3 USNA Football Players Face Sexual Assault Probe

[Pima]

Leave the he said, she said alone for a minute.

Here's something that sent off alarms to me regarding this incident.

Later that night, Ms. Tisdale told her friend that rumors were flying around campus that several football players had had sex with her at the party. Social media also quickly began to play a role in spreading word around campus. Ms. Tisdale said that a football player showed her a private Facebook page on which some midshipmen had posted suggestive comments that appeared to be about the episode.

Not a lawyer, but couldn't they subpoena these pages?

With the encouragement of a sympathetic faculty member, the woman says she finally decided to speak up. In January, she told investigators from the N.C.I.S. that she was prepared to tell them everything she knew. She also hired Ms. Burke, who says she began meeting with Navy investigators as well.

In cooperating with the investigators, the victim agreed to secretly record conversations with some of the football players, including one by telephone the day before President Obama came to deliver his graduation address at the Naval Academy last Friday, she said.

I believe her more than FB players, because I don't think they would go to the level of secretly recording conversations without some form of foundation.

Not a lawyer, so no bashing me for ignorance in this issue.

Final question is about FB. If they are found guilty, and USNA knew it occurred, but did not suspend them, what happens to the FB team?

The female midshipman met with a chaplain at the academy, and then an academy sexual assault counselor. The counselor told her that she had already heard about the episode from five or six people, whom the counselor did not identify, but said none had provided the woman’s name, the midshipman said.

If the sexual assault counselor did not inform the academy, I understand they can't be held accountable, but if they did, and they informed the coach, what happens from that point?

FB is big money. Television royalties are alot. Could USNA FB pay a higher price if it comes out that they were informed and did nothing? Penalties.

 

[MemberLG]

Hmmm.

It certainly sounds like you are assigning a degree of blame to the victim.

How else could anyone interpret these comments:

"Which includes not putting yourself in a position of compromise."

and

"Be responsible for your own actions."​

Sounds like you are taking a position that she wouldn't have been raped had she not been drinking, therefore she shares some of the blame for the crime?

Are you really saying that?

If not, then please explain what "responsible for your own actions" and "not putting yourself in a position of compromise" actually mean...

I read it as things one can do to protect self from possible sexual assault.

Christcorp stated

"But again, I want to impress my point that i don't care what's "Legal". "

I be politically incorrect as to say wrong is wrong. If an underage cadet/midshipman goes off post without permission and drinks PERIOD, it is wrong. Something else happens, drinking doesn't suddenly become "not wrong." My question is how we address the misconduct, while not blaming or punishing the victim? In a way lettting 10 gulity people go free to protect one innocent is the right thing to do, but what if we are talking about 11, 50, 100, or more guilty

 

[Luigi59]

I simply said, that "IF" Alcohol is found to be a contributing factor in many of these cases, then maybe people need to be more responsible with their actions. "Both Parties".

Take the "IF" away.

Let's make it 100% certain -- alcohol was a factor. Let's suppose that without question, beyond all shadow of doubt the victim was thoroughly intoxicated....

Does that in ANY way make the victim responsible for being raped, or in ANY way lessen the actions of the accused?

By your consistent use of the phrase "both responsible for their actions" one can only assume that you believe the victim is in some way responsible for what happened to her!

Again, if you mean something else, please explain because you have done nothing but assign a degree of blame to the victim by continuing to talk about the responsibility of "both parties."

 

[osdad]

I've heard it said that up to a point, alcohol "allows" one to behave in a certain way it does not "make" someone do something they would not otherwise do.

All sailors have had it driven into them that they are responsible for their shipmates. Where were her's?

If they say it's because they didn't want to get in trouble for underage drinking then the NA needs to do something about their leadership/moral training. Underage drinking is wrong and should be dealt with. Leaving a drunk shipmate to fend for him/her self is much worse. In the first case perhaps restriction or extra duty is justified. In the later case, imagine what would happen if: "Miss YYY, did you know Miss ZZZ was drunk? Yes Sir. "Did you leave Miss ZZZ at the house?" Yes Sir. "Please pack up you personal belongings. You are dismissed from the Academy."

