The guy will likely still be kicked out for honor offenses resulting from making false statements during the trial. Who knows what will happen with the girl. Either way she doesn't deserve to stay at the Academy.
They were all certainly guilty of underage drinking and/or not drinking responsibly, having an unauthorized party in a house of the premises, and a lot of folks making bad decisions (beyond the 4 mids directly involved).
The guy will likely still be kicked out for honor offenses resulting from making false statements during the trial. Who knows what will happen with the girl. Either way she doesn't deserve to stay at the Academy.
All of these Mids consumed large amounts of alcohol and made very poor decisions... That is the bottom line. Drinking in excess in of itself is not illegal, nor is sex, but with all the decisions made that night they demonstrated a lack of judgement that shows they are unfit to be military officers.
Are you saying that all the mids that were drinking other than her are unfit to be military officers, or does her drinking indicate that she is also unfit to be a military officer?..she should not be facing backlash..
It also doesn't mean that she was telling the truth or that the males were lying.As others have stated just because there was not a conviction doesn't mean the victim was lying.
Other than bad judgement by using alcohol and having sex... which is the same thing the males supposedly did.And other than using bad judgement by using alcohol I don't see why you say she does not belong there.
Perhaps....but not proven.She is, after all is said, a victim.
Drinking in excess in of itself is not illegal, nor is sex, but with all the decisions made that night they demonstrated a lack of judgement that shows they are unfit to be military officers.
Are you saying that all the mids that were drinking other than her are unfit to be military officers, or does her drinking indicate that she is also unfit to be a military officer?
OK...so while drinking in excess in of itself is not illegal, nor is sex, only the decisions by the male mids demonstrated a lack of judgement that shows they are unfit to be military officers. Why?No. The Accused male Mids.
Well....that seems fair and reasonable. Thanks...female Mids in similar cases have very rarely been thrown out for poor decision making. With the current state of military sexual assaults and so much press and Congressional attention, can you imagine the media if USNA decides to have her face admin charges for conduct unbecoming or similar charges?
The fact that the male was not convicted does not necessarily mean the woman was lying. Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It also doesn't mean that she was telling the truth or that the males were lying.
Other than bad judgement by using alcohol and having sex... which is the same thing the males supposedly did.
Perhaps....but not proven.
Doesn't seem like much of a problem. Just punish the males whether they are proven guilty or not and assume the female is a victim.And that is the inherent problem with trying to prove a sexual assault case. Who you believe is telling the truth.....
However, the victim's level of intoxication is relevant only as to her (or his) ability to consent and to remember the event, including whether she consented. The fact that she was too drunk to consent does not give someone the right to "assume" consent.