NewCliche21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Yes, I said I was done, but I'm not. Get over it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dah-Dee Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Yes, I said I was done, but I'm not. Get over it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruinSkin Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I'll just straight up quote you the USC policy on sexual assault. DefinitionsFor the purposes of this policy, sexual assault is defined as any sexual act perpetrated upon a person without her or his consent, where the assailant uses physical force, threat, coercion, or intimidation to overpower or control the survivor; where the survivor fears that she or he or another person will be injured or otherwise harmed if she or he does not submit; where the survivor is prevented from resisting due to the influence of alcohol or other drugs; or where consent is otherwise not freely given. A sexual act includes, but is not limited to, actual or attempted intercourse, sexual touching, fondling, and groping. The inclusion of alcohol was the X factor in this particular case. Many men and women have hooked up while under the influence of alcohol (beer goggles, anyone?), but that does not necessarily imply sexual assault. Date rape is disgusting. No means no. I'm totally on board with all of that, and you won't hear me disagree. Sexual assault is classified as rape when vaginal, anal or oral intercourse takes place without the consent of the person penetrated. This includes penetration by a foreign object. In Mark's case, it didn't get classified as rape. As for the suspension thing, Duke's lacrosse team was suspended. It's a "shoot now, ask questions later" approach that MANY universities take these days. They want to be very vigilant and be sure not to ruffle any feathers. Imagine if the Duke guys were found guilty and continued to play the season, the crap would've surely hit the fan then. A complete public relations nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theredskinsfan Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Sanchez and Colt with the Sex Assault cases...geeez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeannyTayTay21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I dont want this thug on my team. Raping a woman is a worst crime than dog fighting. the charge wasnt rape. and some girls target people like sanchez with this kind of stuff. It hasn't happened since and he seems like an overall good guy. That said, I want a LB or OL, but if all our boys our taken by 13, I wouldnt shed a tear if we got him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 the charge wasnt rape. and some girls target people like sanchez with this kind of stuff. It hasn't happened since and he seems like an overall good guy. That said, I want a LB or OL, but if all our boys our taken by 13, I wouldnt shed a tear if we got him :doh: I guess that everyone gets a freebie, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 :doh:I guess that everyone gets a freebie, right? No. Just people who aren't actually tried or convicted. You know, actually found guilty of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 This is a non-issue.... Charges dropped and never filed.What the *Do not attempt to circumvent the profanity filter* country yall live in? Are we Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? FFS folks.... Americans continue to amaze me. Read the Constitution. Tall order for some of you I am sure. FightingIrishman: I think it is you who needs to re-read the Constitution. The Constitution does not prohibit employers from discriminating against prospective employees because the employer thinks that candidate has character issues or is a dumb *****. The Constitution does not in any way shape or form prohibit me from saying we shouldn't draft Mark Sanchez because he may have committed a felony. The Constitution does not in any way shape or form prohibit the Redskins from refusing to draft Sanchez because he may have committed a felony. The Constitution limits what the GOVERNMENT can do to citizens. Just as people are free to hold grudges against OJ, people are free to say we should avoid drafting people with "character red flags." No, I am not saying Sanchez did in fact rape a woman. No, I am not saying that rape is akin to murder. I am simply saying that a team may and should refuse to use a 1st round draft pick on a guy with character flags, even if there is no underlying conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
instinct21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 thats my boy! Lets draft him now! +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 No. Just people who aren't actually tried or convicted. You know, actually found guilty of something. So, do you really believe that a team cannot and should not yank guys off of their draft boards for "character issues" unless a jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the draft prospect engaged in behavior which raises such issues? That's ridiculous. Teams do and should remove guys from their boards based on events which were never litigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Uh, Colt Brennan ring any bells? That didn't stop a lot of people around here from wanting him to be a Skin, or even a starter for that matter. Sanchez in the 6th rd.:thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 No. Just people who aren't actually tried or convicted. You know, actually found guilty of something. I hear OJ is contemplating a comeback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dah-Dee Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I hear OJ is contemplating a comeback. Definitely; he's coming back to his cell from dinner right about now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modazfuk Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 None of the posted links describe in any detail exactly what kind of "sexual assault" was alleged against Sanchez. Nowadays, if a horny dude just grabs the behind of female, they call that sexual assault, sheesh. With Brennan, it was groping while he was drunk freshman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dah-Dee Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 None of the posted links describe in any detail exactly what kind of "sexual assault" was alleged against Sanchez. Nowadays, if a horny dude just grabs the behind of female, they call that sexual assault, sheesh.With Brennan, it was groping while he was drunk freshman. This was posted earlier in the thread, from Wikipedia: "The District Attorney's office released the charge evaluation worksheet that said the alleged victim in the case said she consented to kissing and petting on Sanchez's bed, and that she repeatedly refused Sanchez's advances to have intercourse with her but continued the other activities with him when he complied; the woman later spent time with other students