And a "football house"? One of many known such houses? Really? If true, it's time to give a firm jerk on the reigns of the FB program.

 

[MemberLG]

If the sexual assault counselor did not inform the academy, I understand they can't be held accountable, but if they did, and they informed the coach, what happens from that point?

The current DoD sexual reporting procedure includes restrict vs unrestricted.

Basically, restirct reporting means that the victim decides what happens. Something like, I want counseling and assistance, but I don't want my chain of command to know. Unrestricted reporting means certain things will happen, regardless of the victims desire.

Your scenairo, the sexual assualt counselor should get fired as I don't see how the coach will be in the information loop.

 

[Christcorp]

Luigi; you are trying to narrow down all comments to this one particular case. What I and many others have posted is generalities. Meaning; if you are responsible for your own actions, you can minimize the potential for such things happening. There are too many "IF's" in this case and many other like it.

No, there is no excuse for rape. And the accused, if found guilty, should be held accountable. But I was speaking of individuals being responsible for their actions. You asked if this particular woman being totally intoxicated made her "Responsible" for being raped? No. In no way was she responsible. But did she increase the odds of some sort of incident happening that involved her? Yes. If you walk down the dark alley at 2am by yourself, you increase the odds of some sort of incident happening to you. If you drink prior to driving, you increase the odds of some sort of incident happening to you. By this woman drinking in excess and becoming totally intoxicated and not having others watching her back, she definitely increased the odds of some sort of incident happening to her.

If you can't see the difference between that and "Blaming the victim", I don't know what to tell you. Others seem to be able to get it. Including 2 respected ladies on this forum. I am not taking the guilt or actions of the acuser away. I'm not trying to say that the accuser is to blame. Simply saying that if she was more responsible for her actions that night, there's a good chance we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And on a side note: Something similar to what buddy says that concerns me. "Because I've seen it before first hand". There's a difference between getting intoxicated and being "Taken Advantaged of" (In this case raped)..... And getting intoxicated and doing something really stupid that you "REGRET" later. (And possibly presenting a recollection that doesn't portray the stupidity and bad choices you made). AGAIN!!!! NOT BLAMING THE VICTIM in this particular case. Speaking generically because I care about the "INCIDENT" MORE than I care about who is LEGALLY LIABLE and what the law says. When stupid or bad things happen to/by you, many times they are there to haunt you for the rest of your life. I'd rather concentrate on eliminating the potential than creating excuses. And while being intoxicated is NOT an excuse for being raped; it IS an excuse for putting yourself in a position for a possible incident to happen. And I'd rather see no excuses. Especially by the victim. Life can be hard enough as it is.

But you are correct luigi. A person has every right in the world to get totally trashed from alcohol. A person has every right in the world to walk down dark alleys at night in the wrong part of town. Every person has the right to go to a bar, get drunk, and get stupid. And they don't deserve to be raped, mugged, beat up, etc... Everyone has the right to be stupid. No argument there.

 

[Buddy]

"Let's make it 100% certain -- alcohol was a factor. Let's suppose that without question, beyond all shadow of doubt the victim was thoroughly intoxicated....

Does that in ANY way make the victim responsible for being raped, or in ANY way lessen the actions of the accused?"

What it does is cloud the question of consent. If the accuser was thoroughly intoxicated and consented and the accused was also intoxicated (making his judgment similarly clouded) and he considered her consent was freely given, then, yes, I do think that "lessens the actions of the accused." Why should her intoxication (and this assumes she got to that state through her own non-coerced decision to drink) render her consent ineffective when the accused's state of intoxication does not similarly excuse him when he thought she was consenting?

 

[MemberLG]

Does that in ANY way make the victim responsible for being raped, or in ANY way lessen the actions of the accused?

