Duke women's lacrosse to wear 'innocent' armbands

[pnwmom]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2456262

DURHAM, N.C. -- In a show of solidarity with the Duke University's men's lacrosse team, members of the school's women's team plan to wear sweatbands with the word "Innocent" written on them.

The university canceled the rest of the season for the highly ranked men's team because of a woman's complaint she was sexually assaulted in March at a team party where she had been hired to perform as an exotic dancer.

The women's plan to wear sweatbands on their arms or legs was reported Wednesday by The Herald-Sun of Durham. The teams plays Northwestern in the NCAA semifinals Friday.

"We want to win a national championship for ourselves but definitely also for the university and the men's team," junior Leigh Jester told the newspaper. "They don't really have a chance to play their season, which is a shame."

SNIP

[greyl]

1. Mark me down as one who thinks that's a good thing.

I wonder if it will actually be allowed to happen, though.

[pnwmom]

2. Duke administration's not going to stop them, for now anyway

http://www.heraldsun.com/sports/duke/39-738356.html

"Duke doesn't object to the women's lacrosse team's plan to wear sweatbands with the word "innocent" on their arms and legs during the team's Final Four matchup against Northwestern on Friday.

"Apparently, the decision on wearing armbands was made by team captains," said John Burness, Duke's senior vice president for public affairs and government relations. "They thought it would be appropriate. We don't usually intervene in situations like that."


SNIP

"The top-ranked women's lacrosse team has compiled an 18-2 record this season and has advanced to the Final Four for the second consecutive season.

"They have repeatedly said that part of their motivation this weekend is to win the NCAA title for the beleaguered men's program."

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. There was a teacher accused of rape in our town

The victim was a student at the school. The day after he was arrested, a number of students wore t-shirts that said "free Mr._____" It was devastating for that poor girl who had the courage to come forward and disclose this crime. The teacher eventually plead guilty, but it did not matter to the students who continued to vilify her. She had to leave the school. Her life was turned inside out because first she was used by an authority figure, and then she was blamed for ruining his career.

Women in our society are treated horribly when it comes to rape allegations. I am disgusted by the girl's lacrosse team.

It is just more societal pressure for victims who see this: keep your mouth shut. Don't report.

We have not come very far in our society.

[BrownOak]

57. Wait a moment

There have been a bunch of meetings and demonstrations operating under the presumption of guilt on the part of the players.

Anecdotal points aside - and the vilification of the young woman in your story is a different subject than what we're discussing here - I would be disgusted by those who would take away someone's right to free speech in this instance.

[madmark]

108. its my view that criminal proceedings should occur in criminal

courts; not on cable news or other tabloid media. I suspect these girls would not be wearing the armbands but for the media's OJefication de jour of this particular matter and the 24/7 mock prosecutions taking place on Nancy Grace, Rita Cosby, Fox et al.

[Buzz Clik]

112. excellent post. n/t

[greyl]

119. Agreed, that's the larger issue that should be addressed

instead of us bickering about the truth based on too little information.

[pnwmom]

124. What is wrong with these women pointing out the simple truth

that under our legal system, anyone who is merely charged with a crime IS legally innocent, and remains innocent of charges UNLESS and UNTIL a court proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

I believe that these young women feel that there has been a rush to judgment in this case and they are reminding us that charges themselves do not in any sense imply guilt.

As far as this case is concerned, we don't have to wait to say they are legally innocent. They ARE until the DA can prove otherwise. The presumption of innocence protects us ALL.

[oneinok]

178. 3 cheers for the women

3 cheers for the woman's team.

[adigal]

106. I think this is a dreadful idea

These women are supporting the men without all of the facts on the table - it is no different than when Republicans support Bush without the facts. It is just blind support, which is never good.

Besides, if hard evidence proves that one or more of these men raped that woman, these women are going to look like fools who acted without the facts. They should just stay out of it.

[pnwmom]

125. Why should they look like fools for stating the truth: that in this

country, under our legal system, these men are still innocent, despite the charges, and they will remain innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

[IndianaGreen]

136. The New Black Panthers are supporting the accuser without all

the facts on the table, as you said. And Nifong had no problems giving 70 press conferences about the case before the primary elections.

[adigal]

141. Neither the female lacrosse players nor the Black Panthers

have the facts - they should ALL reserve judgement until the facts are in. Because at this point, they are all talking out of their asses.

[ugarte]

3. OK by me. If they wanted to wear 'Guilty' armbands

I wouldn't have a problem, either.

[otohara]

4. Until Proven Guilty, Added

would be more appropriate.

[Supply Side Jesus]

5. thats news....

whew....on the edge of my lovesack

[koopie57]

6. This bothers me ...

cuz no one really knows what happened. If it didn't happen, then the woman should be prosecuted and then show solidarity, but what if it did happen? It is not unheard of that athletes get preferential treatment and it is not unheard of that they abuse this treatment. I don't think it is a good thing to stand up for someone or something just cuz you are part of the group.

