When Were Universities Granted the Authority to Become a Judical Branch in Criminal Cases?

[martybegan]

The loony left even say when a woman later regrets having consensual sex it is rape.

When did they say that?

First off, the "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit is a straw man you erected. You naturally cannot point to any post of mine saying that. Secondly, you DID whine that Clinton was not declared "innocent" despite his losing his law license due to his guilt.

He didn't lose his laws license, it was merely suspended (and he hadn't practiced law in something like 20 years at that point). Also, he lost it because he was less than forthcoming about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

Paula Jones was pretty much proven to be a liar.

That's only the real fringe than at one time considered any heterosexual sex a form of rape.

Yes, yes, the Feminist Movement are all a bunch of scary Lesbians!!! Keep telling yourself that.

I said the fringe, not the movement as a whole. Read the fucking line next time dipshit.

 

[JoeB131]

If she's passed out she can't give consent. If she's just drunk that's not a condition that makes the guy a rapist. You really do think they are inferior, you just don't have the balls to say it.

You are the one saying that we have to give adult women special protections because they might make a bad decision and then we have to charge a guy with rape for it.

Rape is rape, drunk hookup sex is not rape.

again, too bad the campuses in this country don't agree with you.... Hey, guy maybe instead of addressing how you want things to be in your Alpha White Male Libertarian paradise, address things as they are. As they are, you get a girl drunk to get into her panties, that's rape.

Rape and sexual assaults are crimes, Colleges should not be trying to punish them. They should also not be expelling guys for drunk hookup sex with a willing if intoxicated participant.

But we all know you are a nanny state asshole, so overreach like this shit is right up your sick twisted alley.

Actually, colleges are businesses, and they are making a pretty simple business decision. Biff is only worth his tuition. If your campus gets a reputation of being "Rape U", then nobody is going to want to send his daughter to "Rape U." Universities tried to sweep these things under the rug for years, but that's simply not possible in our age of social media.

So the risk of lawsuits and the risk of lost tuition dollars, it's actually GOOD BUSINESS to throw Biff off of campus.

And with all the "biff" crap you just show you are actually the most bigoted person on this board, worse than the actual racists because you can't or won't see it.

Fuck off, and Die.

Yes, because everyone knows that White Preppie men are such an oppressed minority.

 

[JoeB131]

I said the fringe, not the movement as a whole. Read the fucking line next time dipshit.

Naw, man, stand by your words. YOu don't have to be a fringe to not want your daughter to get raped at a college frat party by Biff and his friends.

 

[martybegan]

If she's passed out she can't give consent. If she's just drunk that's not a condition that makes the guy a rapist. You really do think they are inferior, you just don't have the balls to say it.

You are the one saying that we have to give adult women special protections because they might make a bad decision and then we have to charge a guy with rape for it.

Rape is rape, drunk hookup sex is not rape.

again, too bad the campuses in this country don't agree with you.... Hey, guy maybe instead of addressing how you want things to be in your Alpha White Male Libertarian paradise, address things as they are. As they are, you get a girl drunk to get into her panties, that's rape.

Rape and sexual assaults are crimes, Colleges should not be trying to punish them. They should also not be expelling guys for drunk hookup sex with a willing if intoxicated participant.

But we all know you are a nanny state asshole, so overreach like this shit is right up your sick twisted alley.

Actually, colleges are businesses, and they are making a pretty simple business decision. Biff is only worth his tuition. If your campus gets a reputation of being "Rape U", then nobody is going to want to send his daughter to "Rape U." Universities tried to sweep these things under the rug for years, but that's simply not possible in our age of social media.

So the risk of lawsuits and the risk of lost tuition dollars, it's actually GOOD BUSINESS to throw Biff off of campus.

And with all the "biff" crap you just show you are actually the most bigoted person on this board, worse than the actual racists because you can't or won't see it.

Fuck off, and Die.

Yes, because everyone knows that White Preppie men are such an oppressed minority.