In a legal sense, they become factors. Perhaps not responsible, but "fractionally" responsible. Perhaps not lessen, but "fractionally" lessen.

From UCMJ 2012 edition,

Rule 412. Sex offense cases; relevance of alleged victim’s sexual behavior or sexual predisposition
(a) Evidence generally inadmissible. The following evidence is not admissible in any proceeding involving an alleged sexual offense except as provided in
subdivisions (b) and (c):
(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior.
(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim’s sexual predisposition.
(b) Exceptions.
(1) In a proceeding, the following evidence is admissible, if otherwise admissible under these rules:
(A) evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of
semen, injury, or other physical evidence;
(B) evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim with respect to the person accused of the sexual misconduct offered by
the accused to prove consent or by the prosecution;
and
(C) evidence the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the accused.

or

if the accused gets a good lawyer, the alleged offense could be anywhere from rape to abusive sexual contact.

 

[LineInTheSand]

The current DoD sexual reporting procedure includes restrict vs unrestricted.

Basically, restirct reporting means that the victim decides what happens. Something like, I want counseling and assistance, but I don't want my chain of command to know. Unrestricted reporting means certain things will happen, regardless of the victims desire.

Your scenairo, the sexual assualt counselor should get fired as I don't see how the coach will be in the information loop.

Correct. A counselor would be restricted reporting while if she mentioned anything to her chain of command, it's unrestricted.

 

[Christcorp]

I think most of us agree that "What's Legal" isn't as important as preventing individuals from being assaulted in the first place. Sexually, physically, verbally, etc... Not everything can totally be prevented, but most things can. And individuals have to take the lead in that prevention when it comes to their own safety.

I know a lot of people say that even though things like underage drinking is against the law, illegal, against academy rules/policies, that it's "Unrealistic" to expect a 18-20 year old to refrain. I may disagree with this, but I will give the benefit of the doubt and say that could be 100% correct. But I don't have to agree that it is also "Unrealistic" for 18-20 year olds; especially cadets; to use common sense and be responsible. Especially for themselves and their own actions. This doesn't take away any of the blame from the accused, (Assuming they are guilty). Simply saying that if you don't bring you keys/car, you can't get caught with a DWI. If you don't walk into a U of Wyoming stadium with a Colorado State University jersey on you won't get heckled. If you don't walk in downtown harlem with a rascist shirt on, you won't get chased. There's a lot of things we can do that we may be legally protected to do; that doesn't make it smart.

That I think is the difference in opinions here. It's not a black and white thing. Just because a person is, or makes a, stupid decision, doesn't take any of the blame away from the person who comitted a crime. The accused should definitely be held accountable if found guilty. But at least others might be able to learn from the "Mistakes" made by the victim. I've taught quite a number of self defense classes for both men and women. Martial arts as well as firearms. And the first thing always taught was: "How to minimize the chance of becoming a victim".

 

[BlahuKahuna]

The issue with the "female cadets need to make better decisions" line of thought is that it makes the assumption that male cadets are potential rapists. An academy with female cadets who are hyper-vigilant against potential attacks still doesn't solve the problem.

 

[Buddy]

"The issue with the "female cadets need to make better decisions" line of thought is that it makes the assumption that male cadets are potential rapists."

Not necessarily. It isn't just that it is a bad decision to get drunk because some guy might rape you in your incapacitated state. It is also that you might make a decision that you later regret--- to have consensual sex. People make stupid decisions when they are drunk. Doesn't mean that the male cadet is a rapist -- at least in my personal opinion.

 

[catchthefever]

The issue with the "female cadets need to make better decisions" line of thought is that it makes the assumption that male cadets are potential rapists. An academy with female cadets who are hyper-vigilant against potential attacks still doesn't solve the problem.

Huh???