[alarimer]

8. It bothers me too for those reasons

The women on the lacross team could just as easily have been the victims as well.

[pnwmom]

23. I think one issue that has really outraged the other students is that

the photo lineup shown to the accuser -- from which she picked her assailants -- consisted ONLY of the forty members of the la crosse team. So if she picked with her eyes shut, she still would most probably have picked guys who had attended the party.

They also don't like how the Duke administration handled this.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

73. That was racist and nauseating.

Is it your opinion that every lacrosse player is white and has a trust fund?

[jberryhill]

116. The Women's Team Is Not All White...

...but I doubt that matters to you.

[Moosepoop]

163. Since you know the racial makeup of the team...

Please tell us how many players there are, and how many of them are non-white.

[Buzz Clik]

172. Judge for yourself

http://www.goduke.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&KEY=&SPID=1832&SPSID=22430

Click on the names for pictures.

[Moosepoop]

177. About what I figured.

31 players, one of them non-white. Much like the 46/1 male lacrosse team.

[jberryhill]

175. I didn't look at them all..

...it's pretty easy, I went to the team website, clicked on a few names, and found an existence proof that the now-deleted message was factually inaccurate. I will grant that I was guided by at least one assumption based upon a first name.

I dunno if that's the whole roster, or just the varsity team, or whatever, but the post to which I had replied was wrong.

But you certainly need not take my word for it.

[NaturalHigh]

7. They'll get a lot of grief from the PC crowd.

I suspect many will accuse them of being "rape apologists."

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. I don't think its about PC--it is about empathy.

I think of it like this: If my mother came forward with an allegation of rape how would I want her treated? If my brother were accused of rape, how would I want him treated? I would not want them called nasty names, or vilified in the media, or accused of lying.

I would not want the students at the school to wear arm-bands in support of those my mother accused. I would simply want the justice system to work. So far, it is not working very well.

[Toucano]

9. Very sad. They don't know if the men are innocent or not.

Why not stay out of it until the court decides?

Oh, what am I saying! That would be far too rational.

[pnwmom]

24. The prosecutor has put off the trial for a year, during which

the whole team will remain under a cloud. There is a lot of anger about that, too.

[BrownOak]

58. Were you as concerned when there were demonstrations at the house? n/t

[jberryhill]

70. A Court Does Not Decide Whether Anyone Is Innocent

A "not guilty" verdict does not mean "innocent". It merely means that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reaonable doubt.

The prosecution might prove it is highly likely that a defendant is guilty, but "highly likely" doesn't cut it.

People are entitled to their opinions either way.

For example, look at the Mumia case. He was found sitting on the curb wounded within 45 seconds of gunfire exchanged, his own discharged weapon at his feet, and a dead cop lying in the street in the middle of a December night in Philadelphia. He was found guilty, and there are quite a few people who loudly proclaim he is not, and who have harassed Officer Faulkner's widow for years.

If the prosecution eventually decides to drop the case, or even if it proceeds to trial and the defendants are found "not guilty", it is guaranteed that there will be those who will forever consider them guilty.

They will never be found "innocent" by a court.

[TankLV]

77. Uh - yes they do - or haven't you ever heard of "innocent until PROVEN

guilty"?

If you are not PROVED guilty, you are INNOCENT.

It's only the foundation of our justice system!

[Hosnon]

81. It's a legal construct. Just because the courts say you are not guilty

does not mean you are innocent in every aspect. Innocent in the eyes of the state, yes...in reality...?

[jberryhill]

82. Gee, I must have missed that in law school...

Then perhaps you might enlighten us as to how OJ could be found "not guilty" according to the standard applied in a criminal case, yet civilly liable for wrongful death?

Bottom line - OJ killed Nicole Brown Simpson, regardless of what the jury found on the basis of the presentation in that proceeding.

A criminal trial is about whether the state can prove its case to the applicable standard - i.e. to rebut the legal presumption in the defendant's favor. If the state shows that it is 90% likel that the defendant is guilty, then it hasn't proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That hardly means the defendant is "innocent" in all particular senses of that term.

[Toucano]

166. Of course, you're correct. Thank you. n/t

[Drum]

12. So it seems that they identify

more closely with other lacrosse players than they do with other women...curious.

[pnwmom]

26. Suppose your best friend, a guy, or your brother, was accused. Would

you identify more with him or with the accuser?

[Drum]

30. I guess I see your point...

...but in fact I would restrain myself from making public displays about it either way, especially if there was a pending legal matter. In this case, I have a hard time believing that the relationship you cite is the same with all Duke lacrosse players. See other posts re: kool-aid.

