BillyBob1
- Champaign
Pru, you should stop being so shy! Express yourself!
TSJ Thread
- Status
Ryllini
- Lombard
I don’t know if you got your username from the gas station attendant scene in Tommy Boy, but I read your name in that guys accent every time.
Away from the basketball court, Mr. Shannon remains in both the University student conduct process and the Kansas criminal case. These ongoing processes are outside the purview of the DIA. In the event there is a resolution in either of those forums, the University and DIA would evaluate that information and take appropriate action under its policy and consistent with the Court’s Order. While the preliminary injunction remains in effect, absent resolution of the University’s conduct process or the Kansas criminal case, the University expects Mr. Shannon to remain in full status as a University student-athlete and available for basketball practice and competition.
That would seem to imply there is still an ongoing student conduct review that could result in Shannon being suspended again independent of the criminal case. Why is everyone discounting that possibility?
That would seem to imply there is still an ongoing student conduct review that could result in Shannon being suspended again independent of the criminal case. Why is everyone discounting that possibility?
The prosecutor who was supposedly able to cover it was the DA herself. Adds another little wrinkle to everything, I suppose.
Anyways, at the time, Shannon's team was a bit passive aggressive about the court trying to schedule the hearing for March. They were much happier with February. So that fact that they'd be content with a May date now suggests there is probably more to the change than just scheduling.
The scheduling conflict might be absolutely real, but it winding up in May vs much sooner suggests something (and it might not even be that interesting of a something) has made Shannon's side's perspective change.
Isn’t that process months and equally slow like the courts?
I don't know. That was my question, really. What is going to prevent that process from completing sometime in the next couple months? How long does a formal student conduct review typically take?
TSJ will have the ability to utilize his representation in that as well I believe? Based on his lawyers abilities so far I imagine they can present a strong case as well. Especially by then all the evidence the defense requested should be available. At least that’s my understanding. Anything is possible but I get the impression there won’t be much more movement on this for a long while unless there’s some behind the scenes happening.
Can you even imagine.....
I suppose because that would have to mean the University actually wants him to be suspended. My theory is, they are in no hurry since the decision was taken out of their hands. It's not like the University will benefit from his being suspended. They didn't want the negative PR, and the judge gave them a great deflection. I assume they will now just wait for the courts in Kansas to make a determination on the merits of the case.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
So this touches on why I found the judge's decision to be kind of confused and misguided. Whitman made clear in his presser that TSJ was subject to three parallel proceedings:
1. The criminal case in Kansas, adjudicating his freedom from criminal punishment
2. The student discipline process, adjudicating his status as a UI student (and athletic scholarship holder)
3. The DIA process, adjudicating solely and exclusively his ability to participate in athletic activities (not any of his other financial or other benefits as a scholarship athlete)
The decision constantly conflates 2 and 3, and essentially rules that process #3 can only occur AFTER process #2. There is no mention or understanding that they apply to different things. Nor that the student panel kicking him out of school would render the DIA process moot by definition.
The reason that doesn't make a whole lot of sense is the reason that I don't really see the student discipline process as a likely issue - the alleged events did not take place on the UI campus or within its reach or jurisdiction!
One major aspect of these modern student discipline processes, especially when they involve sexual assault like this, is to protect the victim. There is no victim in Champaign to protect. Nor do any campus-bound investigative resources have anything to offer here, I don't see how they would have access to any testimony from the alleged victim, they certainly can't compel her to give any.
Absent a final adjudication in Kansas (which they won't have in time), I don't know what a UI panel would have to kick TSJ out of school and take away his concrete scholarship benefits.
That contrasts with the DIA process which plainly and unapologetically exists to protect the Fighting Illini brand from the harm of bad publicity. Two completely different things.
But now a federal court has ruled that where a suspension harms a revenue sport player's online mock draft positioning, a college sports program is legally compelled to tolerate the ugly and uncomfortable PR nightmare of its star player being on trial for rape.
I hope that brings us on-court success, but as a matter of law I find it truly befuddling, and I am certain Josh Whitman (not to mention the poor UI counsel with egg dripping down the side of their face) does too.
I'm not sure it is that clear cut that the university will just sit back and wait for the courts. I assume there is more to their student conduct process than simply waiting for court findings and that process should probably be followed consistent with whatever they would be doing for any other student.
Because the Judge said that the TRO will remain in effect until further order of the court. So no they cannot suspend TSJ before going before the court.
Tell us how you really feel.....
Your first sentence is mostly correct (except it was a preliminary injunction rather than a TRO), but the final determination in the PI was:
"Defendants are enjoined from suspending Plaintiff from the basketball team without at least affording him the protections of the OSCR Policy."
So the above posts were reasonable in asking whether UIUC will choose to pursue OSCR hearings, and what the timeline would be if so.
Does anyone know who is actually pressing charges? Is it the accuser or is it the DA? It's my understanding that either are able to press charges. Is that correct? I thought I heard that the accuser was not the one pursuing this case, rather it was the DA and her office. Anybody know the answer regarding who is actually pressing charges or pursing this case?
The accuser presses charges, the DA files charges. If I commit a crime against you, the police will ask you if you would like to press charges. If you say yes, the police will file a report and refer it to the DA. The DA will then look things over and if he or she decides there's a case, he or she will file charges. Semantics? Yes. But that's how it works.
If TSJ pleads guilty to any charge stemming from this incident, are we still proud of giving him a hero’s welcome?
Huge lifelong fan of this team, but the certainty of “he’s not guilty” is odd. He may be. He may not be. We simply don’t know.
If he winds up guilty of a crime and the crowd wildly cheered him… that’s embarrassing. At least to me. But I’m just one guy.
Huge lifelong fan of this team, but the certainty of “he’s not guilty” is odd. He may be. He may not be. We simply don’t know.
If he winds up guilty of a crime and the crowd wildly cheered him… that’s embarrassing. At least to me. But I’m just one guy.
The very last line of the Order says. Just before the judges signature.
"This Order shall remain in effect until modified or terminated by a subsequent order."
I should have added, yes the UI can go through the OSCR Policy, but then they still have to ask the court to modify the order.
Last edited:
- Status