Does that mean that if I have a son at an academy and I advise him not to get ridiculously drunk which could potentially lead to consensual drunk sex with a female cadet who could possibly later regret the encounter and report it as sexual assault to minimize her embarrassment ... would that mean that I am making the assumption that all female cadets are loose liars?

 

[Christcorp]

The issue with the "female cadets need to make better decisions" line of thought is that it makes the assumption that male cadets are potential rapists. An academy with female cadets who are hyper-vigilant against potential attacks still doesn't solve the problem.

I guess we'd have to see some stats that shows "Forced Assaults" whereby it was obvious that alcohol wasn't a contributing factor.

Also, I think your perception that female cadets making better decisions implies male cadets are potential rapists, is completely wrong. The same advice should be given to females at a civilian university, a female moving and working in the inner city, etc... Like I said, I've taught self defense classes to women AND MEN; and the first thing I/we teach is how to minimize your chances of becoming a victim. E.g. Where you go; don't go by yourself; what you where; (Including guys who where certain clothes); how you speak; etc... It's obvious that more sexual assaults/rapes are going to happen whereby the female is the victim instead of the male. But rape isn't the only type of incident that can happen to an individual who doesn't make good decisions.

P.S. Here's an article from 2 years ago where a MALE soldier was gang raped by OTHER MALE soldiers. Of course, such articles aren't seen as much as female rapes by men.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/03/the-military-s-secret-shame.html

According to this article, possibly the majority of rapes in the military are AGAINST MEN.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...committed-military-2011-men-article-1.1150235

 

[Maplerock]

Buddy said it...

What it does is cloud the question of consent. If the accuser was thoroughly intoxicated and consented and the accused was also intoxicated (making his judgment similarly clouded) and he considered her consent was freely given, then, yes, I do think that "lessens the actions of the accused." Why should her intoxication (and this assumes she got to that state through her own non-coerced decision to drink) render her consent ineffective when the accused's state of intoxication does not similarly excuse him when he thought she was consenting?


What seems to be lost here if it was reported correctly is that the accuser (possibly a victim) does not remember what happened. She remembers some things, but no assault or rape. What if... while inebriated she gave consent, but doesn't remember? What if the person or persons given consent were inebriated too? Has a crime occurred because she now regrets what happened?

If the accused had no consent, they should be punished severely. At this point however I do not think anyone can verify that. What if all involved were under the influence to the degree that no one could remember?

I am a nondrinker. Never have been a drinker. Don't understand why someone would drink so heavily as to lose cognitive abilities. The academy will no doubt address all of this with stricter rules and harsher penalties for drinkers, partiers, and football houses.

As to those accused, I will not stand in judgement, and I don't think anyone should until when or if the claims of the case are substantiated. Lots of food for thought here.

 

[pathnottaken]

"The issue with the "female cadets need to make better decisions" line of thought is that it makes the assumption that male cadets are potential rapists."

Not necessarily. It isn't just that it is a bad decision to get drunk because some guy might rape you in your incapacitated state. It is also that you might make a decision that you later regret--- to have consensual sex. People make stupid decisions when they are drunk. Doesn't mean that the male cadet is a rapist -- at least in my personal opinion.

When my son and I toured the NA we were told that the doors are left open and everyhting was safe due to the honor code. (told the same at VMI, Citadel, Norwich)...

So I guess one can keep there money in the open but needs to lock up their virginity!!!

When one is making decsions on when or when not to have sex alcohol should not be in the equation. Yes the people involved can change their minds later (both man and woman or any other combination), so you need to add that to your equation also. Sex has never been free there is always more to it than the simple act. Yeah I know we talking about 18-22 year olds and hormones are tricky things, but these kids are suppose to be the best and most disciplined. So if you can't think straight while drinking you shouldn't drink, and if you do and make stupid mistakes you should be disciplined as if you were sober.

Noticed I didn 't say who is right or wrong in this case, but my expectation of these kids is real high, when they graduate the fate of the world will rest in some of their hands, yes they could have a finger on "the button".

