Rachac tweets Jordan Johnson is expelled

[snap]

Tap the breaks? Really? What does that even mean?

 

[MooUBaby]

Tap the breaks? Really? What does that even mean?

Read a book! :lol:

 

[snap]

What book you f'n moron? Did you mean to say "brakes" ?

 

[MooUBaby]

What book you f'n moron? Did you mean to say "brakes" ?

I don't know what to do with my hands!

 

[snap]

What book you f'n moron? Did you mean to say "brakes" ?

I don't know what to do with my hands!

I have an idea...break them so you can't post again for awhile.

 

[MooUBaby]

What book you f'n moron? Did you mean to say "brakes" ?

I don't know what to do with my hands!

I have an idea...break them so you can't post again for awhile.

You liberal arts guys kill me, yes I used the wrong word i should of used brakes instead of breaks. What can I say I have the breaks on my mind, you know hunting in the breaks?

 

[snap]

What book you f'n moron? Did you mean to say "brakes" ?

I don't know what to do with my hands!

I have an idea...break them so you can't post again for awhile.

You liberal arts guys kill me, yes I used the wrong word i should of used brakes instead of breaks. What can I say I have the breaks on my mind, you know hunting in the breaks?

Just giving you shit.

Love hunting the breaks. Still trying to draw an archery bull tag over by Ft. Peck. (or, alternatively, a branch anterled bull tag in the elkhorns over by townsend...)

 

[CFallsGriz]

Well Moo baby, you've shed your own light on yourself here, so my work never started.

I'll catch you in a different thread you decide to derail and ruin. You make this easy.

BTW liberal arts is one 4-letter word (figuratively I mean, just so you don't feel the need to deploy that top notch agrarian education) where I work.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I'm very happy Jordan has not been expelled.

Now that that's out of the way, here is the harsh reality regarding the issue of date rape. It is very difficult to prove, even in the best of circumstances. It will frequently come down to the word of the man against the word of the woman. That's just the way it is.

Does that mean we should lower the standard for the burden of proof because we feel bad for the woman? Absolutely not, because a basic principal of our American justice system is the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately for the woman who has truly been raped, she will be subjected to probing questions and the process is not fun. But the fact that she is someone's sister or daughter and we feel bad for her does not alter these facts. Remember, the accused is also someone's son and possibly someone's brother.

So what are we, as responsible women, to do? The answer: we should not put ourselves into vulnerable positions where we can be sexually assaulted and have it come down to a case of our word against someone else's. These situations include inviting a man to our dorm room in the middle of the night, or passing out when drunk at a party or in a man's bedroom. It's just common sense.

Unfortunately, when I express this opinion, I'm accused of blaming the victim and being a big meanie. This is simply not true. On the contrary, I'm suggesting that it's very difficult to establish blame at all.

Not that many generations ago, unmarried men and women weren't allowed to be alone in the same room together. Maybe our grandparents were actually onto something. Women wanted and fought for their sexual freedom. Now they have it. Maybe it's time for them to put on their big girl panties and act responsible by not putting themselves into positions of vulnerability where proof is difficult to establish. I'm not willing to lower the standard of proof to accomodate them and make them feel more comfortable.

Feel free to pass this opinion along to your friends. It comes from a woman.

That is a pretty good post. Thank you.

This is a hard issue. Date rape is a bad thing and is never ok, but Rabid's post is worthy of consideration by a lot of folks.

Here's another way of looking at the issue:

The basic assumption of the legal system is that there is one party in a dispute who is guilty and 100% responsible for the crime, and another party who is totally innocent. While in some cases the responsibility is clear, in most cases the situation is more complex.

The following is an attempt to classify victims according to their relative degree of responsibility and power to control or affect situations. These categories also judge the degree of guilt or responsibility, ranging from total innocence/no guilt, to 100% responsibility /total guilt.

1. Non guilty- innocent victim: This category includes victims who do not share the responsibility of the offence with the perpetrators. These are innocent victims whom we cannot expect to be able to avert the offence by anticipating it or by preventing it.
Examples:

~Children who are sexually or physically abused, or neglected.
~Rape or murder victims when the crime is unforeseen, unprovoked, and perpetrated by complete strangers.
-Severely mentally ill or disabled adults who get hurt or exploited.
-Those who suffer a crime while unconscious.
-Victims of random or rampage shooting.
-Victims of unexpected natural disasters: victims of earthquake in a non-earthquake zone.
-Victims of corporate greed, such as those perpetuated by corporations who sell genetically modified foods which cause cancer, or corrupt banking practices, which scheme people of their savings or homes.