They don't agree, but they are paying for it in lawsuits when the lack of due process is being called out.
And the line you use "you get a girl drunk" implies that women can't just go out and get drunk on their own. How patronizing of you.

Some colleges are government actors, and are held to government actor standards. also all of them have code of conducts that promise proper due process, and that's why they are either losing the lawsuits, or settling them.

You don't fix a problem by creating another, i.e. railroading guys guilty of only drunk hookup sex.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The loony left even say when a woman later regrets having consensual sex it is rape.

When did they say that?

First off, the "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit is a straw man you erected. You naturally cannot point to any post of mine saying that. Secondly, you DID whine that Clinton was not declared "innocent" despite his losing his law license due to his guilt.

He didn't lose his laws license, it was merely suspended (and he hadn't practiced law in something like 20 years at that point). Also, he lost it because he was less than forthcoming about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

Paula Jones was pretty much proven to be a liar.

That's only the real fringe than at one time considered any heterosexual sex a form of rape.

Yes, yes, the Feminist Movement are all a bunch of scary Lesbians!!! Keep telling yourself that.

Your ignorance is why you have such insane views.

Doe v. W&L.

Approximately one month after their initial encounter, they again had consensual sex. But then, Jane saw John at a party kissing another female and left upset. That summer, Jane went to work at a women’s clinic that dealt with sexual assault issues. Seven months after the initial encounter, Jane visited a therapist, who said Jane’s had “an evolution” about how she felt about the initial encounter.

Thereafter, Jane attended a presentation by W&L’s Title IX Officer, Lauren Kozak, who introduced an Internet article the court would later label “gender biased” against males to alleged that “regret equals rape.” Kozak said that “everyone, herself included, is starting to agree with” that.

Almost nine months after the encounter in question, Jane initiated an internal disciplinary investigation of John. Ms. Kozak interviewed John and refused to allow him to involve an attorney. A hearing was held, and, among other irregularities, Jane was not asked about inconsistencies in her various statements about the encounter. After the hearing, Rolling Stone published an article about a later-debunked gang rape at UVA. The next day, W&L found John responsible for sexual assault. John maintained the decision was prompted to avoid a backlash similar to the one felt by UVA from the Rolling Stone article.

In the lawsuit he filed, John alleged all manner of bias in W&L’s handling of his case, including ignoring evidence that supported his position. The court held that John Doe alleged sufficient facts – including the Title IX coordinator’s suggestion that regret is tantamount to rape – to plead a Title IX violation, and the court denied W&L’s motion to dismiss that claim. “Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, suggest that W&L’s disciplinary procedures . . . amount to ‘a practice of railroading accused students,’ and, if true, it amounts to gender bias.

https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/06171146/Opinion-on-MTD.pdf

Weatherman - educating the left since 1978.

 

[martybegan]

I said the fringe, not the movement as a whole. Read the fucking line next time dipshit.

Naw, man, stand by your words. YOu don't have to be a fringe to not want your daughter to get raped at a college frat party by Biff and his friends.

i was talking about the fringe feminist movement parts that consider all heterosexual sex as a form of rape. Again, read the context you twit.

Rape is to be punished as rape. Drunk hookup sex between consenting adults is not rape.

 

[martybegan]

The loony left even say when a woman later regrets having consensual sex it is rape.

When did they say that?

First off, the "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit is a straw man you erected. You naturally cannot point to any post of mine saying that. Secondly, you DID whine that Clinton was not declared "innocent" despite his losing his law license due to his guilt.

He didn't lose his laws license, it was merely suspended (and he hadn't practiced law in something like 20 years at that point). Also, he lost it because he was less than forthcoming about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

Paula Jones was pretty much proven to be a liar.

That's only the real fringe than at one time considered any heterosexual sex a form of rape.

Yes, yes, the Feminist Movement are all a bunch of scary Lesbians!!! Keep telling yourself that.

Your ignorance is why you have such insane views.

Doe v. W&L.

