No, that's specifically what illini0440 said. I quoted that from him after he told me I have not read the laws.You’re arguing that fact with no one. We all agree with you.
No, that's specifically what illini0440 said. I quoted that from him after he told me I have not read the laws.You’re arguing that fact with no one. We all agree with you.
Pretty much everyone that has posted on this thread is out in left field . . . . with no bat, no ball, and glove . . . .I encourage all of you guys to read ksa 21-5503(e). It basically says that the person accused of rape can't use the fact he was unaware that the accuser did not consent as a defense. I'm no lawyer, but this appears to imply that the accuser did not have to communicate in any way verbally or not verbally that she did not consent. Or she could have communicated consent and then changed her mind without communicating. This appears to be very concerning for TJ's defense or any guy having any sexual relations with anyone. Maybe this clause is unique to KS. Is there a lawyer on the board that can weigh in on this? Maybe I'm out in left field here.
I don't think everyone is agreeing with this. But, if you all are agreeing, then you are saying that the DA is radically misapplying the law or saying that the 0440 isn't talking about a legal misrepresentation in the charge of rape but rather just explaining why the alleged victim had a change of heart. If it's the latter, then that is going to be hard for anyone to prove.You’re arguing that fact with no one. We all agree with you.
This is why TSJ or anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation is in such a tough spot.I encourage all of you guys to read ksa 21-5503(e). It basically says that the person accused of rape can't use the fact he was unaware that the accuser did not consent as a defense. I'm no lawyer, but this appears to imply that the accuser did not have to communicate in any way verbally or not verbally that she did not consent. Or she could have communicated consent and then changed her mind without communicating. This appears to be very concerning for TJ's defense or any guy having any sexual relations with anyone. Maybe this clause is unique to KS. Is there a lawyer on the board that can weigh in on this? Maybe I'm out in left field here.
I’ve already explained to you how this could be a misrepresentation situation without it being a misrepresentation charge, but I’ll do it again:
1: She consensually hooks up with TSJ thinking he is somebody else.
2: After the fact, she finds out the truth of who he is and feels wronged.
3: She goes to the police with a fear/force claim and here we are today.
In this scenario, misrepresentation is the situation, but fear/force is the charge.
Moral of the story. Hang out with girls that like the Illini. Que up the Rooks gif Pru.....
This is why TSJ or anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation is in such a tough spot.
As I said yesterday, I doubt this is a case of "He pinned me down against my will and raped me." Force or fear. All she has to do is say after the fact that she felt afraid or she felt like she didn't have a choice. It could be her word about how she felt versus TSJ's word. That puts a huge burden on TSJ to prove consent.
Hoping he kept his receipts. From what some of the insiders have hinted at, it sounds like he has.
*I'm not claiming this is what actually took place. Just showing how, with the way the laws are written and prosecuted (especially post Me Too) defendants like TSJ face an uphill battle.
Edit: I'm not a lawyer
Oops..sorry, I was looking for the 0440 Bourbon and Tequila thread.
I believe the following are definitions in Kansas Law defining important terms in this matter. Doesn't mean a strong case, a weak case, guilt, or innocence.To help with the unfortunate spread of misinformation,
Terrence was charged under K.S.A. 21-5503(a)(1)(A) which clearly states "
Knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse with a victim who does not consent to the sexual intercourse under any of the following circumstances:
(A) When the victim is overcome by force or fear"
This is has absolutely zero to do with misrepresentation. The subsections that deal with misrepresentations clearly state "
(4) sexual intercourse with a victim when the victim's consent was obtained through a knowing misrepresentation made by the offender that the sexual intercourse was a medically or therapeutically necessary procedure; or
(5) sexual intercourse with a victim when the victim's consent was obtained through a knowing misrepresentation made by the offender that the sexual intercourse was a legally required procedure within the scope of the offender's authority."
Which, obviously does not apply to Terrence's situation. To those saying things such as "mis representation falls under rape in Kansas law", you are wrong when it pertains to situations outside those contexts. Again, outside those two specified scenarios, "Rape by deceit" literally does not exist in Kansas. Here is a quote from the Kansas City Star, "While Kansas does not have a general deception law like Missouri, it does criminalize certain types of deceit when used to obtain sex. Those portions of the law involve the “knowing misrepresentation” of the sex act as a “medically or therapeutically necessary procedure” or if it was a “legally required procedure within the scope of the offender’s authority.”
So no, someone's consent being conditional on thinking someone else is a football player when in reality they are a basketball player is not considered rape in Kansas.
If the lawyer wanted to file a motion to dismiss when when would that happen? Or is that not even a real thing or likely thing before the trial date? I have no idea what I'm talking about, other than it seems like if a DA came up with some completely ludicrous charge I'd think that there would be a way to get a judge to weigh in before a trial that is months down the road.I’ll add one thing: Those expecting something to change on the January 18th court date are going to be disappointed. In this hearing, the judge will simply read the charges and TSJ will enter his plea. There will be no evidence presented nor explanations provided. It’s merely the first step in a long legal process.
I will go with the insider on the information on the case that TSJ is innocent. Which personally I truly believe he is. What I will disagree with is whats being implied is that TSJ will be allowed to play while out on bail on a rape charge. IMO the charge will have to go away for that to occur if this truly is "zero tolerence.We have you versus someone who's so plugged into the DIA we know what's happening with the football and basketball teams before it hits the general public.
I'm going with the guy who's plugged in. I'm betting he's privy to more specifics on this case than anyone parsing the language of Kansas statutes.
Oops..sorry, I was looking for the 0440 Bourbon and Tequila thread.
Is this regarding him being a football player?To explain the legalities a little, the prosecution (and alleged victim) is potentially arguing that consent under false pretenses is not consent. This is a legitimate legal argument. The strength of that argument is what is debatable.
A few things (again I'm no legal expert) but:The burden of proof in a criminal trial lies with the prosecution, though, eh? The defendant must be found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which means the evidence must be so strong that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.
The defense attorney can file a motion to dismiss the charges (or one of the charges). Under the Kansas statute:If the lawyer wanted to file a motion to dismiss when when would that happen? Or is that not even a real thing or likely thing before the trial date? I have no idea what I'm talking about, other than it seems like if a DA came up with some completely ludicrous charge I'd think that there would be a way to get a judge to weigh in before a trial that is months down the road.
Will it change anything about his suspension once he enters a plea of not guilty in a court of law? From that moment, does the University see him as an innocent party until proven otherwise, and is willing to say so publicly? I accept the reality that he will most likely not play again, but I am now invested in the procedural aspect of how this all plays out.I’ll add one thing: Those expecting something to change on the January 18th court date are going to be disappointed. In this hearing, the judge will simply read the charges and TSJ will enter his plea. There will be no evidence presented nor explanations provided. It’s merely the first step in a long legal process.
Yep! I feel he is innocent and wish he could play but unless the charge changes or goes away it is wishful thinking to expect anyone would be allowed to play out on bail on a rape charge. Debate it all you want, be pissed off but unless its dropped or reduced the University isn't going to take that stance even for the Pope.Until something more happens, we are ....
If the lawyer wanted to file a motion to dismiss when when would that happen? Or is that not even a real thing or likely thing before the trial date? I have no idea what I'm talking about, other than it seems like if a DA came up with some completely ludicrous charge I'd think that there would be a way to get a judge to weigh in before a trial that is months down the road.