2. Victims With Minor Guilt: This category includes victims who with some thought, planning, awareness, information, or consciousness could have expected danger and avoided or minimized the harm to themselves. They 'could or should have known better.'
Examples:

-Adult victims of repeated domestic violence where shelters are available (after patterns are established and it is no longer unpredictable).
-Marital rape victims after the first few episodes (when the pattern has been established and it is no longer a surprise)
-Women who are raped after choosing to get drunk (the minor responsibility is for electing to be completely helpless and unconscious, at the full mercy of others, in a situation that has the potential to be dangerous).
-Adults who were victimized due to being in the wrong place and the wrong time, where with some awareness, preparation, and caution they could have prevented the assault.


3. Victims who share equal responsibility with the perpetrators: This category includes victims who share equal responsibility with the offender for the harm inflicted on them. These are people who are conscious and aware of the situation and chose to be part of it. They are not caught by surprise, and common sense could have anticipated the damage that occurred.
Examples:

-Co-alcoholics, co-addicts after the initial phase of their relationship (after it has been clearly established that the partner is an addict).
-A man who contracts a sexually transmitted disease from a prostitute.
-Victims who seek, challenge, tease, or entice the perpetrator.
-Willing participants in a Chicken Game, gun dual, or double suicide.

4. Victims who are slightly more guilty than the offender. This category includes victims who are active participants in an interaction where they are likely to get hurt. While they seek the damaging contact, the offender can easily withdraw from the situation, unlike those in category #5, to follow. Unlike those in the previous category #3, the offender is less responsible for the damage than is the victim.
Examples:

-An abusive husband who is killed by his battered wife (he is primarily responsible but the abuse must be viewed also as an interaction, and some responsibility shared between the couple).
-Drunk people who harass sober bystanders and get hurt.
-Cult members who chose to enter the cult as adults and then were brainwashed and harmed. (i.e., Jonestown, Waco).
-Citizens who collude by passivity in their country's atrocious acts and get hurt by other countries armies (i.e. politically inactive German civilians who did not fight the Nazi regime and got killed by the allies army attacks)

5. Victims who are exclusively responsible for their victimization: This category includes victims who initiated the contact and committed an act that is likely to lead to injury. In these cases, the one who inflicts the damage is not guilty and acts in pure self-defense or as expected from his position. This category is reserved for legally and clinically sane adults.
Examples:

-Rapists who are killed by their complete stranger- victims in self-defense.
-Mercenaries who are wounded or killed.
-People who smoke and get lung cancer.
-Suicide by those who are not mentally ill. (Mentally healthy and competent individuals can choose to commit rationally planned suicide for which they bear the full responsibility)

These categories represent an attempt to differentiate among many situations of victimhood. They comprise a controversial, inconclusive, and incomplete grid to determine guilt or responsibility. Demographic, cultural, and personal variables, while not accounted for in the above categories, are nevertheless crucial for the assessment of guilt and responsibility. When evaluating the degree of responsibility, the following parameters must be also included: ethnicity (minorities are more disposed to victimization than those in the majority), gender (women are more disposed to victimization than men), socio-economic status (poor vs. rich), physical attributes (less attractive, weak vs. more attractive, strong), mental status (mentally ill, dysfunctional vs. healthy, functional), familial background (abused, neglected vs. loved, nurtured), cultural values (cultures that promote violence vs. those that promote harmony).

A great many words and a lot of thought to simply say it's not an issue that is he's at fault/she's a victim or vice versa. Or to say that young men should not be held responsible nor should young women. I think that is what has made these and similar discussions so difficult.

I'm sorry, Hannah, but your post is too intelligent, and contains too many shades of gray, to be taken seriously on eGriz. Nice job anyway. :thumb:

 

[HannahO]

I'm very happy Jordan has not been expelled.

Now that that's out of the way, here is the harsh reality regarding the issue of date rape. It is very difficult to prove, even in the best of circumstances. It will frequently come down to the word of the man against the word of the woman. That's just the way it is.

