Baylor Rape HQ - (major lawsuit settled)

[MtnBuff]

What would happen if you believed the victim every time?

You would end up with a lot of innocent people who's lives are ruined.

How would you have felt if well into your military career somebody simply didn't like you after spending some time with you and made some accusations? Because the victim is almost always right your career is over at that point, you get a less than honorable discharge and potentially some time behind bars, simply because we believe the victim every time.

I don't think we are far away from agreement. I do believe that the victim should be listened to every time and that the accusations should be given a serious follow up. The victim unless clearly proven not to be truthful should be given respect and an honest effort to follow the accusations.

What I don't believe is that in a he said/she said (or any other combination) that a person should be assumed to be guilty simply on the word of another person. If supporting evidence can be developed, if a pattern of behavior can be shown, if willing participation in a climate that condones or supports improper actions can be shown then yes we act. If it is simply the word of one person against another then while you may believe the victim it isn't enough to act on.

 

[Uncle Ken]

You would end up with a lot of innocent people who's lives are ruined.

How would you have felt if well into your military career somebody simply didn't like you after spending some time with you and made some accusations? Because the victim is almost always right your career is over at that point, you get a less than honorable discharge and potentially some time behind bars, simply because we believe the victim every time.

I don't think we are far away from agreement. I do believe that the victim should be listened to every time and that the accusations should be given a serious follow up. The victim unless clearly proven not to be truthful should be given respect and an honest effort to follow the accusations.

What I don't believe is that in a he said/she said (or any other combination) that a person should be assumed to be guilty simply on the word of another person. If supporting evidence can be developed, if a pattern of behavior can be shown, if willing participation in a climate that condones or supports improper actions can be shown then yes we act. If it is simply the word of one person against another then while you may believe the victim it isn't enough to act on.

I don’t think you’ve read a single word I’ve written in this thread.

 

[MtnBuff]

I don’t think you’ve read a single word I’ve written in this thread.

I get the same impression from you.

I have read over and over

You can defer to the victim’s story every time, and probably be right over 90%.

Without other context the implication of this is that because the percentage of valid victim's stories is so high it should automatically be assumed that the story is correct. My statement is that while I don't argue with your reasoning the potential consequences of the limited number of false statements are so great that we should not automatically assume them to be correct. We should however respect them and give a fair follow up to them.

 

[BuffsNYC]

This isn't that complicated. If you're a juror or a judge deciding whether someone is guilty or not, you have to decide the case based on the evidence you hear in the courtroom. Uncle Ken's belief that 90% of complainants are telling the truth may be correct, but it's irrelevant inside a courtroom. Outside of a courtroom, there's no reason not to have a baseline of believing complainants. Of course, we all know there are false complaints, but when prison isn't on the line it's OK to presume the accused did it, based on your own ****ed up (or not) beliefs.

 

[MtnBuff]

This isn't that complicated. If you're a juror or a judge deciding whether someone is guilty or not, you have to decide the case based on the evidence you hear in the courtroom. Uncle Ken's belief that 90% of complainants are telling the truth may be correct, but it's irrelevant inside a courtroom. Outside of a courtroom, there's no reason not to have a baseline of believing complainants. Of course, we all know there are false complaints, but when prison isn't on the line it's OK to presume the accused did it, based on your own ****ed up (or not) beliefs.

Good answer.

My question extends beyond the courtroom though. Do we terminate a persons career advancement soley based on the word of somebody else? Do we deny someone the opportunity to lead an organization based only on the word of another person.

In personal life yes I am going to choose not to associate socially with someone who I think did wrong but do we make decisions that impact a person's life based on another person's statement, even when those statements are "usually" correct?

 

[BuffsNYC]

Good answer.

My question extends beyond the courtroom though. Do we terminate a persons career advancement soley based on the word of somebody else? Do we deny someone the opportunity to lead an organization based only on the word of another person.

In personal life yes I am going to choose not to associate socially with someone who I think did wrong but do we make decisions that impact a person's life based on another person's statement, even when those statements are "usually" correct?

This is where you go off the rails, I think. Let's use Kavanaugh as an example. He's not entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court. Had he not been confirmed, he would've still held a lifetime seat on a powerful Court of Appeals. If I'm in charge of an organization, the standard of proof isn't very high for me to say that I don't want someone credibly accuse of sexual assault to be an executive in that organization. There's something to be said for avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

You keep saying "solely on the word of someone else." You are aware, I'm sure, that there are a lot of people in prison, and some on death row based "solely on the word of someone else."

