Krakaeur's book "Missoula" to be released April 21

[AZGrizFan]

Maybe his follow-up book should be titled.... "Women who falsely accuse athletes of rape to get attention." I'm sure JJ and USC's Brian Banks would be interested in contributing to that.

Exactly.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Give it up, AllWeather. You don't know what you're talking about and you're making a fool of yourself.

I see. So you’re arguing that, when a student is accused of sexual assault, a college or university is obligated to proceed with a felony sexual assault trial, in which the school must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the charged student is guilty, and if the school meets that burden, the administrative law judge/tribunal imposes the same sentence as in a felony prosecution in the criminal justice system. Oh, and the accused student has the same rights to due process as in a criminal prosecution.

Oh, you’re not arguing that? Then we agree after all.

:roll:

 

[PlayerRep]

Give it up, AllWeather. You don't know what you're talking about and you're making a fool of yourself.

I see. So you’re arguing that, when a student is accused of sexual assault, a college or university is obligated to proceed with a felony sexual assault trial, in which the school must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the charged student is guilty, and if the school meets that burden, the administrative law judge/tribunal imposes the same sentence as in a felony prosecution in the criminal justice system. Oh, and the accused student has the same rights to due process as in a criminal prosecution.

Oh, you’re not arguing that? Then we agree after all.

:roll:

Nope, you either can't read or comprehend this subject. Under current law (Title IX), a university is obligated to proceed to investigate and pursue accusations of sexual assault, without regard to any current or parallel criminal investigation or proceeding, subject to the minor investigation delay exception mentioned in one of my prior posts. The standard for the university proceeding is now mandated to be the very low preponderance of the evidence. The state criminal standard remains at the higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The penalties in universities are set by universities and have nothing to do with the penalties for criminal violations. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

Some of the accuseds are starting to fight back and I believe almost 60 lawsuits by accuseds are pending nationally against universities. The basic arguments are lack of due process, as well as application of the unfair preponderance standard.

 

[statler & waldorf]

Did anyone, other than the feminazi faculty, really think any good would come from this?

 

[mtgrizrule]

Give it up, AllWeather. You don't know what you're talking about and you're making a fool of yourself.

I see. So you’re arguing that, when a student is accused of sexual assault, a college or university is obligated to proceed with a felony sexual assault trial, in which the school must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the charged student is guilty, and if the school meets that burden, the administrative law judge/tribunal imposes the same sentence as in a felony prosecution in the criminal justice system. Oh, and the accused student has the same rights to due process as in a criminal prosecution.

Oh, you’re not arguing that? Then we agree after all.

:roll:

Nope, you either can't read or comprehend this subject. Under current law (Title IX), a university is obligated to proceed to investigate and pursue accusations of sexual assault, without regard to any current or parallel criminal investigation or proceeding, subject to the minor investigation delay exception mentioned in one of my prior posts. The standard for the university proceeding is now mandated to be the very low preponderance of the evidence. The state criminal standard remains at the higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The penalties in universities are set by universities and have nothing to do with the penalties for criminal violations. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

Some of the accuseds are starting to fight back and I believe almost 60 lawsuits by accuseds are pending nationally against universities. The basic arguments are lack of due process, as well as application of the unfair preponderance standard.

I've heard of a few cases in the process against the University from the last several years regarding due process. With all the crap has gone on since the mid 2000's, it would not surprise me. I hope JJ's family is suing any combination of the school, city, and state for the expenses and damage resulting in JJ's trial. As the trial played out, there was too little evidence for that to go to trial. I would not be surprised if the Kemps are legally pursuing options regarding Gerald's treatment his SR year. There is no way that his circumstances should have taken almost the whole football season to have a decision, either the university or NCAA is to blame for that whole mess. Could there be unknown legal proceedings in the work by either Pflu and/or O'Day?

I'd like to see everything put behind us. I would not be surprised if there is more legal proceedings to surface in the future.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Let's try it this way since you want to disagree so badly.

Nope, you either can't read or comprehend this subject. Thank you for the insult.