Does that mean we should lower the standard for the burden of proof because we feel bad for the woman? Absolutely not, because a basic principal of our American justice system is the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately for the woman who has truly been raped, she will be subjected to probing questions and the process is not fun. But the fact that she is someone's sister or daughter and we feel bad for her does not alter these facts. Remember, the accused is also someone's son and possibly someone's brother.

So what are we, as responsible women, to do? The answer: we should not put ourselves into vulnerable positions where we can be sexually assaulted and have it come down to a case of our word against someone else's. These situations include inviting a man to our dorm room in the middle of the night, or passing out when drunk at a party or in a man's bedroom. It's just common sense.

Unfortunately, when I express this opinion, I'm accused of blaming the victim and being a big meanie. This is simply not true. On the contrary, I'm suggesting that it's very difficult to establish blame at all.

Not that many generations ago, unmarried men and women weren't allowed to be alone in the same room together. Maybe our grandparents were actually onto something. Women wanted and fought for their sexual freedom. Now they have it. Maybe it's time for them to put on their big girl panties and act responsible by not putting themselves into positions of vulnerability where proof is difficult to establish. I'm not willing to lower the standard of proof to accomodate them and make them feel more comfortable.

Feel free to pass this opinion along to your friends. It comes from a woman.

That is a pretty good post. Thank you.

This is a hard issue. Date rape is a bad thing and is never ok, but Rabid's post is worthy of consideration by a lot of folks.

Here's another way of looking at the issue:

The basic assumption of the legal system is that there is one party in a dispute who is guilty and 100% responsible for the crime, and another party who is totally innocent. While in some cases the responsibility is clear, in most cases the situation is more complex.

The following is an attempt to classify victims according to their relative degree of responsibility and power to control or affect situations. These categories also judge the degree of guilt or responsibility, ranging from total innocence/no guilt, to 100% responsibility /total guilt.

1. Non guilty- innocent victim: This category includes victims who do not share the responsibility of the offence with the perpetrators. These are innocent victims whom we cannot expect to be able to avert the offence by anticipating it or by preventing it.
Examples:

~Children who are sexually or physically abused, or neglected.
~Rape or murder victims when the crime is unforeseen, unprovoked, and perpetrated by complete strangers.
-Severely mentally ill or disabled adults who get hurt or exploited.
-Those who suffer a crime while unconscious.
-Victims of random or rampage shooting.
-Victims of unexpected natural disasters: victims of earthquake in a non-earthquake zone.
-Victims of corporate greed, such as those perpetuated by corporations who sell genetically modified foods which cause cancer, or corrupt banking practices, which scheme people of their savings or homes.

2. Victims With Minor Guilt: This category includes victims who with some thought, planning, awareness, information, or consciousness could have expected danger and avoided or minimized the harm to themselves. They 'could or should have known better.'
Examples:

-Adult victims of repeated domestic violence where shelters are available (after patterns are established and it is no longer unpredictable).
-Marital rape victims after the first few episodes (when the pattern has been established and it is no longer a surprise)
-Women who are raped after choosing to get drunk (the minor responsibility is for electing to be completely helpless and unconscious, at the full mercy of others, in a situation that has the potential to be dangerous).
-Adults who were victimized due to being in the wrong place and the wrong time, where with some awareness, preparation, and caution they could have prevented the assault.


3. Victims who share equal responsibility with the perpetrators: This category includes victims who share equal responsibility with the offender for the harm inflicted on them. These are people who are conscious and aware of the situation and chose to be part of it. They are not caught by surprise, and common sense could have anticipated the damage that occurred.
Examples:

-Co-alcoholics, co-addicts after the initial phase of their relationship (after it has been clearly established that the partner is an addict).
-A man who contracts a sexually transmitted disease from a prostitute.
-Victims who seek, challenge, tease, or entice the perpetrator.
-Willing participants in a Chicken Game, gun dual, or double suicide.