Approximately one month after their initial encounter, they again had consensual sex. But then, Jane saw John at a party kissing another female and left upset. That summer, Jane went to work at a women’s clinic that dealt with sexual assault issues. Seven months after the initial encounter, Jane visited a therapist, who said Jane’s had “an evolution” about how she felt about the initial encounter.

Thereafter, Jane attended a presentation by W&L’s Title IX Officer, Lauren Kozak, who introduced an Internet article the court would later label “gender biased” against males to alleged that “regret equals rape.” Kozak said that “everyone, herself included, is starting to agree with” that.

Almost nine months after the encounter in question, Jane initiated an internal disciplinary investigation of John. Ms. Kozak interviewed John and refused to allow him to involve an attorney. A hearing was held, and, among other irregularities, Jane was not asked about inconsistencies in her various statements about the encounter. After the hearing, Rolling Stone published an article about a later-debunked gang rape at UVA. The next day, W&L found John responsible for sexual assault. John maintained the decision was prompted to avoid a backlash similar to the one felt by UVA from the Rolling Stone article.

In the lawsuit he filed, John alleged all manner of bias in W&L’s handling of his case, including ignoring evidence that supported his position. The court held that John Doe alleged sufficient facts – including the Title IX coordinator’s suggestion that regret is tantamount to rape – to plead a Title IX violation, and the court denied W&L’s motion to dismiss that claim. “Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, suggest that W&L’s disciplinary procedures . . . amount to ‘a practice of railroading accused students,’ and, if true, it amounts to gender bias.

https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/06171146/Opinion-on-MTD.pdf

Weatherman - educating the left since 1978.

Actual evidence and facts don't work with Joe-Idiot. His head is far too up his pussy ass to notice anything.

 

[JoeB131]

They don't agree, but they are paying for it in lawsuits when the lack of due process is being called out.

They'll pay a lot more in lawsuits if girls are getting raped.

Some colleges are government actors, and are held to government actor standards. also all of them have code of conducts that promise proper due process, and that's why they are either losing the lawsuits, or settling them.

They aren't losing enough of them to stop the practice. Why do you think the Groper in Chief is trying to change the law?

i was talking about the fringe feminist movement parts that consider all heterosexual sex as a form of rape. Again, read the context you twit.

Rape is to be punished as rape. Drunk hookup sex between consenting adults is not rape.

Again, it's too bad the Universities don't agree with you! Off to Community College with you, Biff!!!!

 

[JoeB131]

In the lawsuit he filed, John alleged all manner of bias in W&L’s handling of his case, including ignoring evidence that supported his position. The court held that John Doe alleged sufficient facts – including the Title IX coordinator’s suggestion that regret is tantamount to rape – to plead a Title IX violation, and the court denied W&L’s motion to dismiss that claim. “Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, suggest that W&L’s disciplinary procedures . . . amount to ‘a practice of railroading accused students,’ and, if true, it amounts to gender bias.

https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/06171146/Opinion-on-MTD.pdf

Weatherman - educating the left since 1978.

I notice the part of the article you posted didn't talk about the initial encounter.

But here's what the actual case file says about it.

Plaintiff alleges the following. On Saturday, February 8, 2014, Plaintiff and Jane Doe encountered one another at a party held off campus, whereupon they talked, danced, and “made out.” Jane Doe drank alcohol at the event, and claimed that while her memory of that night was “fuzzy,” she was not incapacitated or “blacked out.”

So, no, the University did the right thing in getting rid of a predator.

 

[martybegan]

They don't agree, but they are paying for it in lawsuits when the lack of due process is being called out.

They'll pay a lot more in lawsuits if girls are getting raped.

Some colleges are government actors, and are held to government actor standards. also all of them have code of conducts that promise proper due process, and that's why they are either losing the lawsuits, or settling them.

They aren't losing enough of them to stop the practice. Why do you think the Groper in Chief is trying to change the law?

i was talking about the fringe feminist movement parts that consider all heterosexual sex as a form of rape. Again, read the context you twit.

Rape is to be punished as rape. Drunk hookup sex between consenting adults is not rape.