Under current law (Title IX), a university is obligated to proceed to investigate and pursue accusations of sexual assault, without regard to any current or parallel criminal investigation or proceeding, subject to the minor investigation delay exception mentioned in one of my prior posts. Right, and I'm saying this needs to be changed because it's fundamentally unfair.

The standard for the university proceeding is now mandated to be the very low preponderance of the evidence. Right, and I'm saying this isn't fair to the accused.

The state criminal standard remains at the higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Precisely.

The penalties in universities are set by universities and have nothing to do with the penalties for criminal violations. I agree, and my opinion is that colleges and universities need to have the option of deferring to the criminal justice system, although you apparently disagree.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. It's not, but thanks for the additional insult.

Some of the accuseds are starting to fight back and I believe almost 60 lawsuits by accuseds are pending nationally against universities. Good. They should fight back.

The basic arguments are lack of due process, as well as application of the unfair preponderance standard. ....which is exactly the point I'm making.

 

[SaskGriz]

On a slightly positive note, and because they take a lot of heat on here; the Missoulian on-line story about the book makes no mention of the football team. Since they have been accused in the past of having an anti-Griz bias, this might be seen as progress.

 

[Grisly Fan]

Let's try it this way since you want to disagree so badly.

Nope, you either can't read or comprehend this subject. Thank you for the insult.

Under current law (Title IX), a university is obligated to proceed to investigate and pursue accusations of sexual assault, without regard to any current or parallel criminal investigation or proceeding, subject to the minor investigation delay exception mentioned in one of my prior posts. Right, and I'm saying this needs to be changed because it's fundamentally unfair.

The standard for the university proceeding is now mandated to be the very low preponderance of the evidence. Right, and I'm saying this isn't fair to the accused.

The state criminal standard remains at the higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Precisely.

The penalties in universities are set by universities and have nothing to do with the penalties for criminal violations. I agree, and my opinion is that colleges and universities need to have the option of deferring to the criminal justice system, although you apparently disagree.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. It's not, but thanks for the additional insult.

Some of the accuseds are starting to fight back and I believe almost 60 lawsuits by accuseds are pending nationally against universities. Good. They should fight back.

The basic arguments are lack of due process, as well as application of the unfair preponderance standard. ....which is exactly the point I'm making.

AWF, you are not going to win any kind of rational argument with that mental midget. His insecurities seem to stem from an obsessive need to prove he is smarter than he actually is. He makes personal attacks when none are necessary or warranted. His reading comprehension of anyone else's posts is quite poor. And the fact I know more about his personal life than any should on an ostensibly anonymous forum almost literally screams "look at me, look at me". AWF - you are in my estimation one of the most level headed posters here and I agree completely with what you are saying on this matter. I am now steeling myself for the veritable textual barrage headed my way... And no I won't bother to read it.

 

[getgrizzy]

no one on this message board is going to like this book. mostly because many of you don't know the difference between a charge and an allegation, not guilty and innocence, or fact and opinion. not that it matters because this message board consists of a minute fraction of the people who will read this.

you will latch onto the first critic that points out some minor discrepancies in the book and hang onto that as some kind of lynchpin that exposes krakauers credibility. you'll lean on each other for confidence bias, as usual, to get through your day.

 

[grizpack]

Please explain the difference between not guilty and innocent? Who makes that determination? If you are charged but not convicted are you innocent or not guilty? Are innocent people ever found "not guilty? Are innocent people ever charged? If they are found not guilty, are they still innocent? I am anxiously awaiting your definitions, and how you definitely apply the labels....

BTW - Allegations are contained within a charge. Allegations can also be made without a charge. So I do know that one.

 

[Raider]

no one on this message board is going to like this book. mostly because many of you don't know the difference between a charge and an allegation, not guilty and innocence, or fact and opinion. not that it matters because this message board consists of a minute fraction of the people who will read this.

you will latch onto the first critic that points out some minor discrepancies in the book and hang onto that as some kind of lynchpin that exposes krakauers credibility. you'll lean on each other for confidence bias, as usual, to get through your day.

