TSJ Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3      

DeonThomas

DeonThomas
South Carolina
DeonThomas
Buster Keaton Vintage GIF
 
#7      

doowink

D
doowink
I'm going to be shocked if TSJ is reinstated to the team and would be somewhat surprised if he's permanently dismissed from the program at this point. I expect TJ status to remain pretty much the same (indefinitely suspended) until his first court date, new information comes forward or if something is settled between parties before that time. The difficult situation that JW, BU, and the University is in.....how do we (the athletic department and the University) support TSJ and help him as much as possible without placing ourselves in a position of being bombarded with negative public opinion or some legal repercussions...after hearing from both JW and BU address the situation I'm confident it will be handled correctly
 
#10      

illiniballknower

I
illiniballknower
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.
 
Last edited:
#13      

IlliniKat91

IlliniKat91
Chicago, IL
IlliniKat91
illiniballknower said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#14      

Chase321

C
Chase321
IlliniKat91 said:
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.
Click to expand...
He's never been wrong? I 100% hope he's right, but the point being made about the Kansas statute seems legitimate as a topic of discussion and also seems relatively straightforward. And he's not posting speculation. He's just quoting a statute that seems to call in to question that misrepresentation can be the reason for the charge. I definitely hope the person posting the statute info has missed something because I want 0440 to be correct.
 
Last edited:
#15      

Wade

W
Wade
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.
 
#16      

Warren Carter Fanclub

Warren Carter Fanclub
Warren Carter Fanclub
Wade said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't tell this to my wife.
 
#17      

Qwiksilvur

Q
Qwiksilvur
IlliniKat91 said:
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.
Click to expand...
And not even just with our own team. I’m pretty sure he knew Mike Leach had passed/was passing before it was announced publicly. And he knew it ahead of time by multiple days.
 
#18      

Krombopulos_Michael

Krombopulos_Michael
Aurora, Illinois (that’s a suburb of Chicago)
Krombopulos_Michael
illiniballknower said:
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.
Click to expand...

Considering how the insiders have indicated in no uncertain terms how they and members of DIA feel about the charges, is it not conceivable in any realm that it was misrepresentation re: football vs basketball player and they’re still pushing to charge, hence the strong feelings from them that TJ has been wronged.
 
#19      

Chase321

C
Chase321
Krombopulos_Michael said:
Considering how the insiders have indicated in no uncertain terms how they and members of DIA feel about the charges, is it not conceivable in any realm that it was misrepresentation re: football vs basketball player and they’re still pushing to charge, hence the strong feelings from them that TJ has been wronged.
Click to expand...
Not when the statutes say something that contradicts it. I am not a lawyer, but I can read a statute. I do hope I'm missing something and recognize that I could be. But at the same time it's reasonable for someone to conclude that what insiders are saying is questionable at best given what the statute says. Or do you know how to explain it?
 
#20      

Illinibadge

I
Illinibadge
IlliniKat91 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Literally they both could be right.

Illini0440 likely knows what is going on, and he may know that stupid !!!! is happening, but under Kansas statute, they can't appropriately charge him with misrepresentation unless somehow all football players are gynecologist, the type of misrepresentation that has been indicated is not illegal.

However, what is absolutely possible is that the accuser had 2nd thoughts after the encounter and is now claiming non-consent after the fact. She potentially could be lying, or she may be telling the truth about the force part.

End of the day, at this point until all facts come out, TSJ is innocent and the accuser should be able to press a case based on any legal grievance. The facts, which at this point do seem likely on TSJ side, will slide that continuum to one side or the other.
 
#21      

lstewart53x3

lstewart53x3
Scottsdale, Arizona
lstewart53x3
illiniballknower said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#22      

illiniballknower

I
illiniballknower
Krombopulos_Michael said:
Considering how the insiders have indicated in no uncertain terms how they and members of DIA feel about the charges, is it not conceivable in any realm that it was misrepresentation re: football vs basketball player and they’re still pushing to charge, hence the strong feelings from them that TJ has been wronged.
Click to expand...
If this thing goes to trial, the prosecution will have to prove that Terrence used force or fear to rape her, not whether her hypothetical consent changed when she hypothetically learned that he wasn't a football player. Furthermore Terrence would not even have to defend himself from misrepresentation, which is entirely my point. If a misrepresentation thing happened and the prosecution's entire evidence against Terrence in a charge on force or fear is that he misrepresented himself then the charge is obviously bogus.
 
#23      

illiniballknower

I
illiniballknower
lstewart53x3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This isn't "mis representation falls under rape in Kansas law".
 
#25      

Chase321

C
Chase321
Illinibadge said:
Literally they both could be right.

Illini0440 likely knows what is going on, and he may know that stupid !!!! is happening, but under Kansas statute, they can't appropriately charge him with misrepresentation unless somehow all football players are gynecologist, the type of misrepresentation that has been indicated is not illegal.

However, what is absolutely possible is that the accuser had 2nd thoughts after the encounter and is now claiming non-consent after the fact. She potentially could be lying, or she may be telling the truth about the force part.

End of the day, at this point until all facts come out, TSJ is innocent and the accuser should be able to press a case based on any legal grievance. The facts, which at this point do seem likely on TSJ side, will slide that continuum to one side or the other.
Click to expand...
Agree. This is the closest thing to an explanation that explains the apparent inconsistency. Still doesn't quite square things because this would only explain why she might have changed her story if that indeed did happen. I suppose it's also possible, though unlikely, that the DA is just completely misapplying the law. The DA we know has an established, recent and documented record of bad decisions and professional misconduct. But that would still be pretty crazy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.