[progressivebydesign]

37. If a relative was accused of rape I woulnd't assume they were innocent.

And I sure the hell wouldn't wear an armband proclaiming their innocence. You, nor I, no anyone who was not in the room during a crime, knows what happened. I think it's unbelievably BAD TASTE to wear armbands like that. I would assume that not one of those girls has ever been a victim of a sexual assault, if they had, they'd understand what a horrible thing they're doing.

[pnwmom]

43. If my brother was accused of rape I wouldn't assume he was innocent.

I would KNOW it.

[Buzz Clik]

49. exactly. Well said. n/t

[TankLV]

75. Glad you're not related to ME!

WTF?

You would presume your own brother guilty due to your sexist prejudices.

A thing of beauty, you are not.

[cally]

98. I wouldn't assume they haven't been victims of sexual assault

The clips say the team captains made the decision. Through peer pressure, they may not want to speak up. That's what most bothers me about this case. The joining together into groups where you are either for the team and Duke or for the victim. What's lost in all this is that the guilt or innocence will be shown in court with evidence and not spin.

[marshall]

171. Stating the facts

Actually the armbands merely proclaim the status of the team under our system--they ARE at this moment innocent. They will stop being innocent when (and if) a trial happens and they are found guilty.

If the women's team were wearing armbands that said something like "exotic dancers are asking for it" or "the accuser is a liar" then I would say it would be inappropriate. But that's not what they are doing. Their armbands support our judicial system.

[pimpbot]

13. If found guilty, they will look like idiots

Not to mention taking the focus off of their on-field achievements. Unless these girls were at the party and watched everything that happened, they have just as much knowledge as any of us. Maybe they should have waited until the court system reached a verdict before proclaiming their buddies "innocent".


Sure hope none of them gets raped and no one believes them. I'll be sure to wear my innocent armband. <sarcasm>

[IndianaGreen]

14. And if they are acquitted, the accuser's defenders will scream foul

and this case will become one of prosecutorial misconduct and filing a false police report by the accuser.

Somewhere along the way we lost track of due process and the presumption of innocence.

[pimpbot]

17. The one kid with a prior assault charge has lost my sympathy

I have no opinion of the other ones accused. However, you don't see me walking around with a "guilty" armband now do you?

It would seem to me the CLASSY thing to do would be to wait until a verdict is reached, but coming from Maryland, I can tell you Duke sports HAVE NO CLASS :).

[IndianaGreen]

27. Reade Seligmann is falsely accused

He has the alibi of the ATM time stamp camera, the cabbie, and the accuser's own words that described him as having a mustache. As far as Seligmann is concerned, Nifong has no case!

[onenote]

69. Maryland fan attacking Duke for lack of class. LOL!!!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/news/2001/01/30/maryland_apology_ap/

By the way, I didn't go to Maryland OR Duke.

[zann725]

15. Armbands to show solidarity of "good guys?"Didn't Nazi's already try that

long ago?

[Tight_rope]

16. LMBAO...You are so Right!

[IndianaGreen]

18. The accuser has the New Black Panther Party on her side

which is led by an avowed anti-Semite, so what does that prove? Nothing!

[tatertop]

20. They are just behaving like good Republicans

[Hobarticus]

47. Oh DAH-YAM! Post of the day!!! n/t

[onenote]

64. armbands = nazis? You can't really be that stupid

Do you really equate wearing armbands as a way of conveying a message with the Nazis? Do you have any idea how common it was to wear armbands to protest the Vietnam war and how often this same form of protest is used to protest the war in Iraq?

Wow. And wow again.

[pnwmom]

65. yes, people are wearing black "no war" armbands. And they're not Nazis!

[donsu]

19. these young women should try thinking for themselves for a change

bet someone talked them into this while serving kool aide

[pimpbot]

29. PTI said the men's coach gave a speech to the womens team

The guy who resigned. Wonder if that had anything to do with this.

[donsu]

44. bingo and maybe the lawyer's runners conning the women

nt

[Buzz Clik]

46. and maybe these men are innocent...

and the rest is so much smoke.

[Triana]

21. Bad idea...

...they have NO IDEA whether the men are innocent or not. NO ONE DOES. Their coach should forbid this - if they wear the head/armbands, they cannot play. It shouldn't be allowed.

[davepc]

22. So the coach should limit their free speech and expression?

They're over 18, they can make up their own minds if they think the players are guilty or innocent, and profess that idea to themselves, their peers, and the public.

[Toucano]

32. One doesn't follow the other.

I don't support the coach forcing them to not wear the armbands, but their role as lacrosse players is not a venue for their free expression.

It's a venue for them to represent the school in a competition. Nothing more.

The coach could forbid a player from wearing a green shirt or a "Jesus Saves" slogan if so desired and it wouldn't be a challenge to their free expression. You're not completely free to express yourself while performing as a member of a team for a state funded school.