4. Victims who are slightly more guilty than the offender. This category includes victims who are active participants in an interaction where they are likely to get hurt. While they seek the damaging contact, the offender can easily withdraw from the situation, unlike those in category #5, to follow. Unlike those in the previous category #3, the offender is less responsible for the damage than is the victim.
Examples:

-An abusive husband who is killed by his battered wife (he is primarily responsible but the abuse must be viewed also as an interaction, and some responsibility shared between the couple).
-Drunk people who harass sober bystanders and get hurt.
-Cult members who chose to enter the cult as adults and then were brainwashed and harmed. (i.e., Jonestown, Waco).
-Citizens who collude by passivity in their country's atrocious acts and get hurt by other countries armies (i.e. politically inactive German civilians who did not fight the Nazi regime and got killed by the allies army attacks)

5. Victims who are exclusively responsible for their victimization: This category includes victims who initiated the contact and committed an act that is likely to lead to injury. In these cases, the one who inflicts the damage is not guilty and acts in pure self-defense or as expected from his position. This category is reserved for legally and clinically sane adults.
Examples:

-Rapists who are killed by their complete stranger- victims in self-defense.
-Mercenaries who are wounded or killed.
-People who smoke and get lung cancer.
-Suicide by those who are not mentally ill. (Mentally healthy and competent individuals can choose to commit rationally planned suicide for which they bear the full responsibility)

These categories represent an attempt to differentiate among many situations of victimhood. They comprise a controversial, inconclusive, and incomplete grid to determine guilt or responsibility. Demographic, cultural, and personal variables, while not accounted for in the above categories, are nevertheless crucial for the assessment of guilt and responsibility. When evaluating the degree of responsibility, the following parameters must be also included: ethnicity (minorities are more disposed to victimization than those in the majority), gender (women are more disposed to victimization than men), socio-economic status (poor vs. rich), physical attributes (less attractive, weak vs. more attractive, strong), mental status (mentally ill, dysfunctional vs. healthy, functional), familial background (abused, neglected vs. loved, nurtured), cultural values (cultures that promote violence vs. those that promote harmony).

A great many words and a lot of thought to simply say it's not an issue that is he's at fault/she's a victim or vice versa. Or to say that young men should not be held responsible nor should young women. I think that is what has made these and similar discussions so difficult.

I'm sorry, Hannah, but your post is too intelligent, and contains too many shades of gray, to be taken seriously on eGriz. Nice job anyway. :thumb:

Thanks for the kind words! Next time perhaps I'll blend in some misspellings, random references to sandwiches, and a bit of vulgarity to be more mainstream. Seriously, I should probably have been a heck of a lot more brief, but it's a tough concept to cover in a paragraph.

 

[Grizzoola]

Had dinner last evening with a young female relative, who just finished her second year at UM. She is looking forward to her next two years. I brought up the controversy to get her take on it. One thing she said stood out: Neither she nor her friends go to parties put on by football players. I think she even mentioned that they wouldn't go to a party where football players are even present.

I didn't question her about the fact that bad things could happen at a party without football players. But, many women on campus are aware that partying with football players is not a good thing. Don't get me wrong: This young lady has knockout looks and does have good times with her friends. She's no wall flower. In fact, she's planning another trip to the Gorge with male & female buddies.

My point? Women can attend UM, receive a good education, have fun times, and not be subject to sexual assaults, rapes, etc. if they avoid situations where bad things can and have happened. I don't know if her assessment of football players is fair, but apparently they have that kind of rep.

 

[Ursa Major]

That is a pretty good post. Thank you.

This is a hard issue. Date rape is a bad thing and is never ok, but Rabid's post is worthy of consideration by a lot of folks.

Here's another way of looking at the issue:

The basic assumption of the legal system is that there is one party in a dispute who is guilty and 100% responsible for the crime, and another party who is totally innocent. While in some cases the responsibility is clear, in most cases the situation is more complex.

The following is an attempt to classify victims according to their relative degree of responsibility and power to control or affect situations. These categories also judge the degree of guilt or responsibility, ranging from total innocence/no guilt, to 100% responsibility /total guilt.

1. Non guilty- innocent victim: This category includes victims who do not share the responsibility of the offence with the perpetrators. These are innocent victims whom we cannot expect to be able to avert the offence by anticipating it or by preventing it.
Examples:

~Children who are sexually or physically abused, or neglected.
~Rape or murder victims when the crime is unforeseen, unprovoked, and perpetrated by complete strangers.
-Severely mentally ill or disabled adults who get hurt or exploited.
-Those who suffer a crime while unconscious.
-Victims of random or rampage shooting.
-Victims of unexpected natural disasters: victims of earthquake in a non-earthquake zone.
-Victims of corporate greed, such as those perpetuated by corporations who sell genetically modified foods which cause cancer, or corrupt banking practices, which scheme people of their savings or homes.

