tnt. You'll hurt yourself.

This!

"torn leggings?" as in the medical examiner didn't know what that kind of clothing is specifically called. leggings, tights, nylons, hosiery, ... he wasn't questioning whether or not they were torn. she also had a red mark on her chest. but i know, she did this stuff to herself, because this is a case of framing someone for rape. it all makes sense now.

 

[tnt]

I realize the standard was changed by the DOE in 2011.

Actually PR was the one concerned about changing the "rules."

I agree. If sexual " conquest" is sport the rules need to be clear. Rapists need to know just how much wiggle room they have.

 

[PlayerRep]

I realize the standard was changed by the DOE in 2011.

Actually PR was the one concerned about changing the "rules."

I agree. If sexual " conquest" is sport the rules need to be clear. Rapists need to know just how much wiggle room they have.

The DOE did not lower the standard in 2011. Only individual schools can lower the standard. In 2011, the DOE sent the Dear Colleague letter that directed schools to lower the standard to preponderance. Some schools lowered the standard to preponderance. Some didn't. Some changed the standard. UM didn't even attempt to lower the standard, until after the incident and the related process had begun. That is a big no-no under the law.

 

[PlayerRep]

And what's up with your reference to "torn leggings." Don't you mean "torn leggings?" presented as a question by the medical examiner, rather than a statement of fact as Couture, and now you tnt, have tried to spin it?

Don't stroke that narrative too much, tnt. You'll hurt yourself.

This!

"torn leggings?" as in the medical examiner didn't know what that kind of clothing is specifically called. leggings, tights, nylons, hosiery, ... he wasn't questioning whether or not they were torn. she also had a red mark on her chest. but i know, she did this stuff to herself, because this is a case of framing someone for rape. it all makes sense now.

You don't know what the term meant. If your interpretation was right, wouldn't it be "torn leggings (?)", not "torn leggings?"

There is no way a red mark from an arm would stay on a chest until the next day. No way. Both my wife and college daughter agree. In any event, leggings, nylons, hose, etc. get torn all the torn, and even put on torn to be used again. That's hardly evidence of sexual assault.

 

[moose/squirrel]

I realize the standard was changed by the DOE in 2011.

Actually PR was the one concerned about changing the "rules."

I agree. If sexual " conquest" is sport the rules need to be clear. Rapists need to know just how much wiggle room they have.

This statement alone disqualifies you as a reasonable poster. Any one with your apparent agenda is well, not credible. Hard to argue that you are not a troll and a dbag to boot. Carry on, prove my point.

 

[kemajic]

There is no way a red mark from an arm would stay on a chest until the next day. No way. Both my wife and college daughter agree. In any event, leggings, nylons, hose, etc. get torn all the torn, and even put on torn to be used again. That's hardly evidence of sexual assault.

Pretty normal fair for a Forester's Ball weekend.

 

[getgrizzy]

And what's up with your reference to "torn leggings." Don't you mean "torn leggings?" presented as a question by the medical examiner, rather than a statement of fact as Couture, and now you tnt, have tried to spin it?

Don't stroke that narrative too much, tnt. You'll hurt yourself.

This!

"torn leggings?" as in the medical examiner didn't know what that kind of clothing is specifically called. leggings, tights, nylons, hosiery, ... he wasn't questioning whether or not they were torn. she also had a red mark on her chest. but i know, she did this stuff to herself, because this is a case of framing someone for rape. it all makes sense now.

You don't know what the term meant. If your interpretation was right, wouldn't it be "torn leggings (?)", not "torn leggings?"

There is no way a red mark from an arm would stay on a chest until the next day. No way. Both my wife and college daughter agree. In any event, leggings, nylons, hose, etc. get torn all the torn, and even put on torn to be used again. That's hardly evidence of sexual assault.

:laugh: because your wife and college daughter are expert witnesses.

in scrutinizing his own work i would think one of the things that a medical examiner would note is that there's a red mark on the victim's chest, but that it was already fading away by the time she left the office. (or did she know just how to time the self-inflicted red mark, so that it would stay consistent during the duration of her visit) m.e.'s do things like evaluate injuries to determine if they might be self-inflicted. also, if this girl is framing johnson, you'd think she'd done a few more things to establish it was a rape. like maybe not have her roommates in the other room while she was staging it and maybe go straight to the rape crisis center.

i'm certain the m.e. meant torn leggings as i described. what else could he be confused about. i'm sure he knows what a tear is. whatever piece of clothing it was, it was torn. you're right that piece of evidence doesn't stand alone as strong evidence, but it's consistent with someone that's been raped. rapist often tear the clothing of their victims and leave marks, bruises and other injuries big and small.