[Triana]

35. What Toucano said...

Their role as lacrosse players is not the venue for "free expression". As lacrosse players they represent their team and Duke in a competition. This is neither the place nor the time for them to assert their opinion on the innocence or guilt of the men's team. They can and should do that elsewhere, individually, when asked. Then, they can assert their own personal opinions.

It's this chest-beating arrogant attitude that got the men's team in trouble. These teams are prominent in the school and the surrounding community and how they conduct themselves both on and off the field requires a bit more forethought and responsibility than other students. They cannot be allowed to think that the privilege of playing on these teams is without a concurrent amount of responsibility ie: a "free ride". The lack of that is what caused this situation and MORE of it is not going to help matters -- and that's what this is - more of it.

[spooky3]

40. to bolster your argument

Duke is a private school, not a state funded school. If students were at a state funded school, the Constitution would give students greater free speech protection because it to some extent restricts a governmental unit from interfering with citizens' rights. But the Constitution does not forbid a private org. from making restrictions. if the students did not like the restrictions, they could go to a different school.

I'm not sure the school should forbid the women's team from wearing the armbands but I definitely think the coaches should sit down with the players and talk to them about the unfairness of their taking a stand before they've heard all the facts.

[Buzz Clik]

48. Why shouldn't they take a stand?

None of these women will be on the jury (assuming this fiasco comes to trial). And they should be discouraged from supporting their colleagues?

I could not disagree more.

[onenote]

66. so athletes shouldn't express political views?

So do you think it was wrong for college basketball player Toni Smith to turn her back when the national anthem was played as a protest against the invasion of Iraq? Do you think it was wrong for John Carlos and Tommy Smith to raise their fists in a Black Power salute on the medal podium at the Olympics? If a national basketball league player got a tatoo that said "stop the war" would you be content if the league made him cover that tatoo up (but allowed other tatoos with non-political messages to remain visible)?

Or do you just not like the particular message the women's lacrosse team is presenting.

[Moosepoop]

83. These athletes aren't expressing political views. n/t

[pnwmom]

103. If they think the DA brought the indictments prematurely because of the

upcoming election, that's a political view.

[onenote]

105. how do you define what is a political view

if they wore armbands that said "Libby is Guilty" -- would that be/not be an expression of a political view?

[Captain Hilts]

56. When in uniform, they represent Duke U. not themselves as individuals.

So, no armbands so long as they're in uniform.

You want individual freedom, don't do it in a team uniform representing your university.

[Triana]

78. EXACTLY! (n/t)

[jberryhill]

118. How about when it's your country?

If this picture is not immediately recognizable to you, then it would be a pity.

[Captain Hilts]

126. I remember seeing this image live.

So, please don't insult my familiarity with history.

No, I don't think it was appropriate. The Olympics isn't where you air causes. You're opening a door to a lot of 'political expression'.

[pnwmom]

127. Our country was built on political expression.

Not on being polite.

[Captain Hilts]

128. Permitting political expression in the Olympics opens the door....

for unlimited acts of expression, because once you permit someone to use the Olympics as a forum for political expression, you have to permit everyone - no matter how dubious their cause - to do so. It's not fair to make exceptions to the rule.

Prohibitting everyone from political expression while representing the US is fair. You have an inherent right to express yourself, but not an inherent right to be on the Olympic squad.

It's a can of worms you don't want to open.

[pnwmom]

129. I don't remember. What happened after the can of worms was opened?

Were there consequences to the openers?

[Captain Hilts]

130. The USOC has kept the lid on. As have most other countries. nt

[Psephos]

25. Worse idea

Forbidding speech you don't like. There's a Constitutional amendment that says you can't do that.

The only speech that actually needs protecting is speech we don't like.

Peace.

[saigon68]

28. Jump in to the "lynch Fred Phelps" thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2302290

[Psephos]

31. Heh heh - now THAT's a hornet's nest!

I do love to hate on Phelps, that's for sure.

Of course, the right way to make cockroaches run is to shine light on them. Even Phelps has a right to be heard. And we all have the right to lambaste and dismiss him.

Peace.

[saigon68]

42. Thanks

[TankLV]

76. Yeah, "innocent until PROVEN guilty" is so last century anyway.

You'd fit right in with the gang of WAR CRIMINALS running our country now, that's for sure!

[Buzz Clik]

33. There will be no justice in this case.

The Duke lacrosse team has been abandoned by their administration, and the local legal system has been running on the assumption of "guilty by God -- we just need to find out who."

The victim in this case has zero credibility and a history of false accusations. The only DNA found from her swab was her boyfriend, apparently from an encounter after the assumed rape. (What better way to calm down after a gang rape than to have unprotected sex with your honey?)

One of the accused has string of solid alibies that has him nowhere near her during the assault. No surprise there considering she was told to pick her assailants from a book of pictures only of the Duke team (that will be inadmissable in court, by the way).

The entire proceeding thus far has been a huge charade.