 

[catchthefever]

When I attended the Defense Information School and they were teaching us to write and evaluate headlines, they told us that we had to think dirty because if we didn't our readers would.

Sooo ... can I just add a little levity to this thread and ask if I am the only one getting a little chuckle out of the way the last poster innocently phrased his/her point? No offense intended. Just funny!

 

[pathnottaken]

When I attended the Defense Information School and they were teaching us to write and evaluate headlines, they told us that we had to think dirty because if we didn't our readers would.

Sooo ... can I just add a little levity to this thread and ask if I am the only one getting a little chuckle out of the way the last poster innocently phrased his/her point? No offense intended. Just funny!

When I attend DoD PC writing class 30+ years ago they actually had use the non-gender term She-He-It. We shortened it by dropping the e-He-, they quickly change it to use We and Them even in singular case.

Had to re-read what I wrote a couple iof times before I got the joke, but it is funny.

Thanks for pointing it out- Saturday Night Live here I come.

 

[Christcorp]

I totally believe that the victim should not be made out to be told or to be seen as if it is "Their Fault". The problem however is determining WHO the victim is; or more importantly IF there IS a victim can be quite difficult sometimes. We are always talking about how we shouldn't stereotype. Yet, when the subject of rape comes up, there are always 2 stereotypes. 1) It must have been a MAN who raped the woman; and 2) If she accuses rape, then it MUST be true.

I am not making any accusations about the case in question that this thread started with. I believe that each case is unique in it's own way. That each case has it's own set of truths. Sometimes it's definitely rape. Sometimes it's against a man and not a woman. Sometimes consent was given but afterwards there is a level of regret because their boy/girlfriend/parent might find out or a number of other reasons to have regret. Sometimes the individual is so wasted they don't remember anything. Including giving consent.

The point is, each case is unique. We can't make general statements about what it right and what is wrong; who is guilty and who is innocent. We can't automatically "ASSUME" that an accusation is proof of guilt. Just like we can't automaticallly "ASSUME" that denial if proof of innocence. And we can't stereotype. This includes both the accused and the victim. But what we can learn from all this, is that each of us has a level of responsibility for our own actions. Most times, we have the ability to control events that could lead to an incident that could affect us.

 

[pathnottaken]

I totally believe that the victim should not be made out to be told or to be seen as if it is "Their Fault". The problem however is determining WHO the victim is; or more importantly IF there IS a victim can be quite difficult sometimes. We are always talking about how we shouldn't stereotype. Yet, when the subject of rape comes up, there are always 2 stereotypes. 1) It must have been a MAN who raped the woman; and 2) If she accuses rape, then it MUST be true.

I am not making any accusations about the case in question that this thread started with. I believe that each case is unique in it's own way. That each case has it's own set of truths. Sometimes it's definitely rape. Sometimes it's against a man and not a woman. Sometimes consent was given but afterwards there is a level of regret because their boy/girlfriend/parent might find out or a number of other reasons to have regret. Sometimes the individual is so wasted they don't remember anything. Including giving consent.

The point is, each case is unique. We can't make general statements about what it right and what is wrong; who is guilty and who is innocent. We can't automatically "ASSUME" that an accusation is proof of guilt. Just like we can't automaticallly "ASSUME" that denial if proof of innocence. And we can't stereotype. This includes both the accused and the victim. But what we can learn from all this, is that each of us has a level of responsibility for our own actions. Most times, we have the ability to control events that could lead to an incident that could affect us.

2) If she accuses rape, then it MUST be true ---only 5% of rape cases end in a conviction (over 60% of murder cases end in convictions) So does this support or not support your claim!

"But what we can learn from all this, is that each of us has a level of responsibility for our own actions. Most times, we have the ability to control events that could lead to an incident that could affect us" If you make the US to mean ourselves as well as others - thus not helping or helping another cadet/friend/stranger is also in our control, I agree 100%