The problem is that academicians and administrators are making these rules, not people out in the real world with real jobs. And if they screw up, it's not their money going out the door in a lawsuit settlement, it's either comes from the school or the schools' insurance company. And they run no risk of losing their cushy jobs, whatever the outcome.
TSJ Thread
- Status
Michigan State basketball: Terrence Shannon Jr. may return on Thursday
Thursday's matchup could get a lot tougher.
spartanshadows.com
It proves nothing in a court in terms of guilty vs innocent, I agree. But it provides enough reasonable doubt to prevent him from playing this year
Not going to answer that question because clearly you’ve never been to a club lol, it happens frequently
I can'tMichigan State basketball: Terrence Shannon Jr. may return on Thursday
Thursday's matchup could get a lot tougher.
I know every time I’ve been in a club and have a girl in my arm, she is always ok with me waving over other girls and touching on them. All consensual of course.
texillwek
🔶🔹🔸🔷
I think they are a little behindMichigan State basketball: Terrence Shannon Jr. may return on Thursday
Thursday's matchup could get a lot tougher.
Is there any public information about what McCullar, Harmon, or anyone else who was there claim to have seen/not seen (besides Hobson: "I did not see any such thing occur, at all. Nothing remotely close")?
Unfortunately the alleged interaction was very short and the alleged assault would likely have been below/outside of their vision. Even if they never saw her close to him, it's possible it happened when they were looking the other way or going to the bathroom or intoxicated, etc. It would probably increase the burden for the DA to overcome reasonable doubt, but it's unfortunately possible they have (or will have) enough.
A better scenario for TSJ is if they did see something that clearly contradicted her account.
Shhh... don't tell them the tro hearing is on Friday. They'll have to prep for TSJ potentially playing.
Krombopulos_Michael
- Aurora, Illinois (that’s a suburb of Chicago)
skyIdub
Winged Warrior
So we've exhausted so much in this conversation...that we're making up scenarios now?
Any mention of TJ and her kissing (“making out”) during their brief interaction?
I want TJ back as much as anyone. I must admit though, her story is quite plausible. Anyone who’s spent any time around collegiate athletes or even drunk entitled frat boys would agree.
To my mind, this event most likely happened as described by the victim. I’m just hopeful it was a case of mistaken identity and that TJ wasn’t the one who committed the crime. Despite the Kansas definition of rape, I would classify this as sexual assault. Unfortunately, that is a serious enough to keep TJ out of an Illini uniform.
One would definitely think so.
I can think of several different possibilities:
1) The DNA testing has not been completed yet
2) The DNA testing has been completed and matched TSJ (I’m sure if that was the case, it would be known by now)
3) The DNA testing has been completed and there was male DNA, but it did NOT match TSJ.
4) The DNA testing has been completed and there was no DNA found other than the female accuser.
I think the answer is a simple one, but one that people tend not to get behind unless they're personally connected to it. And that's that this is too big of an issue for a university to effectively adjudicate. State or Federal laws should apply, and the university should only take their own individual action against students who violate their own code of conduct that the student acknowledges and agrees to. And that code of conduct could also be challenged for legality purposes.
And while that seems like a good idea, it begins to run into issues with the public when someone did indeed commit a violent crime and there appears to be very substantial evidence of it, yet they haven't been tried yet. The general public tends to detest that idea even if it's legally correct. And so we wind up with cases like this one, which appears to be about the exact opposite. And I'm not sure there's a satisfactory answer here for the general public. It's a mess.
Not a criminal lawyer but I believe that TSJs counsel will have an opportunity to request dismissal for a lack of probable cause at his 1/18 hearing. If a judge in Kansas finds probable cause for the charges, will the 3 non-lawyers from the panel decide otherwise. At best TSJ could hope that the panel retains its own legal counsel to evaluate the charges and advise as to appropriateness of the charging decision of the Kansas DA - i.e. if there is a reasonable likelihood that TSJ could be convicted on the evidence available or would a reasonable DA bring charges on the facts and circumstances in these allegations. I just don't see how a court could require the panel to be an actual fact-finding body as to the truth of the allegations.
Some of TSJ's claims in the TRO motion seem to turn on whether he presents a risk to other students - this the panel could decide as a factual matter.
Since JW's press conference, I have been concerned about the standards for a decision by the panel because he did not provide any explanation at that time. Is it safety of the other students, is it the validity of the allegations, is it the reputation of UI, and what evidence are they allowed to consider and what standard of proof are they required to apply? I haven't read the policy establishing the panel, but I am guessing the standards are very vague (i.e. best interests of UI, its students and the student athletes) and allow considerable discretion. JW seemed proud to have established this policy and it may have worked well when used in the past, but a high profile athlete with financial resources is going to stress test it. Not sure it will pass.
As to whether UI will roll over on the TRO, I would not plan on it. They have an institutional duty to defend it and there are a lot of people associated with UI that don't care about athletics and will have an opposite view of this situation. The UI lawyer also has an ethical duty to zealously represent her client.
As a caution, in my reading of the TRO motion I was impressed by the legal work, but I have no experience with these issues. Making what sounds like an unassailable argument is what lawyers do. It takes time (and money) to craft arguments well. But as I tell my clients when I have written what I think is an artful piece of legal work - don't necessarily believe my BS. Just because it sounds good, does not mean it will survive scrutiny.
One thing I always do, if it supports my client, is argue the bigger policy picture associated with the matter at issue. Here, one thing that causes me pause is that there will be other situations in which allegations are made of serious wrongdoing in which the evidence may be stronger. They need to answer where the line is to be drawn on when a school can take action to suspend a player?
Rape is always a serious allegation, but part of the problem here is that this is one of the least serious rape charges possible - less than a 2 min apparently unwitnessed interaction in a public setting with no physical injury. If TSJ was charged with murder based upon circumstantial evidence, should he be playing unless and until convicted.
TSJ will certainly suffer considerable and irreparable harm if not allowed to play, but is the court going to interfere with the decision of UI as to where they have decided to draw the line in who is allowed to represent the university in athletic competition. That is a big ask.
Some of TSJ's claims in the TRO motion seem to turn on whether he presents a risk to other students - this the panel could decide as a factual matter.
Since JW's press conference, I have been concerned about the standards for a decision by the panel because he did not provide any explanation at that time. Is it safety of the other students, is it the validity of the allegations, is it the reputation of UI, and what evidence are they allowed to consider and what standard of proof are they required to apply? I haven't read the policy establishing the panel, but I am guessing the standards are very vague (i.e. best interests of UI, its students and the student athletes) and allow considerable discretion. JW seemed proud to have established this policy and it may have worked well when used in the past, but a high profile athlete with financial resources is going to stress test it. Not sure it will pass.
As to whether UI will roll over on the TRO, I would not plan on it. They have an institutional duty to defend it and there are a lot of people associated with UI that don't care about athletics and will have an opposite view of this situation. The UI lawyer also has an ethical duty to zealously represent her client.
As a caution, in my reading of the TRO motion I was impressed by the legal work, but I have no experience with these issues. Making what sounds like an unassailable argument is what lawyers do. It takes time (and money) to craft arguments well. But as I tell my clients when I have written what I think is an artful piece of legal work - don't necessarily believe my BS. Just because it sounds good, does not mean it will survive scrutiny.
One thing I always do, if it supports my client, is argue the bigger policy picture associated with the matter at issue. Here, one thing that causes me pause is that there will be other situations in which allegations are made of serious wrongdoing in which the evidence may be stronger. They need to answer where the line is to be drawn on when a school can take action to suspend a player?
Rape is always a serious allegation, but part of the problem here is that this is one of the least serious rape charges possible - less than a 2 min apparently unwitnessed interaction in a public setting with no physical injury. If TSJ was charged with murder based upon circumstantial evidence, should he be playing unless and until convicted.
TSJ will certainly suffer considerable and irreparable harm if not allowed to play, but is the court going to interfere with the decision of UI as to where they have decided to draw the line in who is allowed to represent the university in athletic competition. That is a big ask.
Last edited:
Reasonable doubt is all you need to be not guilty. The thing is. We don't even know what you are speculating is true. I have been in clubs. Her story isn't adding up.
And to add to my argument. She didn't even know if it was him. Her statement said. It looks like him. This is not adding up to a real sexual assault. He used no force? If your legs are closed. Penetration isn't happening and to stop it is easy.
Last edited:
theNewGuy
- Dallas, TX
I think this is exactly why they have that panel... however, it is just really hard to overcome the fact that he got arrested with probable cause.
It just seems like the bar of evidence needed to sway the panel is way too high in a case that is severely lacking ANY physical evidence.
Sorry if this has been said before, but isn’t the purpose of the DIA panel to look over the existing documents/evidence and give a solid determination of guilt based on the facts at hand? The wording “the interim action to withhold you from organized team activities should remain in place pending resolution of the charges against you” is telling me they’re just going with what the court says and they didn’t even review anything. If that’s how they’re going to do things I feel like it makes their panel unnecessary and useless.
201154JC
- Rockford, IL
My exact sentiments. Very well put and spot on.
I would rather vacate the wins and let’s say even a title than ruin a kids life based at least on the information that is present now. Just me, you can undo anything that happens on the basketball court going forward. you can’t sell an airline seat once plane has taken off.
You make good points. Issues like this are too big for anything short of a Court to handle. Of course Universities want and need to protect themselves (the 'Protect The Shield! mentality). But as supposed places of higher learning operating under the United States Constitution... Universities should have a duty to champion the very concept of Innocence Until Proven Guilty. But this doesn't appear to be the case when they act swiftly to quickly punish someone who is as yet not guilty of anything.
And yes, the public may have a problem with how 'things appear'. But that says more about the public having a problem The Public should also be championing the innocence idea and not be so quick and happy to negatively judge someone and think the worst. And that the legal system can drag itself and prolong this agony says more about issues within the legal system itself. So in short... The Public and the Legal System both are at fault here and are contributors to 'The Mess'.
This speaks to human nature and a wide tendency for many of the public to want to eagerly point fingers at each other as some kind of pleasure. Guilty consciences, perhaps?
There is a better answer here than this kind of muddy purgatory going on. And I hope the System is honest enough to admit that and pursue that course.
Right. This strategy was well thought out. The tro is granted and there is no fallout to the university. He filed a legal action, the university fought it vigorously and he won. The tro is not granted and he does not play and the impact on the draft is substantial that will be vesuvius. The lawsuits or potential lawsuits will be flying. He had his shot and he lost. Helps cya for the university. No lose both ways
Exactly what I was thinking. He may have admitted to consensual touching assuming a different woman since they didn't tell him who the accuser involved was. If they found DNA from the hospital visit, they haven't admitted it yet. There is a scenario where TSJ mistakenly admitted to consensual touching. Also find it very possible that the accuser mistakenly identified TSJ since her encounter was so short (only seconds long), there was no conversation, and she only identifed the "perp" through an internet search. Eye witness testimony is so unreliable, especially after drinking for hours. TJ's face would have looked familiar because she did see him that night in the bar, and she was just scrolling through face after face on the various teams. Talk about reasonable doubt.
- Status