And while you're condemning the Duke women's team, perhaps you'd also like to take a big crap on the rest of the students at the university who have been forced to listen to proclamations that they're all a bunch of "spoiled white kids" despite the fact that Duke ranks among the most diverse campuses in the country. And how about the appearance of the New Black Panther Party appearing on the edge of campus and threatening to "interview" the team. Gotta love the New Black Panther Party -- showing up in military fatigues and claiming to be armed to the teeth. Did you know that only the seniors on the lacrosse team lived in the off-campus house? All the others live in dorms. So, during all these festivities, you have a bunch of "spoiled white kids" scared shitless because they share a hallway with lacrosse team members and the Panthers are threatening to come bursting in.

So, some of you want to condemn the women's team? Have at it, but you're putting an interesting label on yourself in doing so.

[timber84]

34. Nice post but prepare:

to be crucified for it. I got your back...

[pimpbot]

36. What label would that be?

I'll be proud to wear it on my arm.

[Buzz Clik]

38. How about "one size fits all"

Not every rape case involves a victim who was truly raped and/or an accused assailant who is guilty of rape.

To stumble into this discussion assuming that the Duke men charged are guilty is just terrible. And to then criticize their female colleagues for supporting them is worse. In Durham NC, the Duke Men's Lacrosse Team has been completely deserted by the university administration, attacked by local politicians, condemned by the "usual" national celebrities, and assumed to be guilty by a collection of hysterical types who are looking for somebody to toss in jail.

IF a rape occurred in that house, then the guilty should be found and should go to jail for their crime. The likelihood that the process in place in Durham will find guilty parties is nearly zero. The DA is interested only in finding some likely white boys to sate the very angry local community. Guilty, innocent -- he cares not one bit. So, we have three men charged with rape. One clearly was not there. One was accused based on a very unconventional selection from pictures of the team. The third is charged based on a low-probability DNA match from a discarded fake fingernail found in a trashcan in the bathroom. (Gee -- what's the likelihood that DNA from the guy who lives in the house ended up in the trashcan from a discarded tissue, spit, hair, etc etc etc???)

I am a strong supporter of rape victims coming forward and being protected. But, in this case, the tables are turned. Standing strong behind this woman is blind dedication to cause that will only result in a loss of credibility.

Tread lightly.

[superconnected]

41. What do you mean "But in this case the tables are turned"

It hasn't even been to court yet.

If she's lying she will likely be found out. If not they will likely be found out.

Other than that, too many twists and turns in this story to support anyone. Expecially to put your name on the line supporting people you don't know on a case you weren't personally there for.

I would think only popcorn is in order here. People coming out with a pre-trial decision on whose guilty or innocent, only shows their personal integrity.

Those women lacrosse players are making a mistake whether the players are innocent or guilty. I guess it will be the best lesson they learn in life, if the players do end up guilty because they really shouldn't put their own reputation on other people in a situation they weren't personally present for.

[Buzz Clik]

45. well, okay, but....

superconnected: "If she's lying she will likely be found out. If not they will likely be found out."
I hope you're correct. I'm skeptical that justice will be served in this case. If the DA were truly interested in the truth rather than appeasing his constituents, at least two of the currently accused would have been released with charges dropped.

superconnected: "Expecially to put your name on the line supporting people you don't know on a case you weren't personally there for."
There, as in the bathroom when the alleged rape took place? On campus? In the neighborhood? Only four people in this case have first hand knowledge; the rest of us are venturing opinions.

superconnected: "People coming out with a pre-trial decision on whose guilty or innocent, only shows their personal integrity."
Integrity? One compromises their integrity by supporting friends and comrades in times of strife? No way. Tip of the hat to those women.

superconnected: "Those women lacrosse players are making a mistake whether the players are innocent or guilty. I guess it will be the best lesson they learn in life, if the players do end up guilty because they really shouldn't put their own reputation on other people in a situation they weren't personally present for."
Those women know more than you could imagine. Regardless, they feel obligated to support their fellow players. More power to them, and I agree with their assessment that the accused are not guilty.


(Consider the odds! The alleged victim randomly chose two names from a book of pictures. Assuming that three rapists were in that house that night, her odds of selecting even one are no better than one-in-seven. I'd hang my reputation and integrity on standing firm against those odds.)

[superconnected]

50. I'll just stand here and feel sorry for you.

I know people who would have worn that armband for clinton when he was lying. They would have gone all out to support him when he said he didn't do anything with monica. They didn't know and they couldn't see though their "want" of something to happen, to realize they didn't know.

As much as I supported clinton, I still wouldn't have sworn by him being innocent. I and anyone I respect would not throw their personal integrity on the line for someone in a situation they weren't present for.

But you throw yours out so easily. I doubt the female lacross team all really know either.

It's obvious, they will go the way of yourself, and defend someone anyway, without knowing.

Loss of integrity is not easy to re-gain.