 

[tnt]

There were other marks

But the "legging" thing.

They aren't socks or hosiery, I'm not sure what you call them. The girls call 'em leggings, but they are more like Long Johns. Some are spandex material and others are more "wooly" The girls wear 'em as pants with a "mini skirt" they don't tear easily, and aren't something that are worn torn, and certainly not on a big date.

The alleged victim had a kit. Most women (those that have had it) will tell you that its almost as much a violation than the act that got them there. Oh and unless it police ordered, some facilities in this community actually charge for it $800.00 plus. But heck who needs it we have PR, with his wife and Daughter.

 

[Bear Axed]

There were other marks

But the "legging" thing.

They aren't socks or hosiery, I'm not sure what you call them. The girls call 'em leggings, but they are more like Long Johns. Some are spandex material and others are more "wooly" The girls wear 'em as pants with a "mini skirt" they don't tear easily, and aren't something that are worn torn, and certainly not on a big date.

The alleged victim had a kit. Most women (those that have had it) will tell you that its almost as much a violation than the act that got them there. Oh and unless it police ordered, some facilities in this community actually charge for it $800.00 plus. But heck who needs it we have PR, with his wife and Daughter.

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=toolbar-instant&hl=en&ion=1&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4GGLL_en#q=torn+leggings&hl=en&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&site=webhp&prmd=imvns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=X1MIUIj1L8S5rQHR3P24BA&ved=0CHUQsxg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=c325e0a47cd90e80&ion=1&biw=1004&bih=550" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Goggle torn leggings!

only $7.50 plus freight from "Dear Lover"

 

[grizfnz]

There were other marks

But the "legging" thing.

They aren't socks or hosiery, I'm not sure what you call them. The girls call 'em leggings, but they are more like Long Johns. Some are spandex material and others are more "wooly" The girls wear 'em as pants with a "mini skirt" they don't tear easily, and aren't something that are worn torn, and certainly not on a big date.

It appears that torn leggings are quite popular these days, some exceeding $100 a pair.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[tnt]

Do you geniuses know why they have to be pre-torn???

 

[grizfnz]

Do you geniuses know why they have to be pre-torn???

What is "because they can charge more for them, than un-torn leggings and no self respecting fashionista would be caught dead wearing DIY torn leggings"?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[GrizMusician]

There were other marks

But the "legging" thing.

They aren't socks or hosiery, I'm not sure what you call them. The girls call 'em leggings, but they are more like Long Johns. Some are spandex material and others are more "wooly" The girls wear 'em as pants with a "mini skirt" they don't tear easily, and aren't something that are worn torn, and certainly not on a big date.

The alleged victim had a kit. Most women (those that have had it) will tell you that its almost as much a violation than the act that got them there. Oh and unless it police ordered, some facilities in this community actually charge for it $800.00 plus. But heck who needs it we have PR, with his wife and Daughter.

Do you geniuses know why they have to be pre-torn???

You are retarded. Just STOP TALKING. You obviously are too old or incapable of making a good observation. Anyone that is of college age (male or female) has seen these "pre torn" leggings all over the college campus. They are extremely popular, are considered "fashionable," & have been for a while.

As far as charging for a rape kit: Do you really believe that the SARC or Curry would charge a woman $800 for a rape kit? If you seriously believe this you are incredibly retarded.

 

[Raider]

Why the f-ck do you guys continue to argue with this guy? Do you think it some bizarre coincidence that he randomly popped up in e-griz on March 31, 2012 and now had 425+ posts on same topics.

Quit feeding him, and maybe this latest troll/fail will go away.

 

[Grisly Fan]

Do you geniuses know why they have to be pre-torn???

Actually I do not. Honestly, please explain to me.

(However if you force me to guess then perhaps they are pre-torn to facilitate rape accusations should the woman have regrets after an intimate encounter. No, not it?)

 

[WaGriz4life]

I admit it took me way too long, but now I know there is absolutely no way tnt is being serious with his posts.

 

[OptimusPrime]

This is one of the weirdest threads I've seen, even for Egriz... :|

 

[grizcountry420]

Where the eff is this thread going? :argue: