Mr. Brooks
-
Posts
8,256 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Profiles
News
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Mr. Brooks
-
Article: Twins Roster Projection 2017: Version 1.0
Mr. Brooks replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
His career FIP is 3.71. I don't think you know what the word upside means.- 87 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- brian dozier
- brandon kintzler
- (and 3 more)
-
Levi- nobody has a right to attend a certain school. So why should guilty beyond a reasonable doubt be the standard here? In a criminal case, yes it absolutely should be, because the government is attempting to take away a right or freedom. But when the stakes are suspension/expulsion it's more akin to a civil case.
-
You know that huh? OK. Do you have any evidence to back that up? And I don't mean one sided anecdotal evidence. Do you have any figures showing how often the decision goes against the accused? Any hearing transcripts that we can compare against the decisions? And the burden is on you here because you are claiming a conspiracy that deviates from their stated standard.
-
The article you linked states that Harvard's policy goes beyond what title 9 requires. The Strib is reporting that the university of Minnesota uses the preponderance of evidence standard. They are a reputable newspaper. I am going off their reporting.
-
Schools can't have a code of conduct covering things that are not a crime? So they can't punish students for cheating on a test or plagiarizing a paper? We'll likely never know the details due to privacy laws, but one of the ten only received probation. That tells me that the school likely determined he wasn't involved in the sex act while the other 9 were. And yes that is just speculation on my part.
-
We don't know that reverses the presumption of guilt. You gave one article showing 2 examples that only gave one side of the story. The preponderance of evidence standard does not reverse presumption of guilt. The accuser still has to prove that the violation is more likely than not to have occured.
-
So you make the assumption that the U is lying when they say that they follow the preponderance of evidence standard, and guarantee the accused a hearing and appeal, and I'm supposed to somehow be able to refute your purely speculative assumption? OK. I can't do that. You got me.
-
And this article stating that the due process policy was unchanged by this. http://m.startribune.com/u-to-roll-out-revised-affirmative-consent-policy/322896321/
-
https://policy.umn.edu/operations/sexualassault-appa
-
Regardless of what happened that night, and the outcome of this, I sure hope that I've raised a son that will have the moral compass to say, "you know what guys. If she really wants to have sex with ten guys then she will still want it tomorrow when she's sober."
-
That is not the same policy that the University of Minnesota uses. The article clearly states that Harvard's policy goes far beyond what title 9 requires. Because one private school went too far with their policy that means they are all bad?
-
No, the preponderance of evidence standard does not favor the accuser. What are you basing that opinion on? The examples in the second article only appear to give the accused side of the story. That is not objective journalism.
-
Again, that isn't true. The burden of proof is still on the accuser. That article you linked was nothing but hypotheticals. I still have to prove you took that dollar without my permission.
-
I just want to state unequivocally that I don't presume to know what happened. And the accused players absolutely have the right to defend themselves. I want to make it clear that I'm not assuming they are guilty. My issue is with the rest of the players, who like me don't know what happened.
-
You must have missed ben's post where he said the players might not take her claims seriously because she wanted to hook up with a football player.
-
That article is full of misinformation. Affirmative consent policies do not shift the burden of proof to the accused. They simply clarify what consent is. The contract shown in this article is a gimmick. A lack of one of these contacts isn't proof that rape occurred. Everything covered in affirmative consent is already common sense human decency, this just puts it into policy. This is just more fear mongering. (Not from you, but some media outlets). Affirmative consent is not some outrageous thing that turns everyone into a rapist. It's basic human decency. One simple analogy to explain the policies, in fact the way I explained them to my children, is with money. You ask to borrow a dollar. I say yes and give it to you. The next day you take a dollar from me without asking. That isn't OK. You ask to borrow a dollar. I say sure, grab one from my wallet. You go into my wallet and take five dollars. That isn't OK. These are pretty simple, basic, non controversial principles. Somehow when we try to apply them to sex people freak out.
-
Her previously trying to hook up with a football player (which is pure speculating on your part) makes it impossible to be raped? This is a disgusting double standard in our society. When men actively pursue sex it is normal and in fact something of an accomplishment. But when women do it they are sluts,and must have nefarious reasons for it. I suppose when men are attracted to, and try to have sex with a beautiful woman, the only possible reason is that they are hoping to get a future supermodel pregnant? Of course that would be silly to suggest. As for the videos, they cover a combined 90 seconds. Isn't it possible that her attempts to stop them occurred during a time frame that wasn't recorded?
-
The University investigation wasn't complete at that point.
-
The reason due process is so important in the legal system is because the government is attempting to take rights and/or freedoms from a person. The university isn't attempting to do that. There is no right to play in a football game.
-
The key word after your bolded part is "and". They want due process AND the suspensions lifted. Not "or". That word matters. It matters a lot because it implies they want the suspensions lifted no matter the process or the facts of the case. And again, with the privacy laws that the University is bound by, how do you propose the process be handled? Perhaps they have evidence that they can't legally share.
-
For starters, consenting to sex with one person is not consent to all of his friends. Can we agree on that? Her description of what happened (I begged them to stop) is rape no matter how you define it. I hope nobody is actually arguing that once a woman initially consents to sex she forfeits the right to stop consenting at a later point. That is what "ongoing consent" means. It is not arbitrary or ridiculous. It doesn't mean a person has to perpetually keep asking for consent. It means a person has the right to withdraw consent at any point.
-
The University is bound by privacy laws. This isn't a court of law, these are the policies these players accepted when they enrolled at the University. I guess I don't understand what they are protesting. More transparency? The university is handcuffed in that regard by privacy laws. Due process? This isn't a court of law. University punishment procedure doesn't entitle these players to the same type of rights and due process as they would be guaranteed in a criminal proceeding. (The rights that the ACLU stands up for in your KKK example.) I thought their demands were that all suspensions be dropped, not just more transparency? That doesn't jive with the idea of them protesting the process only.
-
Consent has to be ongoing and affirmative. 90 seconds worth of video is never going to be able to show that it WASN'T rape. I've never claimed that she is telling the truth. I've said she's either lying or it was rape. I think some are mistakenly thinking that I believe I know what happened. To be clear, I don't. My original point was that her statements, that I hadn't seen before, eliminates some of the grey area that might have been a consideration before. That is all.
-
No, my quote is not factually incorrect. Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and prosecutors don't bring charges unless they think they can get a conviction. The prosecutor could believe the victim and still not have enough evidence to bring charges. His personal opinion- which is what I am referencing, can be different than his professional judgement. Did you read the article? Given her quotes can you tell me what grey area there is besides rape and her flat out lying? She didn't say she was confused or doesn't remember. She says she begged them to stop and they didn't. That is rape with no room for exception. Unless she's flat out lying. But fine. If you want me to retract the Wolitarsky argument I will. Instead of giving these guys an out (being uneducated in their stand), I'll instead assume that all 100+ players have no problem potentially taking the side of rapists. The players who weren't there when it happened don't know if it was rape or not, just like us. Many of these guys will have daughters one day. If it turns out that a rape did occur, I don't envy the day that they have to look their daughters in the eye and explain to them why blind loyalty to their teammates is more important than a woman's right to not be gangraped.
-
Prosecutors don't bring changes unless they think they can get a conviction. My quote is an opinion of degrees. The quote from Wolitarsky is factually incorrect. Sure, I understood his point, and perhaps he just misspoke, but don't you think these guys should be pretty sure exactly what they are standing for if they are going to make this stand? I mean, if they truly (incorrectly) believe these players were "found not guilty" then they are severely misunderstanding the cause they are supporting. It's a huge difference Chief, not some nitpick.