I'm sorry you have no clue what I'm talking about. Of course if you persist in defense of people in situations where you really do not know what happened, I'm sure eventually you'll be bit in the ass enough to figure it out.

[Buzz Clik]

51. You're struggling with language here (intentionally?)

I have not declared that no rape occurred.

I have not declared that these men are innocent.

So, save your lecture and bullshit pity for someone else.

If, on the other hand, you condemn these women for supporting their colleagues and classmates, then the problem is yours. You pretend to be objective in this but are quick to condemn anyone who even provides moral support for those men. Your words have betrayed your so-called objectivity. I suggest you give it up and simply declare you believe them to be guilty.

If you truly were objective on this subject, you'd sit quietly and let this all pass by.

As for your continued insistence about my loss of integrity, this should not be a personal issue in which you have the right to insult me. However, I've grown accustomed to this at DU. So, you mentioned me being bitten in the ass ... Would you like to have the honors?

[superconnected]

52. ah

I'll just put you on ignore.

No loss of intelligent insight by filtering you out.

But it will be quite the improvement :)

[Buzz Clik]

53. Good plan...

... that will allow me to post without being insulted by someone who misrepresents their position. It is a sad commentary, however, that your response to an opposing point of view is to pretend it doesn't exist.

Bye!

[kwassa]

54. Your bias in this case is clearly noted

You've already declared the accused innocent before they've ever been to trial and before the DA has put on his evidence. Of course you approve of the women's actions because they've jumped to a conclusion, just like you have.

Pretty well fits the definition of the word "prejudice" which literally means to pre-judge.

[Buzz Clik]

60. Biased?

I never claimed otherwise. It is highly unlikely that any of these men are guilty. It is possible that a rape occurred and that one to three of the 40 some men in the house participated. However, the alleged victim's method of identifying the perps was ridiculous, and she was led down that road by an overzealous DA who was up for re-election that month. What a coincidence.

So, unlike most of you who feel certain these accused "spoil rich white boys" did the deed, I have no confidence at all that, even if she were raped, the victim has a clue who did it. Clearly one that she picked out with 99% certainty (her words) was not there at the time.

So, you betcha: I whole heartedly support the women's team's actions. Even if the three accused end up being found guilty, these women have done the right thing. No question.

[pnwmom]

59. But it's worse than that, Buzz Clik

Because the only photos in that book were ALL lacrosse team members. So she could pick with her eyes shut and the guy was probably at that party.

The normal photo lineup includes many photos of completely unrelated people. Given a normal photo lineup, what would have been the odds that she would actually pick out a Duke lacrosse student? Sadly, we'll never know. It's too late.

[Buzz Clik]

61. Sadly, you're correct.

This DA has blown the case. The likelihood of a conviction of any of these guys is just about zero. Unless somebody steps up and confesses, there will be no guilty verdict.

The worst part of this is that even is she were raped, the DA has so fouled this case that her chances of getting any level of justice has all but disappeared.

[pnwmom]

63. Yup,the prosecutor has completely screwed things up.

We'll never know the truth about what happened that weekend.

[Yupster]

164. Don't you think that out of the 40 people

at the party, that they can put together a pretty good minute by minute walk through of what went on at the party?

I'm assuming the DA knows pretty much who said what and who was where. Most of the players did nothing wrong and I'm assuming most of them told what they saw.

I'm thinking the trial will present the night pretty much minute by minute.

[jberryhill]

176. Unless..

You'd think so, unless every one of the people who was there that night, and who has (a) not been charged with anything, and (b) has probably received a wealth of parental and legal advice, has made the decision to engage in criminal obstruction of justice and perjury.

If you are going to buy that, then you have to believe it is the tightest conspiracy in history. Tighter than the smaller staffs of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes.

[pnwmom]

62. I think that what these women are objecting to most of all is the rush

to judgment. By their university administration that immediately put out press releases that assumed the veracity of the accuser's statement -- and therefore, the guilt of at least some of its students -- before ANY evidence had come out. By the national press that was immediately filled with stories about all the "spoiled rich kids" at Duke. By a prosecutor who announced indictments before the results of any of the physical evidence came in -- none of which pointed to the defendants. Who refused the offers of team members to submit to lie detector tests. Who used a photo lineup that was rigged to only ensnare Duke lacrosse team members. Who happened to be up for re-election. And, who now, inexplicably, has asked for (and obtained) a whole year's delay before the trial, during which the Duke lacrosse team and the university will continue to remain under a cloud. (N.C. has no right to a speedy trial.)

So after rushing to declare them guilty in the court of public opinion, the prosecutor is going to let them stew in it for up to a year. If he's got the evidence, there's no reason not to go forward. But he doesn't, so he's hoping to drag this out long enough so that the press finally moves on to something else.

On edit: my immediate assumption, based on the stuff I heard in the press, was that some of the students were bound to be guilty. But the more I considered the case, the flimsier and more tainted I saw it to be. And the prosecutor getting a year's delay was the last straw. There's nothing there. And there won't be a year from now either.