2. Victims With Minor Guilt: This category includes victims who with some thought, planning, awareness, information, or consciousness could have expected danger and avoided or minimized the harm to themselves. They 'could or should have known better.'
Examples:

-Adult victims of repeated domestic violence where shelters are available (after patterns are established and it is no longer unpredictable).
-Marital rape victims after the first few episodes (when the pattern has been established and it is no longer a surprise)
-Women who are raped after choosing to get drunk (the minor responsibility is for electing to be completely helpless and unconscious, at the full mercy of others, in a situation that has the potential to be dangerous).
-Adults who were victimized due to being in the wrong place and the wrong time, where with some awareness, preparation, and caution they could have prevented the assault.


3. Victims who share equal responsibility with the perpetrators: This category includes victims who share equal responsibility with the offender for the harm inflicted on them. These are people who are conscious and aware of the situation and chose to be part of it. They are not caught by surprise, and common sense could have anticipated the damage that occurred.
Examples:

-Co-alcoholics, co-addicts after the initial phase of their relationship (after it has been clearly established that the partner is an addict).
-A man who contracts a sexually transmitted disease from a prostitute.
-Victims who seek, challenge, tease, or entice the perpetrator.
-Willing participants in a Chicken Game, gun dual, or double suicide.

4. Victims who are slightly more guilty than the offender. This category includes victims who are active participants in an interaction where they are likely to get hurt. While they seek the damaging contact, the offender can easily withdraw from the situation, unlike those in category #5, to follow. Unlike those in the previous category #3, the offender is less responsible for the damage than is the victim.
Examples:

-An abusive husband who is killed by his battered wife (he is primarily responsible but the abuse must be viewed also as an interaction, and some responsibility shared between the couple).
-Drunk people who harass sober bystanders and get hurt.
-Cult members who chose to enter the cult as adults and then were brainwashed and harmed. (i.e., Jonestown, Waco).
-Citizens who collude by passivity in their country's atrocious acts and get hurt by other countries armies (i.e. politically inactive German civilians who did not fight the Nazi regime and got killed by the allies army attacks)

5. Victims who are exclusively responsible for their victimization: This category includes victims who initiated the contact and committed an act that is likely to lead to injury. In these cases, the one who inflicts the damage is not guilty and acts in pure self-defense or as expected from his position. This category is reserved for legally and clinically sane adults.
Examples:

-Rapists who are killed by their complete stranger- victims in self-defense.
-Mercenaries who are wounded or killed.
-People who smoke and get lung cancer.
-Suicide by those who are not mentally ill. (Mentally healthy and competent individuals can choose to commit rationally planned suicide for which they bear the full responsibility)

These categories represent an attempt to differentiate among many situations of victimhood. They comprise a controversial, inconclusive, and incomplete grid to determine guilt or responsibility. Demographic, cultural, and personal variables, while not accounted for in the above categories, are nevertheless crucial for the assessment of guilt and responsibility. When evaluating the degree of responsibility, the following parameters must be also included: ethnicity (minorities are more disposed to victimization than those in the majority), gender (women are more disposed to victimization than men), socio-economic status (poor vs. rich), physical attributes (less attractive, weak vs. more attractive, strong), mental status (mentally ill, dysfunctional vs. healthy, functional), familial background (abused, neglected vs. loved, nurtured), cultural values (cultures that promote violence vs. those that promote harmony).

A great many words and a lot of thought to simply say it's not an issue that is he's at fault/she's a victim or vice versa. Or to say that young men should not be held responsible nor should young women. I think that is what has made these and similar discussions so difficult.

I'm sorry, Hannah, but your post is too intelligent, and contains too many shades of gray, to be taken seriously on eGriz. Nice job anyway. :thumb:

Thanks for the kind words! Next time perhaps I'll blend in some misspellings, random references to sandwiches, and a bit of vulgarity to be more mainstream. Seriously, I should probably have been a heck of a lot more brief, but it's a tough concept to cover in a paragraph.

Don't forget insults and personal attacks on other posters, crazy political machinations and obligatory sexist comments ensuring all that you're a real man!!

Great post!

 

[firstdown-montana...]

Rachac is a joke. Go back to Colorado with your fake little rumor tweets "Hannah Montana State" :rule:

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

YOO HOO LOOK AT ME!



Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2