 

[Uncle Ken]

This isn't that complicated. If you're a juror or a judge deciding whether someone is guilty or not, you have to decide the case based on the evidence you hear in the courtroom. Uncle Ken's belief that 90% of complainants are telling the truth may be correct, but it's irrelevant inside a courtroom. Outside of a courtroom, there's no reason not to have a baseline of believing complainants. Of course, we all know there are false complaints, but when prison isn't on the line it's OK to presume the accused did it, based on your own ****ed up (or not) beliefs.

This.

Also, while I acknowledge that baylor has demonstrated particularly troubling cultural tendencies, you seem willing to believe those victims on the basis of probability (with no legal consideration). The probability outside of baylor is pretty similar I suspect. At the end of the day, who you believe has no real impact (unless you personally know those involved). Why play the odds only some of the time, and rationalize not playing them the rest of the time with a red herring?

 

[MtnBuff]

This is where you go off the rails, I think. Let's use Kavanaugh as an example. He's not entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court. Had he not been confirmed, he would've still held a lifetime seat on a powerful Court of Appeals. If I'm in charge of an organization, the standard of proof isn't very high for me to say that I don't want someone credibly accuse of sexual assault to be an executive in that organization. There's something to be said for avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

You keep saying "solely on the word of someone else." You are aware, I'm sure, that there are a lot of people in prison, and some on death row based "solely on the word of someone else."

When you are talking about individuals in positions of public trust then you can apply a stricter standard. I opposed Kavanaugh specifically for this reason. In the case of Kavanaugh there was also enough other information out there that at least brought into question his judgement and called into question the validity of his denials.

You mentioned the individuals on death row. The word of someone else may have been the key factor but there had to be at least a certain amount of other evidence that went with it.

If they find a body under a bridge in New Jersey I can't walk into a precinct office and say "BuffsNYC did it" with on other corresponding evidence and watch you go to death row. If my story matches up with the other evidence then the jury may believe me and away you go. Two people alone in a room together isn't enough to show or disprove consent. Other associated thing added to that could.

If you are looking at an executive position for a corporation is a single, freestanding accusation without supporting evidence or a pattern of behavior sufficient to disqualify a person from consideration. I would hope not.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Any “believe a victim 90% of the time” guideline may be a good rule of thumb in many circumstances.

But in my observation the percentage becomes variable once celebrity or wealth or politics or rivalry or other bias are factored.

When a New England Patriot fan with a neck tattoo and a bad attitude accuses my sister or daughter or my friend’s wife of assault, I’m probably not giving the same credibility as I would when the story is reversed.

I’d imagine allegations against some Silicon Valley billionaire or professional athlete or politician or famous actor like Leonardo DiCaprio would require proof like video evidence before hitting anywhere near a 90% belief threshold.

But when the accused is a roided up Baylor football player under Coach Art Briles, then there is little question about the veracity of the accuser.

When the accused is a president like Trump or Clinton, the spectrum of belief is all over the place.

 

[Not Sure]

There’s a former CU assistant football coach who is unemployed currently because of some accusations made against him that were never proven to be true. We can believe the accuser, and I think there is truth to her accusations, but the fact remains that he is out of work and was never convicted of a felony.

Why do I bring this up? Mostly to show that justice is a strange thing sometimes. Is the fact that Tumpkin remains unemployed his punishment? He will probably never be a coach again.

 

[BuffsNYC]

You mentioned the individuals on death row. The word of someone else may have been the key factor but there had to be at least a certain amount of other evidence that went with it.

Uhh, no. One witness pointing the finger is enough to convict someone of a crime, including a capital case. Pretending otherwise is hiding your head in the sand.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

**** bailer

 

[Bufffalo1]

There’s a former CU assistant football coach who is unemployed currently because of some accusations made against him that were never proven to be true. We can believe the accuser, and I think there is truth to her accusations, but the fact remains that he is out of work and was never convicted of a felony.

Why do I bring this up? Mostly to show that justice is a strange thing sometimes. Is the fact that Tumpkin remains unemployed his punishment? He will probably never be a coach again.

Update: Joe Tumpkin pled guilty to domestic violence assault spanning all dates from Feb 2015 to November 2016. He was sentenced to jail by Judge Goodbee on April 25th and following his release, he will be on probation for the next 30 months including stipulations of no drugs/alcohol, DV counseling and alcohol counseling. So, his abuse was proven to be true, which is why he is still unemployed in football.

 

[Uncle Ken]

**** bailer

 

[Heywood]

 

[Burrito]

**** Baylor!