[donsu]

101. and the label your wearing says.....

nt

[superconnected]

39. Stupid. I'd have thought they'd been smarter.

I don't care how passionately some people want to believe the side they're voting for is right, it is still something they don't know for sure.

I wouldn't go that far to support either side because I don't know.

I would think some of the Womens Lacrosse team would refuse simply because they don't know.

I've seen both sides of the fence - women supporting a rapist and insisting he didn't do it and then later telling me the guy raped them, after they supported him and they felt guilty for attacking the first victim when they thought she had lied.

And I've seen the side where a woman lied and framed a guy.

This wearing an armband crosses the line in my opinion.

They've left speculation and put themselves on the line - all for something they "want" to believe but don't know.

[onenote]

67. how would you feel if the armbands said "presumed innocent"?

[Buzz Clik]

68. LOL!

I can't wait for the response on this one. I have this sneaking hunch she'd prefer "Presumed Guilty".

[superconnected]

72. "Presumed innocent", would be fine.

But they didn't choose, "Presumed innocent".

"Presumed innocent", has a whole different meaning than innocent does.

[KamaAina]

55. Go Wildcats!

The teams plays Northwestern in the NCAA semifinals Friday.



(I'm from Conn. so I hate Duke anyway :evilgrin: )

[pnwmom]

74. To those who are leaning toward assuming the students are guilty

what sort of evidence could overcome

the tainted photo lineup (rigged to include only photos of team members)
evidence of her having consensual sex with three other men over that period of time (which could explain the edema and evidence of sexual activity in the SANE report)
no conclusive DNA match
the taxidriver's testimony along with the bank records
the accuser's initial testimony that she was raped by about 20 students
the other dancer's testimony that nothing happened -- which was changed to "maybe something happened" after she decided to contact a publicist
the videotape of the accuser dancing which showed bruises on her legs.

Sounds like there is an awful lot of "reasonable doubt" already.

Short of an NSA agent standing in the shower with a camera, recording the whole event, I can't imagine how the prosecution is going to be able to overcome all the holes in his case.

[uncertainty1999]

79. I hope they lose their game!

This is so inappropriate and stupid for them to do.

[pnwmom]

80. If you had a friend who you honestly believed was being falsely accused

and railroaded by a prosecutor trying to get re-elected, wouldn't you want to support your friend?

[NaturalHigh]

85. Why is it inappropriate?

If they believe in the players' innocence, why shouldn't they take a stand?

[TorchTheWitch]

84. I think it's inappropriate

No one knows whether they're innocent or not. I'd think it would be just as inappropriate to wear armbands that said "Guilty" on them as well. When playing on the lacrosse team they are representing the university and shouldn't be displaying any kind of personal slogans... I wouldn't think it would be appropriate to wear armbands that said "Bush '08" or "Save the Whales" either. Duke has a rule that the men on the mens' team can't even have facial hair because they're representing the school, so I find it odd that the school would find this appropriate... unless they're allowing it because it says what the school can't say themselves.

If these woman wan't to show solidarity with the mens' team then wear the armbands around town or join a rally off campus or something of that nature. The school shouldn't be taking sides on this issue at this point and shouldn't allow representatives of the school to do so either while representing the school.

[jberryhill]

88. The facial hair rule...

is to ensure an airtight seal with the mask if they have to be resuscitated from an injury or require oxygen, btw.

It is the same reason behind OSHA workplace regulations governing facial hair for firefighters or others who may require respirators.

[Buzz Clik]

89. Interesting...

This information also fits well into the claim that identification of one of the assailants was made difficult because "he had a mustache at the time of the rape." oops.

[TorchTheWitch]

90. so they can grow a mustache

in between games or one that is short enough on the sides to not interfere with the mask?

[jberryhill]

91. OSHA rules

...permit moustaches that do not interfere with the sealing area, but some folks in hazardous conditions just insist on "no moustaches", other folks don't care all that much.

With respect to this team specifically, who knows. I would imagine that it's easier to say "no moustaches" in conditions where, unlike some firefighter unions, you aren't going to get a lawsuit over it (as happens with firefighters, ambulance workers, etc., causing courts to craft all sorts of nutty facial hair rules to comply with various safety regulations for people who might need to wear a respirator or be resuscitated).



However, if you want to talk about fairness, I understand that there is no such rule applied to the women's team. Maybe they could wear fake moustaches instead of the armbands.

[pnwmom]

95. Mustaches aren't really a free speech issue anyway. Armbands are.

Especially ones that say "innocent." I don't think Duke wants to get into the business of muzzling its students.

[Captain Hilts]

109. They aren't individual 'students' when in uniform, they represent Duke.

They can wear armbands any other time they like.

[onenote]

115. and when athletes protest the war or racial inequality?