So in summary, you are saying everyone on this board has a blind bias, when you yourself have the exact same thing.

Funny how you reference the difference between a charge and allegation, Hypocrite much?

 

[Raider]

Please explain the difference between not guilty and innocent? Who makes that determination? If you are charged but not convicted are you innocent or not guilty? Are innocent people ever found "not guilty? Are innocent people ever charged? If they are found not guilty, are they still innocent? I am anxiously awaiting your definitions, and how you definitely apply the labels....

BTW - Allegations are contained within a charge. Allegations can also be made without a charge. So I do know that one.

Don’t bother trying to argue with, or even reason with getgrizzy.

She is a woman scorned who has been spewing the same garbage for years, and no amount of rationale will ever overcome that.

 

[UMGriz75]

Please explain the difference between not guilty and innocent? Who makes that determination? If you are charged but not convicted are you innocent or not guilty? Are innocent people ever found "not guilty? Are innocent people ever charged? If they are found not guilty, are they still innocent? I am anxiously awaiting your definitions, and how you definitely apply the labels....

BTW - Allegations are contained within a charge. Allegations can also be made without a charge. So I do know that one.

The distinction between innocence and "not guilty" is a misunderstanding. The "presumption of innocence" is just that, the ruling presumption of our criminal justice system. A jury's charge is to either find "guilty" or "not guilty." For some reason, "social justice" warriors in recent years have attempted to claim that in rape cases, "not guilty" is not the same thing as "innocent."

It is a Sophist's argument.

A finding of "not guilty" means that the presumption has not been rebutted. The presumption precedes the charge and illuminates the key condition of any "charge." Only a finding of "guilty" rebuts the presumption and without it, the presumption is affirmed.

However, that's the point of the social justice warriors. They want to abolish the presumption in cases of claimed rape. In the place of an emerging identity of woman as morally equal, intellectually tough, and culturally independent, they wish instead to impose a society in which women are presumed to have no moral agency and impose on males the entire responsibility for exercising moral agency in those cases in which consent is ambiguous.

 

[info]

The only good that can come from all of this is Engstrom getting fired....I'm sick and tired of my hometown and University getting drug through the mud again and again. It's like Ground Hog Day...

 

[getgrizzy]

Please explain the difference between not guilty and innocent? Who makes that determination? If you are charged but not convicted are you innocent or not guilty? Are innocent people ever found "not guilty? Are innocent people ever charged? If they are found not guilty, are they still innocent? I am anxiously awaiting your definitions, and how you definitely apply the labels....

BTW - Allegations are contained within a charge. Allegations can also be made without a charge. So I do know that one.

The distinction between innocence and "not guilty" is a misunderstanding. The "presumption of innocence" is just that, the ruling presumption of our criminal justice system. A jury's charge is to either find "guilty" or "not guilty." For some reason, "social justice" warriors in recent years have attempted to claim that in rape cases, "not guilty" is not the same thing as "innocent."

It is a Sophist's argument.

A finding of "not guilty" means that the presumption has not been rebutted. The presumption precedes the charge and illuminates the key condition of any "charge." Only a finding of "guilty" rebuts the presumption and without it, the presumption is affirmed.

However, that's the point of the social justice warriors. They want to abolish the presumption in cases of claimed rape. In the place of an emerging identity of woman as morally equal, intellectually tough, and culturally independent, they wish instead to impose a society in which women are presumed to have no moral agency and impose on males the entire responsibility for exercising moral agency in those cases in which consent is ambiguous.

it goes well beyond rape, but you aren't grasping that because you're still trying to defend instead of understand you can't KNOW the truth. many murder, rape robbery, etc cases fall into this category. a charge is made, a trial begins, evidence is presented, then a jury rules guilty or not guilty. the evidence isn't always strong enough to return a guilty verdict. there have been many instances where those who have actually committed a crime are found not guilty and there have been instances where those who did not commit a crime were found guilty. of course you know this, but it isn't convienient for you right now.

 

[Raider]

....but on the other hand, it is convenient to always assume guilt when it fits your personal crusade.