Again, it's too bad the Universities don't agree with you! Off to Community College with you, Biff!!!!

For girls who get raped the criminal justice system will handle it, if and only if the colleges start concerning themselves with RAPE, and not drunken college hookups.

There actually is no "law", it was a fucking memorandum telling colleges its better to fuck over some guys than look like "bad guys".

What is your issue with due process?

The universities will start to agree as they lose more and more of these lawsuits. The difference is that in the actual ignoring rape lawsuits, the crime is ignorance. In the "throw the guy under the bus to appease the mob" the crime is willful malfeasance.

 

[Coyote]

It was sexual harassment, according to the legal definition.

Um, no. Sexual harrassment is an UNWANTED sexual advance. Clearly, Ms. Lewinsky wanted a relationship.

Probably more than Clinton did.

Now, if only Ken Starr has put as much effort into investigating hundreds of actual rapes on his campus that he put into investigating Clinton's sex life.

Sorry, douche bag, but a sexual relationship between an employer and an underling is considered harassment under the VAW act.

No, harassment is defined as without consent. http://capricollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/VIOLENCE-AGAINST-WOMEN-ACT-2015-1.pdf

When Trump settles a sexual harassment to the tune of 800K like Bill "drop trou" did? Get back to me...until then? You are just a pathetic, idiotic troll.

Trump has sexual harassment suits. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...sg=AFQjCNF7zcippTeKoNGYlNn40eF7JCWMKw&ampcf=1

I think we know who the real hacks are

 

[Coyote]

It was sexual harassment, according to the legal definition.

Um, no. Sexual harrassment is an UNWANTED sexual advance. Clearly, Ms. Lewinsky wanted a relationship.

Probably more than Clinton did.

Now, if only Ken Starr has put as much effort into investigating hundreds of actual rapes on his campus that he put into investigating Clinton's sex life.

Sorry, douche bag, but a sexual relationship between an employer and an underling is considered harassment under the VAW act.

No, harassment is defined as without consent. http://capricollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/VIOLENCE-AGAINST-WOMEN-ACT-2015-1.pdf

You didn't cite the actual legislation. You cited some flyer by Capri college. That's not exactly authoritative.

Then produce the legislation to support your claim. The flyer quotes portions of the legislation.

 

[JoeB131]

For girls who get raped the criminal justice system will handle it, if and only if the colleges start concerning themselves with RAPE, and not drunken college hookups.

There actually is no "law", it was a fucking memorandum telling colleges its better to fuck over some guys than look like "bad guys".

which it totally is. I bet you when they see Biff getting carted off campus after he gave her a beer bong with extra roofies, they'll all think twice about their behavior.

What is your issue with due process?

That when you only throw 3% of rapists in prison, it isn't doing it's job.

The universities will start to agree as they lose more and more of these lawsuits. The difference is that in the actual ignoring rape lawsuits, the crime is ignorance. In the "throw the guy under the bus to appease the mob" the crime is willful malfeasance.

No, they probably won't. Here's why.

Because they know they are going to pay a lot more money out to the girl Biff raped once she proves the university multiple complaints about him, than they would paying out Biff because his girlfriend complained about him because he was a lout.

Poor Biff. What kind of a world do we live in when Entitled White Preppies don't have privilege?

 

[Two Thumbs]

It was sexual harassment, according to the legal definition.

Um, no. Sexual harrassment is an UNWANTED sexual advance. Clearly, Ms. Lewinsky wanted a relationship.

Probably more than Clinton did.

Now, if only Ken Starr has put as much effort into investigating hundreds of actual rapes on his campus that he put into investigating Clinton's sex life.

wrong, ignorant, lie, partisan bullshit.


he was her superior and therefore he committed sexual harassment.

 

[JoeB131]

wrong, ignorant, lie, partisan bullshit.


he was her superior and therefore he committed sexual harassment.

