RiseAndGrind Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 That’s a bad statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Literally, just stop all sexual activity. The sex was clearly consensual. If that's the case then it's perfectly reasonable to stop the sex, that's a way to get the person to stop taking pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBL_Bills Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Mods, appreciate the merge, but can we get the original "Situation 2" title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, GBL_Bills said: Mods, appreciate the merge, but can we get the original "Situation 2" title? Merged and Title Changed Back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010andBeyond Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, GBL_Bills said: This (hopefully) will backfire. This statement essentially confirms that the act of filming was the issue, not the sex act itself. Meaning expulsion is way way way way out of line Not in the minds of the gold standard slu title 9 office, who unfortunately, are the ones who get to decide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlarry Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 The idiotic title 9 office can't get out of their own way. They wanted a statement out showing they did the right thing. This statement does the exact opposite. It makes their punishment look excessive and the "victim" look like anything but a victim. Westy03 and GoBills73 like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Quote 565.252. Invasion of privacy, penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he or she knowingly: (1) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person, without the person's consent, while the person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or (2) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person under or through the clothing worn by that other person for the purpose of viewing the body of or the undergarments worn by that other person without that person's consent. 2. Invasion of privacy is a class A misdemeanor unless: (1) A person who creates an image in violation of this section distributes the image to another or transmits the image in a manner that allows access to that image via computer; (2) A person disseminates or permits the dissemination by any means, to another person, of a videotape, photograph, or film obtained in violation of this section; (3) More than one person is viewed, photographed, filmed or videotaped during the same course of conduct; or (4) The offense was committed by a person who has previously been found guilty of invasion of privacy in which case invasion of privacy is a class E felony. 3. Prior findings of guilt shall be pleaded and proven in the same manner required by the provisions of section 558.021. 4. As used in this section, "same course of conduct" means more than one person has been viewed, photographed, filmed, or videotaped under the same or similar circumstances pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether at the same or different times. (L. 2002 S.B. 969, et al., A.L. 2014 S.B. 491) Effective 1-01-17 You can't claim a reasonable expectation of privacy when six other people are in the room with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Does this mean anything regarding the appeals? I also found the part about "media attention being sought out by at least three of the accused to be interesting" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, brianstl said: You can't claim a reasonable expectation of privacy when six other people are in the room with you. Is this from the SLU student handbook or is it Missouri law? If Missouri law, this is why I'm assuming no criminal charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRN Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 The statement uses “survivor”, “victim”, and “sexual assault” in one paragraph then only goes on to talk about filming of the girl’s group sex. It’s very misleading and contradicts the rest of the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, slufan13 said: Is this from the SLU student handbook or is it Missouri law? If Missouri law, this is why I'm assuming no criminal charges. MO law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyJumpUp Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, slufan13 said: Is this from the SLU student handbook or is it Missouri law? If Missouri law, this is why I'm assuming no criminal charges. MO Law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 I'm not the only one who thinks that there are people within SLU who encouraged this statement to be made right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRN Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, slufan13 said: I'm not the only one who thinks that there are people within SLU who encouraged this statement to be made right? I would guess SLU encouraged it. Too bad, like anything else SLU has done here, it is garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, slufan13 said: I'm not the only one who thinks that there are people within SLU who encouraged this statement to be made right? No doubt about it. It is SLU's continuation of their counter offensive from yesterday to what board members have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 I am guessing this isn't in SLU's handbook at all. By my calculations it should be in there by the 2020-2021 handbook as there will have to be many collaborative meetings and 2 years worth of discussion on how to word "Dick pics bad." This is all really dumb. The 6 or 7 people originally involved are all dumb. The 'adults' in the situation have turned a dumb situation into a mind boggling dumb situation. SLU's counter offensive has been weak and poorly thought out so far. If they would have handled this in a proper amount of time and a proper "sentencing", I don't think any of this is necessary. Another example of SLU shooting themselves right in the foot. DeSmetBilliken likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 And it is a piss poor counteroffensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 I'm convinced that all 4 players were taking pictures/video and only Graves (assuming he was the one expelled) posted it to social media. There's no other explanation for the punishments. I still think the punishments are completely outrageous and ridiculous but it's the only thing that makes sense to me. The woman basically admitted that the sex was consensual although Weathers probably doesn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlarry Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, slufan13 said: I'm not the only one who thinks that there are people within SLU who encouraged this statement to be made right? Most definitely. Just another miscalculation by the office of the gold standard. Those jokers need to invoke the George Castanza opposite rule. Whatever their instincts tell them to do...do the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindellWest Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, brianstl said: No doubt about it. It is SLU's continuation of their counter offensive from yesterday to what board members have done. Every time I think I cant be any more ashamed of SLU and Pestello, they go and up the ante. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgeldmacher Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 35 minutes ago, White Pelican said: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/slu/woman-in-slu-title-ix-case-releases-statement/article_ec1f936e-60da-56c5-85d9-739a6bfd3f01.html If the women were victims of the guy who was filming, then why were the other men not also victims. If the attorney who released this statement and the university don't understand the ridiculous gender bias that exists here, then a court is going to have to straighten them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleBilliken Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 What.The.Fu**. So, whole issue is not that she didn't know it was being filmed. It's not that she had sex without consent. It's not that she told them to stop filming. It's not that she tried to get away and stop something but couldn't. The is because she didn't specifically ask to be filmed. I mean, if the statement said "I told them no filming". Or, "I saw them filming and i tried to call the whole thing off", I could find myself getting on board with suspensions. But THIS?! She is a TOTAL who is begging for attention at a time when society is eating this stuff up. Edit: not sure why it removed the word, but after TOTAL should read s l u t brianstl likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, NashvilleBilliken said: What.The.Fu**. So, whole issue is not that she didn't know it was being filmed. It's not that she had sex without consent. It's not that she told them to stop filming. It's not that she tried to get away and stop something but couldn't. The is because she didn't specifically ask to be filmed. I mean, if the statement said "I told them no filming". Or, "I saw them filming and i tried to call the whole thing off", I could find myself getting on board with suspensions. But THIS?! She is a TOTAL who is begging for attention at a time when society is eating this stuff up. I was right there with you until the last part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said: If the women were victims of the guy who was filming, then why were the other men not also victims. If the attorney who released this statement and the university don't understand the ridiculous gender bias that exists here, then a court is going to have to straighten them out. It would be interesting to know if any photos were taken by the ladies. Nothing would surprise me in this fiasco.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyser soze Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Welcome to the Victim Generation.................................... I say that knowing that there are people who are really victims of crimes who need all the care and support in the world. But this group of "victims" are being enabled by "educators" who have no idea what the real world is like. See what happens when your boss is not happy with your performance and you get called out, there are no "safe spaces." That's why they all quit so quickly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts