True - and it certainly continues to affirm why ABI is alive and well with recruits and those with which they associate.
TSJ Thread
- Status
Maybe in other contexts but to clarify I was referring to federal employees where your point would be inaccurate. It is not relevant to TSJ but if you want to look into it further you can check this out. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...oQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2FyNvsEE-tYmUj9tKChdKd
Bingo. And that was my thoughts on the panel originally- since the Lawrence DA and police department "believed" there was enough available evidence to charge TSJ with this crime, the panel would somehow have to arrive at the decision that they were beyond a shadow of a doubt incorrect, otherwise the panel and the university would be taking on substantial liability if something additionally were to happen with TSJ after he was reinstated. And I just never really saw that as a barrier that a panel specifically put in place to offer protection to the university would be willing to get over unless charges were dropped or significantly altered. It's just too much risk for what almost certainly should be a very risk adverse body.
And if we all think about it, if the panel was to reinstate him, all it would take is a single additional person coming forward alleging TSJ of doing something inappropriate to open up the university to significant lawsuits for allowing for the creation of an unsafe environment. How many of us, if we were to be put in that situation would be willing to take that sort of risk, when the alternative is simply to say there's not enough evidence here at this time to suggest you didn't commit the crime so we will accept Lawrence's findings until more evidence comes available?
I mean this is a mess.
You know I agree with this with one caveat. The defendant in this case should have an ability to present his/her information directly to the board. That was not allowed in this case. If the board is to “live in the space between charge and determination of guilt or innocence” basically as Whitman put it, then the individual has the right to present information that could or would effect the boards decision as the process progresses. This does not appear to be the case with the Ui policy as it stands now?
I will let the real legal minds weigh in here, but it seems to me that many accused would not want say anything to the board as it could then become public knowledge and have some effect on the trial?
In TSJ‘s case he had to go on the offensive so to speak to even get any of this “legal” documentation public. It should have been made directly to this board in my opinion, and I really feel it speaks to his guilt or innocence. Why care about the UI and playing if you were guilty? Try to find a way to settle so he can salvage an ability to play in the NBA at some point in the future? I sure would not have stayed in classes in Champaign if I thought I was guilty in his circumstances?
How is it more unsafe on the basketball court exactly than it is being allowed to attend classes and remain a student at the UI?
To what end would he issue such a statement? For you to feel better?
Okay I see this is more Federal Government, I responded 'cause you just said Government employees.
That's why I thought I'd clarify in my second comment although I'd guess state local counties have similar procedures related to these type of things but am not well versed in those procedures.
I think it comes down to did TSJ admit to consensually having sexual contact with her (he may have already admitted this via texts to the girl, police interviews, etc. and it’s not public)
If he did, then there are 2 potential scenarios:
1. TSJ called the girl over, who told him to touch her for 5 seconds, and then left right away
2. TSJ committed the crime
As much as it pains me to say, scenario 2 seems very feasible if he admits contact occurred, to the point you cannot reinstate him until the trial is completed.
If he did, then there are 2 potential scenarios:
1. TSJ called the girl over, who told him to touch her for 5 seconds, and then left right away
2. TSJ committed the crime
As much as it pains me to say, scenario 2 seems very feasible if he admits contact occurred, to the point you cannot reinstate him until the trial is completed.
theNewGuy
- Dallas, TX
I will say that is definitely something I would change.
The problem with both Josh and the panel is there is a conflict of interest. The fallout in these cases often extends to the jobs and careers of administrators who actions are judged insufficient after the fact. However, they won’t be personally responsible for the $50,000,000 Illinois pays out to TSJ at the other tail of the probability curve of possible outcomes. It is even better for them personally if they can hide behind policy all the way to the case’s eventual conclusion years from now. From their perspective it makes no sense to treat the accused as innocent until proven guilty.
As much as you'd like to think justice in each case is foremost of mind, that's not necessarily how an administration approaches it. Public reaction is a big consideration since reputational harm is a factor. People in those positions are often afraid to make decisions that change the status quo unless they feel they have adequate cover. And for reasons that have been discussed at length in this thread, how they got to this point has a lot of questions.
Not quite from my almost 40 years experience in Local Government most of the disciplinary process are mostly based on due process agreed to during collective bargaining labor negotiations .
Krombopulos_Michael
- Aurora, Illinois (that’s a suburb of Chicago)
My concern was the previous mention of “the act was consensual” we saw from insiders which indicated that some sort of contact occurred between the two. Or another thing that I took away from some of the info that has come out was that TSJ didn’t know who the accuser was and maybe the assumption was a different female he did have consensual contact with accused him. Again, all speculation on my part
It would seem to me the risk is he being a student on campus vs playing or practicing but not sure risk you are intending. If he is a sexual predator, he should be dismissed from school. What happens to a regular student in these circumstances?
A huge problem in our judicial system. If he was poor he wouldn’t have bail, would lose his job, be unable to attend classes. Don’t understand why justice can’t be more timely. Why should it take 6 months to bring to conclusion. Could cost TJ millions and could keep a innocent person with no assets in jail.
TSJ as a basketball player would be claimed to represent the university. Thus allowing him to still represent the university in athletic competition, gave him additional opportunity to commit crimes, thereby creating a "rape friendly" environment at the university because athletic and financial desires overcame protection of potential victims and creates an unsafe environment at the university. That would be my guess for how something like that would be attacked. And again, this has nothing to do with whether TSJ is actually guilty or not, just what the university could possibly be open to. And we can certainly disagree on it, but if the panel truly has the best interests of the university at heart in its decision making process, I just can't think they'd be anything other than risk adverse in this situation.
I am not understanding how texts, phone calls or anything could be had. Based on all the information out there if he was with her it was at most 2 minutes and no words were said. How they exchanged numbers is a mystery to me. Osmosis maybe
you ain't a lawyer who practices in her jurisdiction
I see where your coming from I really do, but I see it more as perception of the university not safety. He is (presumably) in class with female student in the campus with female student every day. If he was a risk it is much greater (just my opinion) on campus than playing basketball. But I do understand your point.
I'm not sure how the texts rumor could be true if they had no interaction outside of the 30-45 seconds mentioned in the affidavit. Only thing I could see is if she tracked down TSJ on Instagram and messaged him there, and then TSJ engaged/responded. If there was any exchange of numbers during the actual incident, it would draw into question other events stated by the accuser.
theNewGuy
- Dallas, TX
Isn't that kind of the point of this panel though? Otherwise, you would just have a black and white rule. If you get charged of a crime, you're indefinitely suspended. If you get convicted or plead guilty to any charge, you're kicked off the team.
It's just my opinion that there is enough evidence/ lack of evidence that would bring doubt to him being convicted. and if that's the case then the university SHOULD unsuspend him, and if there is new evidence, then they can re-suspend him
theNewGuy
- Dallas, TX
Miss Valdez opened up Pandora's box lol
It's been stated that TSJ didn't even know WHO was accusing him until just a few days ago. Assuming that is accurate, I can't see how he would admit to any kind of interaction with a nameless/faceless person who he can't even state for certain he has ever even met.
- Status