without mentioning an incident and later told her mother who reportedly called police later in the morning." There are a couple of different articles also footnoted on the Wikipedia page that discuss the incident: Mark Sanchez page at Wikipedia Here's an excerpt from one: "Los Angeles County prosecutors have declined to file charges against USC freshman quarterback Mark Sanchez, who was arrested in April in connection with an alleged sexual assault. In a charge evaluation worksheet, the prosecutor said the woman admitted to "consensual kissing and petting" in bed and taking off her shirt and bra after Sanchez had entirely disrobed. She also acknowledged staying in bed with Sanchez after he repeatedly tried to have sex with her, according to the prosecutor. A couple who were in the next room during the alleged assault were unaware of any problem, according to the prosecutor. Afterward, the woman spent 20 minutes with the couple and "did nothing to convey through words or conduct that she had been assaulted," Taklender wrote." Article link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 So the kid had some drinks while in college? How many of you guys went to college? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 No. Just people who aren't actually tried or convicted. You know, actually found guilty of something. Yeah like that Young Kennedy kid back in the 90's. The family and media saw to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 If a woman says no, you kids do realize you are supposed to stop, RIGHT??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modazfuk Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 This was posted earlier in the thread, from Wikipedia:[/url] Pretty much what I thought which is much ado about nothing. The way some people react is like Sanchez is/was a danger to society. So the kid had some drinks while in college?How many of you guys went to college? :doh: Exactly! I think these guys bashing Sanchez, if they went to college, must have stayed home with mom and dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dah-Dee Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Pretty much what I thought which is much ado about nothing. The way some people react is like Sanchez is/was a danger to society. Shhhhhhhh, careful..... "they" will hear you. :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dah-Dee Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 If a woman says no, you kids do realize you are supposed to stop, RIGHT??? I'm usually very skeptical of star athletes who appear to have a sense of entitlement, can't/won't take no for an answer on anything, but I have to admit that the investigative report -- at least that part quoted/paraphrased in media accounts -- makes it appear that during the incident in question, she said yes to certain things, no to others, and he respected that -- 'we can do this and this, but not that' -- so they did this and this but not that. Doesn't *sound* like it was as simple as her saying "stop," but rather, "keep doing this, but don't do that." Little more complicated, I suppose. In any event, he was not charged, so I *think* we have to give him the benefit of the doubt given the way our justice system works -- he certainly wasn't "proven guilty." :whoknows: Edit: For the record, though -- yes, absolutely: no = stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feeshta Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think people have their wires crossed on what sexual assault truly means, because it has such a broad range of things that fall under it. Basically it is any unwanted sexual attention up to the point of, but not actually including forcible sexual intercourse, which is obviously rape. Sexual assault can be something as simple as touching a woman's breasts without permission. Wrong? Yes, certainly, but this is nowhere even remotely close to Rape. Some things that fall under sexual assault could be very close to rape, and equivalent in malicious intent on the part of the person committing them. This does not appear to be one of those cases. This appears to be a case of a male just not quite understanding or wanting to believe that the line had been drawn. Eventually he did get the message, and the female chose to stay with him through the whole process of her own accord. This is not the sort of thing that gets prosecuted, because it is not what the law was written to stop. I find it extremely doubtful that those writing these laws intended for anyone to ever go to jail or be demonized for misinterpreting a sexual situation and taking things a little to far for their partner's tastes. These sorts of things happen in every town in the country on a nightly basis, and with the exception of habitual offenders who don't learn, nobody deserves to be severely punished for them. Especially when these things come in association with sexually charged situations such as the one outlined in Sanchez's case. It is impossible for a man to know how far a woman really wants to go in a situation like that, and vice versa. In one instance his advances are accepted and returned in kind. In another the female makes it clear that it is not ok and the situation is ended, in others one or more party might not know what they really even want. It complicated, and people's feeling are going to get hurt. Being hurt (emotionally) in a situation like this does not mean a sexual crime was committed though. Bottom line is that things happen in these sorts of situations that make people unhappy at times, especially when young people and alchohol are involved. It does not make the male who's sexual advances were not welcomed a sexual predator, deviant, or even remotely a rapist in 99% of the cases, even though they could under our laws be convicted of sexual assault. Sometimes people take things too far in playing the victim. This appears to be one of those times. It also appears to be a case of an overreating mother. Who ever heard of that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloffs Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Again: It's happened to people close to EVERYONE. One in four women, man. Do you know how staggering a number that is? One in four.I have no vendetta against anyone; I have a vendetta against people who think that it's a non-issue that's blown out of proportion and doesn't matter because we can't "prove" anything. Nothing infuriates me more than people spewing inaccurate and dangerous "views" on the subject. Wait. If those statistics are from the 80s then you're misusing the data. You're suggesting that one in four women get sexually assaulted TODAY. Of course, you don't outright say that, but there's no point in prancing that ratio around if it didn't hold any weight today. However, the fact is, those numbers are nearly 20+ years old. Hey, the ratio may have gotten worse (which, it probably has), but some updated numbers would help your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.