Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Also, just read the rest of the post of which you highlighted a portion, and boom no further explanation needed.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
All in one Tumpkin DV allegation thread - fed judge dismisses lawsuit against CU
- Thread starter DexBuffsteen
- Start date
If he's innocent, we could probably keep him. One problem though, even if he didn't do anything wrong, he put himself out there to do so. In a sense, he probably isn't innocent. It's a problem I wouldnt want to deal with. At the same time, it isn't a life ending event. Get some help and people will respect it. It sure as hell isn't easy. I don't mean just drinking, judgement on other things as well. It's your ****ing job, do it or move on.
Last edited:
????
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
The ones blindly defending the behavior and saying we cant fire a guy until we know he's guilty. We already know hehe's guilty of something.
I'm not disagreeing with anyone on this. Everyone has their opinion and rightfully so. He screwed up somehow, learn from it and keep it moving.
The Ogre
Well-Known Member
There is no defense if he's guilty, but what's happened so far could happen to someone completely innocent. We only know he's accused, but it doesn't seem you grasp the distinction.
It's my understanding that if police are called to a domestic violence situation, someone goes to jail. Period. It lends a little skepticism regarding the multiple accusations that he was never arrested.
Mb2658
Well-Known Member
It's true that the statute requires the police to make an arrest in a DV situation if there is probable cause that a crime occurred. They are not required to arrest someone just because they received a DV call. Like any case, they are supposed to investigate and make a decision based upon the facts that are available to them at the time. The lack of discretion in DV cases came about from years of the cops being called to DV situations and essentially kicking the can down the road and not intervening in situations where they should have.
Thanks for the correction. What I wrote was what I was told by a Denver police officer, and it sounds as if it was his personal policy and not official policy; perhaps exaggerated at that.
OUBuff
American
There are many instances where things reach the press when NOTHING happened. Reference above w/ Duke Lacrosse.
There is room for doubt at this point and that is okay. The AD may look at this and say it is more trouble than it is worth and terminate him with our without any reasonable doubts to the veracity of the claim. This is less an issue of legality and more an issue of image and what image the AD wants to have in the public eye. If the AD has good reason to think that the accusations are false, it may have adequate ability to justify his retention to the public.
Lots that we don't know. Lots of internet speculation.
OUBuff
American
If I am ever in the situation... this is the guy I don't want on the jury.
EDIT: By situation, I mean defendant. There is no way I'd hit Hawt... she'd kill me... then my kids would dispose of the body.
Last edited:
What do we know he's guilty of? Do you know something more than what was printed in the paper? His GF filed for a restraining order whereby JT provided no contest, no other side of the story, and might not have even known about it. I am certainly not saying he is innocent....but the Daily camera has a history of automatically reporting anything that happens without any investigation or follow-up. Remember that goalie for the Avs? He was actually arrested, and booked for DV. Turned out that she was trying to shake him down....and was using the media and typical public response to such things in her favor.I have seen good people lose their jobs and careers because of actions taken like this by the media.....because it LOOKS terrible up front, and all come to find out that is was baseless...but papers like the DC won't report on that part. But too late, their employer had to take action because "he must be guilty of something". Turns out they weren't "guilty of something". My point is that he hasn't actually been charged with anything yet. CU is doing the right thing by not taking action until they know more...if they find out he is "guilty of something", then by all means, axe him that very moment.
We know no such thing. Here's your homework: Google "Duke Lacrosse Case", then Google "Rolling Stone University of Virginia Rape Story". Innocent people get accused of things all the time, and sometimes they get charged with crimes. These are just two of the more high-profile grotesque examples in recent memory. I think you can probably watch ESPN's 30 For 30 story on the Duke case in some TV archive. It was running on ESPN a few months ago.
Now, if you're making an assertion that an entirely different standard should be applied at CU Athletics, i.e. a firing should take place immediately upon an accusation of misbehavior, then I sure hope Phil Knight doesn't offer a money-hungry co-ed $50,000 to say that she was groped by Mac 2…..
Surely you can see the Slippery Slope/Unintended Consequences thing rears its ugly head quickly.
I see the Evil Workings of JMFL ….!! The Horror !!…The horrah...
Deleted member 807
Guest
The standard of "proven guilty" works great in a courtroom. It's a much more delicate standard to uphold in the absence of a proper trial.
Not every situation is Duke Lacross, where Rolling Stone journalism failed to fact check prior to publishing allegations of sexual assault.
In this specific case, a temporary restraining order has been issued on the grounds of domestic violence. We as fans may never know what fhe facts of any investigation may yield. Many details may never come to light due to the private and personal nature of domestic violence cases.
The Baylor Title 9 sexual assault and domestic violence saga has established that institutional bias within police and university administration can and does exist in Waco, where the protection of coaches and players have come at the expense of the safety of women.
@PAHIBuff - I'm not sure where you stand on the Baylor situation, where the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has been stretched.
As for me, I'm sensitive to the threat that domestic violence (and concussion) has to the long term viability of football. The sport that has created the term "cleat chasers" has left an untold number of women to deal with the aftermath of assault. So while the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is a staple of the US rule of law, it is not the only standard that applies.
The alleged victim should have the expectation that she will not be revictimized by authorities who are responsible for administering justice.
CU is on the clock for addressing this situation, now that it's public.
Last edited by a moderator:
I largely agree with your post, and of course totally with the last sentence. But I think that TROs are likely not too hard to get, given the judiciary's understandable interest in protecting folks from violence. I think that there's probably a bias towards granting them, especially temporary ones, rather than denying them. I have reacted in this thread to the few posts that call for JT's immediate firing. This is a person's career and reputation. If an internal AD look into the facts shows JT to be a violent guy with a substance abuse issue, and that the allegations are true, then replace him.
The Baylor stuff is deplorable and regrettable.
Agree. I think the people that are arguing taking action sooner are lacking a true understanding of the nature of this situation. Facts: GF files for restraining order based on allegations of DV. In said allegations, she claims he did all kinds of unsavory and bad things. Court approves restraining order based on allegations (assuming prudent thing to do). Daily Camera prints allegations. No actual charges have been filed. No arrests have been made. All that has happened is a repeated rehashing of HER allegations. The major thing in question is this: are any of these allegations true. Period, end of story. Neither the Law, nor CU has determine that they are true......yet. My hope is that "yet" never happens.....but we shall see
Deleted member 807
Guest
Mostly agree. I'd also hope that CU is conducting its own investigation that is independent of the courts. The AD should be asking some questions.
Yep. But in the mean time business goes on and we need to get a DC on board. I would think, rightly or wrongly, Tumpkin is out of that picture. A new DC may bring some of his own guys, so there's that.
Agree with Duff but we gotta keep it moving. That's a pretty big concern now it seems. Quit dicking around and get **** handled.
chitownbuff
Club Member
True or false: it's more important for MM to participate in all these award shows, TV appearances, and interviews than it is for him to focus more energy on finding coaches/recruits and keeping current recruits.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
I don't think it's a lack of understanding of the situation. As a fan, I am more concerned with the program than the legal rights of one position coach. Deplorable I know, but if I'm being honest, I want him gone because it's better for the program for this to go away quickly than to drag on for another couple weeks.
The "right" thing to do is let it play out and make an informed decision when the facts are known, but as an irrational fan who is concerned with the momentum of our program taking a nosedive, I'm not interested in doing the right thing any more.
Agree. I would think the AD could make some reasonable judgements by the end of the month after an investigation and the outcome of the hearing.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Could be okay if his agenda is 10% getting patted on the back and 90% schmoozing with the cream of the coaching world for the benefit of CU football.
Pretty simple, it's the second part.