Again, hypocrite.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Please explain the difference between not guilty and innocent? Who makes that determination? If you are charged but not convicted are you innocent or not guilty? Are innocent people ever found "not guilty? Are innocent people ever charged? If they are found not guilty, are they still innocent? I am anxiously awaiting your definitions, and how you definitely apply the labels....

BTW - Allegations are contained within a charge. Allegations can also be made without a charge. So I do know that one.

The distinction between innocence and "not guilty" is a misunderstanding. The "presumption of innocence" is just that, the ruling presumption of our criminal justice system. A jury's charge is to either find "guilty" or "not guilty." For some reason, "social justice" warriors in recent years have attempted to claim that in rape cases, "not guilty" is not the same thing as "innocent."

It is a Sophist's argument.

A finding of "not guilty" means that the presumption has not been rebutted. The presumption precedes the charge and illuminates the key condition of any "charge." Only a finding of "guilty" rebuts the presumption and without it, the presumption is affirmed.

However, that's the point of the social justice warriors. They want to abolish the presumption in cases of claimed rape. In the place of an emerging identity of woman as morally equal, intellectually tough, and culturally independent, they wish instead to impose a society in which women are presumed to have no moral agency and impose on males the entire responsibility for exercising moral agency in those cases in which consent is ambiguous.

it goes well beyond rape, but you aren't grasping that because you're still trying to defend instead of understand you can't KNOW the truth. many murder, rape robbery, etc cases fall into this category. a charge is made, a trial begins, evidence is presented, then a jury rules guilty or not guilty. the evidence isn't always strong enough to return a guilty verdict. there have been many instances where those who have actually committed a crime are found not guilty and there have been instances where those who did not commit a crime were found guilty. of course you know this, but it isn't convienient for you right now.

Ok Gwen...we get it.

 

[UMGriz75]

it goes well beyond rape, but you aren't grasping that because you're still trying to defend instead of understand you can't KNOW the truth. many murder, rape robbery, etc cases fall into this category. a charge is made, a trial begins, evidence is presented, then a jury rules guilty or not guilty. the evidence isn't always strong enough to return a guilty verdict. there have been many instances where those who have actually committed a crime are found not guilty and there have been instances where those who did not commit a crime were found guilty. of course you know this, but it isn't convienient for you right now.

You don't know what you are talking about, nor can you spell "convenient." The difference is that the Jury can only "find" that the State did or did not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the function of the jury and the trial process. But, only a finding of "guilty" rebuts the presumption of innocence, and if the presumption is not rebutted, the defendant continues to be entitled to the presumption.

The Federal Criminal Jury Instruction makes that clear.

1.03 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, REASONABLE DOUBT
(1) As you know, the defendant has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the indictment. The indictment is not any evidence at all of guilt. It is just the formal way that the government tells the defendant what crime he is accused of committing. It does not even raise any suspicion of guilt.

(2) Instead, the defendant starts the trial with a clean slate, with no evidence at all against him, and the law presumes that he is innocent. This presumption of innocence stays with him unless the government presents evidence here in court that overcomes the presumption, and convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

(3) This means that the defendant has no obligation to present any evidence at all, or to prove to you in any way that he is innocent. It is up to the government to prove that he is guilty, and this burden stays on the government from start to finish. You must find the defendant not guilty unless the government convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

(4) The government must prove every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. Possible doubts or doubts based purely on speculation are not reasonable doubts. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It may arise from the evidence, the lack of evidence, or the nature of the evidence.

(5) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof which is so convincing that you would not hesitate to rely and act on it in making the most important decisions in your own lives. If you are convinced that the government has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so by returning a guilty verdict. If you are not convinced, say so by returning a not guilty verdict.

You are confusing a standard of proof with a legal presumption. One is not the other. A jury measures the standard of proof. Only one result from that measurement can rebut the presumption of innocence. The other result cannot.

