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

[Weatherman2020]

I don't get involved in the sex lives of college students, and you shouldn't either. And unless there is an actual crime then the schools shouldn't as well.

Having sex when drunk and regretting it afterwards does not mean you get to accuse the other person of rape or assault. To do so is an insult to people who have actually been raped or assaulted.

Too bad the universities disagree with you. Frankly, I know you advocate anarchy, but most parents want the colleges to look out for their kids.

I know it horrifies you that another bit of white male entitlement is being chipped away, though.

Railroading a guy who had drunk sex out of college as a rapist is "looking after their kids"?

If they can't handle real life, they should not be able to vote at 18. you can't have it both ways.

And do you really think its just white men being accused falsely?

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

 

[martybegan]

I don't get involved in the sex lives of college students, and you shouldn't either. And unless there is an actual crime then the schools shouldn't as well.

Having sex when drunk and regretting it afterwards does not mean you get to accuse the other person of rape or assault. To do so is an insult to people who have actually been raped or assaulted.

Too bad the universities disagree with you. Frankly, I know you advocate anarchy, but most parents want the colleges to look out for their kids.

I know it horrifies you that another bit of white male entitlement is being chipped away, though.

Railroading a guy who had drunk sex out of college as a rapist is "looking after their kids"?

If they can't handle real life, they should not be able to vote at 18. you can't have it both ways.

And do you really think its just white men being accused falsely?

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

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

 

[Peach]

I missed that one. If you rape someone at your work your work does not hold a trial. You call the cops, who then present it to the DA who then takes you to court where Constitutional procedures are followed.

Fortunately Devos is eliminating the insanity.

Here Is Every Crazy Title IX Rape Case Betsy DeVos Referenced, Plus a Bunch More

this started under Obama, or just before him, but went unchecked by him.

a 'female' can accuse any male of rape, for any reason, the more absurd the better. But if there is ZERO evidence, she can demand the school do something, so to cater to this utter nonsense, honest law abiding men are put through the ringer where they are guilty of being a man, and 'convicted' before the 'trial' even starts.

they keep this up, no man will want to be a leftists for fear of being arrested for looking at a chicks ass.

I agree criminal courts should handle sexual battery; note however, a man can accuse a woman of the same offense. Grabbing his genitals without his consent for example.

wrong

he will be told to 'man up' and stop being such a pussy.

I wrote ACCUSE, did not specify the reaction.

 

[Peach]

I don't get involved in the sex lives of college students, and you shouldn't either. And unless there is an actual crime then the schools shouldn't as well.

Having sex when drunk and regretting it afterwards does not mean you get to accuse the other person of rape or assault. To do so is an insult to people who have actually been raped or assaulted.

Too bad the universities disagree with you. Frankly, I know you advocate anarchy, but most parents want the colleges to look out for their kids.

I know it horrifies you that another bit of white male entitlement is being chipped away, though.

Railroading a guy who had drunk sex out of college as a rapist is "looking after their kids"?

If they can't handle real life, they should not be able to vote at 18. you can't have it both ways.

And do you really think its just white men being accused falsely?

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

So you believe females regularly make false felony reports; where is this occurring?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does anyone find it typical that Coyote is promoting "guilty until proven innocent?"

Coming from you...that's pretty funny.

Bill Clinton is innocent until proven guilty right?

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Utter bullshit.

Take a sexual harassment training course.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

To Stalin, it's only bad if a Republican does it.

 

[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?

no, because Lewinsky came on to him, that's why it wasn't sexual assault.

The lies you tell, Stalin....

 

[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?

no, because Lewinsky came on to him, that's why it wasn't sexual assault.

It was sexual harassment, according to the legal definition.

Stalin demands that laws don't apply to party members.

 

[Coyote]

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?

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.

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?

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.

 

[Coyote]

Coming from you...that's pretty funny.

Bill Clinton is innocent until proven guilty right?

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.

 

[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

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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!!!!

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Yeah, you see, here's the thing. Clinton and JOnes spent MILLIONS of dollars litigating Jones v. Clinton. The reality is, no Sexual Harassment lawsuit was ever meant to go that far. Jones is still in the poorhouse because she listened to the Right Wing Tools who threw her away like a used condom when they were done with her.

Trump is already trying to claim that he's immune to state lawsuits as President. SO whether or not it goes to trial or not will be interesting.

 

[martybegan]

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!!!!

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.

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.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

so you won't answer eh, figures. you union lovers are funny but now i know why. you think you can rape women at will.

again.... go back and read what I said, and then have someone who understands the English Language explain it to you...

 

[JoeB131]

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.