2 female Naval Academy midshipmen report sex assaults

There is not case yet, there is an ongoing investigation. There are no victims or perpetrators yet just complainants. So why is information being thrown out to the public incomplete and piecemeal It's like blood in the water for sharks. It troubles me that could become another "Trial By Media" as the Duke case was. No matter what the outcome is. People's life's are going to be ruined. so please wait for the facts before making up your minds.
I don't think it's appropriate for this forum to discuss ongoing cases such as these where folks will speculate on the word and character of mids or cadets.
As a parent, I am sure you would not want to sign on here one day and find your child or someone your child knew being discussed in this way.

I disagree completely.

If speculation were banned from on-line Internet forums, they would cease to exist.

No one has used any names, nor have they revealed any more information than what was contained in a legitimate news article.

Sexual assault of female midshipmen/cadets is a real issue, as is the false accusation of male midshipmen/cadets. I think that both should be able to be discussed in an academy forum.

Or we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend these things are not happening.
Maximus and Luigi is correct. And to clarify my 1st post; which is what caused this commotion; I am not "Blaming" the victim. And it's totally possible to "View" this situation with open eyes and without emotional bias. At one time in our history and lives; the statement: "Sexual Assault" had a very defined meaning. Today; the meaning has expanded to include many other offenses. However; most people still consider the term "Sexual Assault" as meaning: "SHE WAS RAPED". It's really that simple. However; it is quite like that she WASN'T RAPED. Not that the offense that was committed shouldn't be reported. It should be. However; our reactions will change depending on the "Actual Physical Assault". If it was "RAPE"; my response would be pretty much "Castration" and other things that can't be mentioned here. However; if the physical assault was "sexting" with a cell phone; "Inappropriate sexual conversations"; "An unwanted hug/kiss"; etc...; then I can promise you that "Castration" probably wouldn't be part of my suggested penalties.

That is what my post was all about. Before I let my emotions kick in and be ready to lynch the person accused, I'd rather determine what the actual "Assault" was; and determine the extent of the crime. Yes, there are some on this forum that will twist comments to make others appear to say something they didn't say. We have to live with that many times. But this is why I'm clarifying my comments. I believe that my comments are quite clear and legitimate. There is no reason to "IMPLY" that I meant anything else. I pride myself in usually being quite clear; albeit long winded. If someone wants to misconstrue my meaning, it's because they are wrong. It's not because I wasn't clear.

Christcorp, what do you mean " Maximus and Luigi is [sic] correct"? :scratch:

I am trying to see your point in this post...tell me if I am correct:

It is best to wait for more information on the alleged crimes before commenting.

Is that it?

Sorry to be so thick headed. :bang:
While different jurisdictions have different legal definitions of sexual assault and sexual harrassment. I will be the first to admit that I don't know how it works when a civilian is accused - for the sake of argument I am going to assume that NCIS would use the DOD definition in their investigation, especially if the alleged offense took place on a military installation.

Christcorps is absolutely correct that sexual assault is much broader than rape. Sexual Assault is criminal offense. All Military personnel need to be acutely aware of the definition and how it is applied - to the best of my knowledge much training occurs at all the Service Academies with both males and females about Sexual Assault.

Here is the DOD definition from the Navy website of sexual assault:
The Department of Defense (DoD) has established a standardized definition of sexual assault to be used in all training and education of service members at all levels: sexual assault is intentional sexual contact, characterized by force, physical threat or abuse of authority or when the victim does not or cannot consent. Sexual assault includes rape, nonconsensual sodomy, indecent assault (unwanted, inappropriate sexual contact or fondling), or attempts to commit these acts. Sexual assault can occur without regard to gender, spousal relationship or age of the victim. “Consent” shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the victim to offer physical resistance. Consent is not given when a person uses force, threat of force, coercion or when the victim is incapacitated or unconscious. This DoD definition is standardized and is consistent for all branches of the military.

This particular article says that charges have not been filed - it is possible that they may never be filed because of the Restricted Reporting option available to military personnel.
It's important to be familiar with the differences between Restricted reporting and Unrestricted reporting - again from the DOD:
Restricted reporting allows a victim of sexual assault to disclose the details of his/her assault to specifically identified individuals and receive medical treatment and counseling without triggering the investigative process. Service members under this policy should report the assault to the installation Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC), Victim Advocate, or healthcare provider. They may also report the assault to the chaplain. This policy is in addition to the current protections afforded privileged communications with the chaplain, and does not alter or affect those protections.
This option of reporting will enable victims to report without having identifying information reported to the chain of command. The victim will acknowledge in writing (Victim Preference Statement) his or her understanding that restricted reporting may limit the ability of the government to prosecute the offender.
This option allows the victim to get medical treatment and counseling without undergoing the trauma of pressing charges and informing his/her chain of command. The reason for this is to avoid the stigma associated with Sexual Assault and so victims can get appropriate treatment.

Unrestricted reporting as follows allows the victim the best opportunity for prosecution but involves the chain of command:
A service member who is sexually assaulted and desires medical treatment, counseling, and an investigation of his/her allegation should use current reporting channels, i.e. chain of command, law enforcement, or he/she may report the incident to an installation SARC or Victim Advocate.
Details regarding the incident will be limited to only those personnel who have a legitimate need to know. This option will allow victims to report in an unrestricted manner so that their chain of command is aware of the incident and can react/support the victim appropriately. Unrestricted reporting allows the command more options to protect the victim to include military protective orders and reassignment as appropriate.

Again, it's entirely possible that one or both of these cases go away and no charges are filed. It could be because NCIS or other investigating teams didn't have enough evidence to press charges OR the victims themselves chose Unrestricted reporting.
Anyone who is in the military or has a loved one in the military should read and become familiar with the DOD rules concerning Sexual Harrassment:
Luigi - the other day a thread was removed that referenced a news article Quite a few people posted that the thread should have been removed. I suppose it's embarrassing to USNA and USAFA but the criminals are in jail.

Just FYI: That thread wasn't removed because it had bad info about a particular school or people asked that it be removed. I'm more than happy to allow a discussion about Zamora and her boyfriend...unfortunately that thread was not about that case and was simply inflammatory in nature and not sure what it's point was.

If anyone wants to discuss the Zamora case they are more than welcome to, heck it was even a made for TV movie.

As to this thread: everyone be smart, think twice before hitting the 'sumbit reply' button, and be kind to each other.