 

[Big Hole Griz]

I have read all of Krakaeur's books other than the one about Pat Tillman. "Into thin Air" was the book that made him famous. He was accused by several people, including Anatoly Bucharev (sp), of distorting the facts and being downright reckless with the truth about the events that happened on Mount Everest. I have no doubt he'll give himself free reign in this book to prove his point.

 

[Buttegrizzle]

HOLD THE PRESSES! This just in - an even more sensationalistic Football Sex/Crime story for JK and GF to exploit:


BY JEFF TRUESDELL @jhtruesdell 02/11/2015 AT 12:10 PM EST
The 911 call to Tyler, Texas, police early in the morning of Jan. 26 first reported a car crash – and then, a witness nearby told police he'd heard gunshots.

Officers responding to the scene at 2:26 a.m. discovered a red Toyota Camry that had jumped the curb just shy of hitting a utility pole. The lone person inside, in the driver's seat, appeared to be female. The victim had been shot "several times," according to a criminal affidavit – and it was the shots, Officer Don Martin tells PEOPLE, that caused the victim to lose control of the car.

Declared dead at the scene was Tyrone "Ty" Lee Underwood, 24, a transgender woman.

On Monday, police arrested Carlton Ray Champion Jr., 21, a college football player who they say had an ongoing relationship with Underwood, for Underwood's murder.

In their investigation police interviewed Champion's father, Carlton Champion Sr., who "stated that he heard Carlton Jr. was meeting the victim and thought the victim was a female," Officer Nathan Elliott wrote in the arrest affidavit. "According to Champion Sr., Carlton Jr. was supposed to get some type of sexual favor from the victim but realized the victim was a male."

Police say otherwise. A relationship between the two had been ongoing for several weeks, Martin tells PEOPLE. "All indications are that both parties, the suspect as well as the victim, knew the gender of each prior to the shooting."

"There's no hate crime," Martin says. "Evidence that was located indicate that they were both aware – through more than a friendship relationship – what they were getting into." It was, he says, "a sexual relationship."

Underwood died, according to the arrest affidavit, after arguing with Champion over social media about whether Champion was seeing someone else.

How and where the gunshots were fired is under investigation, police say.

Although police have located no witnesses who saw anyone running from the car, "the indications by the bullet holes in the vehicle and the victim indicate that more than likely, at some point in time, Champion was in the vehicle, versus not a drive-by" shooting, says Officer Martin. "We definitely know for sure" that shots were fired from outside the vehicle, he says, "but possibly inside as well."

Investigators were led to Champion after Underwood's roommate told them Underwood had been dating a man named "Carlton" for the past couple of weeks. A police department employee who worked with Underwood recalled that Underwood had talked about dating a football player at Texas College in Tyler.

Police located Carlton Champion on the team's roster. Champion said he'd been communicating with Underwood through the Kik social media app. Messages on Underwood's cell phone showed contact with Champion as far back as Jan. 19 and documented the pair's "sexual relations," according to the affidavit.

Starting the night of Jan. 25 and into the early morning of Jan. 26, Champion texted Underwood to ask if Underwood wanted to "chill." They planned to meet and texted over several hours before Champion fell asleep and Underwood became mad, the affidavit states.

When Underwood sent Champion a message that she didn't want to see Champion anymore, Champion responded, "That's how it is now" and "I will make it up."

Champion told Underwood to come get him. Underwood replied by text, "Carlton bro you saw me kiking you at 11:00 but you chose to be with whoever you was with and no you think you can just (expletive) with me when you want." Ongoing exchanges as late at 2:06 a.m. documented further plans and locations to meet – all inconsistent with Champion's initial statement to police that communication between the two had ended about 11 p.m.

Asked to explain his inconsistencies, Champion "became defensive and uncooperative," the arrest affidavit states. Confronted with surveillance video that showed him leaving his campus dorm at 2:13 a.m. and returning around 2:27 a.m., "Champion would only say that he didn't leave the dorms."

Tests on the camouflage jacket Champion was seen wearing as he left Texas College's Daniel Hall registered a "positive reaction" for blood, according to the affidavit.

Champion is being held in Gregg County jail on a $1 million bond. At press time, he has not yet entered a plea.