Well, except that she wasn't. She didn't work for him. She was on an internship, so she didn't even get paid.

sorry, man, there is no way that Lewinsky could have made a sexual harassment claim if she wanted to. IN fact, Clinton's people saw her as a stalker and wanted to keep her away from the President.

 

[bripat9643]

wrong, ignorant, lie, partisan bullshit.


he was her superior and therefore he committed sexual harassment.

Well, except that she wasn't. She didn't work for him. She was on an internship, so she didn't even get paid.

sorry, man, there is no way that Lewinsky could have made a sexual harassment claim if she wanted to. IN fact, Clinton's people saw her as a stalker and wanted to keep her away from the President.

The president is the boss of everyone in the Executive branch, whether they are being paid or not, so she did work for him.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Clinton was found guilty.

Try again.

Of sexual assault? Try again.

Don't hurt yourself moving those goal posts.

He was found guilty of perjury. BTW, how is didling a subordinate that you have 100% power over NOT sexual assualt? Because he is a democrat and party is too important to concern yourself with such things?

We were talking about sexual assault. *cough* speaking of moving goal posts...

And now you're trying to spin it - remember what you said: innocent until proven guilty? How's that working?

So, it is impossible for a party member to engage in sexual assault? A boss engaging in quid pro quo with a female subordinate is sexual assault, unless the boss is a democrat.

Party above all, always.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that when it comes to sexual assault, if it is Clinton it's guilty until proven innocent and if it's a Trump it's innocent until proven guilty? That's it?

You really should stop now, the more you flail, the worse it gets.

Now you are just pathetic.

Pumping the help is sexual assault, take a sexual harassment class.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The women decide to be participants, even if they are intoxicated. hell the guy probably is too. you can't hold one side to a higher standard without admitting women are inferior (they are not, but your logic requires it to be the case)

Sure I can. Women aren't "inferior", but they are in need of legal protection because men have all the power in this society. You know, the society where we'd rather elect a Game Show Host than a qualified woman. To the point, if she's drunk, she can't give consent. Pack your bags, Biff, you need to go to community college where they don't have frats!

Nice argumentative dodge, fucktard

Not a dodge at all. You are saying we should take away an 18 year old's right to vote because they can't make good decisions (i.e. they vote overwealmingly Democratic) but you want to keep sending them off to fight wars. But it's all moot, because they shouldn't legally be drinking at 18 to start with in most states.

So if we can't get Biff on rape, we can throw his ass off campus for serving alcohol to a minor. So Long, Biff, you are going to Community College. No frats, but you might get some work done.

The problem is Colleges trying to replicate the criminal justice system, and idiots like you who think women are fragile little flowers that have to be over-protected for their own good.

Well, there are two problems with this argument. The first is that the university can't inflict criminal penalties. They can't lock Biff up. The better analogy would be that they are trying to replicate the CIVIL justice system.

And here's the thing. In the Civil Justice System, the standard is not, "Guilty beyond a Reasonable Doubt* (*for white people)" The standard is "Preponderance of the evidence." The standard isn't to prove he did, it's to prove he didn't. Otherwise, off you go, Biff, enjoy Community College!!!!

We'd rather elect a fire hydrant than Mafia Boss Hillary.

Suck it, Stalin.

 

[Dale Smith]

The women decide to be participants, even if they are intoxicated. hell the guy probably is too. you can't hold one side to a higher standard without admitting women are inferior (they are not, but your logic requires it to be the case)

Sure I can. Women aren't "inferior", but they are in need of legal protection because men have all the power in this society. You know, the society where we'd rather elect a Game Show Host than a qualified woman. To the point, if she's drunk, she can't give consent. Pack your bags, Biff, you need to go to community college where they don't have frats!

Nice argumentative dodge, fucktard

Not a dodge at all. You are saying we should take away an 18 year old's right to vote because they can't make good decisions (i.e. they vote overwealmingly Democratic) but you want to keep sending them off to fight wars. But it's all moot, because they shouldn't legally be drinking at 18 to start with in most states.

So if we can't get Biff on rape, we can throw his ass off campus for serving alcohol to a minor. So Long, Biff, you are going to Community College. No frats, but you might get some work done.

The problem is Colleges trying to replicate the criminal justice system, and idiots like you who think women are fragile little flowers that have to be over-protected for their own good.

Well, there are two problems with this argument. The first is that the university can't inflict criminal penalties. They can't lock Biff up. The better analogy would be that they are trying to replicate the CIVIL justice system.

And here's the thing. In the Civil Justice System, the standard is not, "Guilty beyond a Reasonable Doubt* (*for white people)" The standard is "Preponderance of the evidence." The standard isn't to prove he did, it's to prove he didn't. Otherwise, off you go, Biff, enjoy Community College!!!!

" Women aren't "inferior", but they are in need of legal protection because men have all the power in this society. You know, the society where we'd rather elect a Game Show Host than a qualified woman"

WOW! How sexist of you, Joe Blow......women are in combat now, they can bring home the bacon and then fry it up in the pan. The bra burning Feminist movement would call you a chauvinistic sack of shit.

BTW, did you write that society is misogynist with a straight face because it didn't select the Hildebeast? I recall you claiming with a bit of ennui that even though the Hildebeast was not the best of candidates that she would still win with relative ease???? That is when the butthurt for you and your ilk began in earnest when she was rejected. You figured that this witch would continue the little commie agenda that you and your ilk crave. You would rather cut your nose off to spite your face than see anyone but a leftard sitting in power. You are and will always be one of the biggest jokes here always in search of a punch line.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Don't hurt yourself moving those goal posts.

He was found guilty of perjury. BTW, how is didling a subordinate that you have 100% power over NOT sexual assualt? Because he is a democrat and party is too important to concern yourself with such things?

We were talking about sexual assault. *cough* speaking of moving goal posts...

And now you're trying to spin it - remember what you said: innocent until proven guilty? How's that working?

You lied that Clinton was a poor victim and not found guilty.

Hey, you're a leftist, it's just what you do...

Now I know you've lost the argument

Never said he was a "victim".

All I said was - what you did: "innocent until proven guilty".

Are you admitting that isn't so?

First off, the "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit is a straw man you erected. You naturally cannot point to any post of mine saying that. Secondly, you DID whine that Clinton was not declared "innocent" despite his losing his law license due to his guilt.

Then you try and pretend that a direct supervisor engaging in sex with a subordinate is not an issue.

You are a partisan hack, nothing more, there is nothing even approaching rationality involved.

Don't hurt yourself moving those goal posts.

He was found guilty of perjury. BTW, how is didling a subordinate that you have 100% power over NOT sexual assualt? Because he is a democrat and party is too important to concern yourself with such things?

We were talking about sexual assault. *cough* speaking of moving goal posts...

And now you're trying to spin it - remember what you said: innocent until proven guilty? How's that working?

You lied that Clinton was a poor victim and not found guilty.

Hey, you're a leftist, it's just what you do...

Now I know you've lost the argument

Never said he was a "victim".

All I said was - what you did: "innocent until proven guilty".

Are you admitting that isn't so?

First off, the "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit is a straw man you erected. You naturally cannot point to any post of mine saying that. Secondly, you DID whine that Clinton was not declared "innocent" despite his losing his law license due to his guilt.

Then you try and pretend that a direct supervisor engaging in sex with a subordinate is not an issue.

You are a partisan hack, nothing more, there is nothing even approaching rationality involved.

Post 62, where you reversed the words to make a point about Trump and his sexual behavior.

Secondly, where did I say about Clinton and his law license and what does that have to do with sexual assault and "guilty until proven innocent"?

Your should stop digging, it's just making your rather obvious hypocrisy look...obvious.

Post 62 is where I pointed out your propensity for declaring "guilty until proven innocent."

You whined that Clinton was not guilty, I pointed out that he was. Then you whined "but not of sexual assault" then I pointed that boinking the help when you alone hold power over them is in fact legally assault.

You should quit digging while you so far down...