They should be told to shut up? Did you support the efforts to silence Toni Smith, the womens basketball player who turned her back when the national anthem was played at games as a form of silent protest against the Iraq invasion? If an NBA player had a tattoo on his arm saying "Stop the War" would you defend the NBA if it instructed the player either to have the tattoo removed or to cover it up even though other tattoos are allowed? When athletes wear black armbands as a memorial tribute to a coach or fellow player that has died, is that an expression of a personal view that should be suppressed? Where do you draw the line and who do you think should have the job of drawing it?

[Captain Hilts]

120. There is a difference between professional athletes and college athletes

vis a vis speech.

An NBA player does not represent thousands of students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, board of visitors or - in some cases - the taxpayers that support that institution.

[onenote]

132. so you think Toni Smith was out of line when she protested the war

by turning her back when the national anthem was played at her college basketball games. At least that's what I take from your response.

Also, what about college athletes that express their opinions by wearing ribbons supporting a particular cause, or wristbands? Or armbands in memory of someone. What constitutes a permissible expression of opinion and what doesn't. And who decides? Still wondering.

[TorchTheWitch]

145. Obviously the school decides

But the school must be careful in their decisions that those decisions don't show favoratism to one cause or belief and not to another. That's why they pretty much have blanket rules that stifle most expressions. Recall the student who had to fight his school to be allowed to wear a string tie that was representative of his Indian heritage at his graduation when the school had a blanket rule that only certain neutral ties could be worn at graduation.

Duke already has rules stifling freedom of expression by their players, and should stick to them all or get rid of them all.

As for Toni Smith, I applaud her expression BECAUSE it was considered inappropriate at the time and she did it in defiance of that, but that's because I believe in her cause. I can at the same time understand the school being upset about her defiance of the rules as she agreed to the rules and willfully broke them if in fact they had such rules to begin with. As I understand it, at this school there were no rules stifling her expression, and both the coach and the president of the school supported her, but his is a liberal college where that might be expected of them. I don't know if she would have been supported if she belonged to a different school that had a different image criteria, and therefore, probably stifling rules governing expression.

Incidently, she didn't just do it protest of the war. As she said herself that was only part of the reason where the bulk of it was her Indian heritage and disagreement with politics invading sports.

[onenote]

146. "because I believe in her cause"

That basically gets to the crux of it doesn't it. You applaud free expression when you agree with it and support its suppression when you disagree. Undoubtedly many of those who are applauding the women's team for voicing their support for the members of the accused team that have been charged in this case believe that they are innocent (they can't "know" that, but they've formed an opinion). I personally think its premature to form an opinion either way, but I believe in two bedrock principles: (1) members of society who are accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty and (2) everyone has a right to express their opinion in a free society. Its saddens me that so many here at DU seem to be losing sight of those principles.

[Yupster]

Generally you don't really need a first amendment

to express something everyone agrees with.

The First Amentment is there to protect the speech that none of us agrees with. That's the one that needs the protection.

[Yupster]

165. Generally you don't really need a first amendment

to express something everyone agrees with.

The First Amentment is there to protect the speech that none of us agrees with. That's the one that needs the protection.

[pnwmom]

122. At this point, the students ARE innocent of the charges -- and they'll

remain innocent until PROVEN guilty. And that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how our system works.

The Duke administration clearly doesn't mind that the armband wearers are pointing this out.

[TorchTheWitch]

150. That's in a court of law

You can bet that Duke is more concerned with their own image than whether or not they're making rules that coincide with the rule of law. After all, their own rules stifling the freedom of expression of their students when representing the school pretty much show how much they care about the law and Constitutional rights.

Duke WILL mind if there's any freedom of expression they disagree with which is the whole point. They don't let their players wear armbands that say anything those people want and never have nor do they allow freedom of expression in regard to uniforms and general appearance or behavior. There's no way Duke is allowing the "Innocent" armbands to show how much they value the Constitutional rights of freedom of speech or rule of law since their own rules show that they don't.

If Duke gave one woop about the rule of law and the justice system of innocent until proven guilty they would never have investigated and had a report written up about their supposed lack of concern in the rape case as they just would have said "Well, they're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law because that's how our justice system works, so we aren't going to be concerned about it until after the trial." Fat chance of that. Duke is worried about their image in the court of public opinion... period.

I find it amazing that in this particular case the "innocent until proven guilty" slogan gets trotted out so much... I didn't see anyone here agreeing with Bush that Rove should remain in his job because he's "innocent until proven guilty" or anyone believing that Libby is "innocent until proven guilty", or Ken Lay was "innocent until proven guilty" or Bush and Cheney themselves are "innocent until proven guilty", etc., etc., etc.... is "innocent until proven guilty" selective depending on who might have done what and only applies to those people you WANT it to apply to rather than to EVERY citizen as the law says?

[pnwmom]

157. They are all innocent until proven guilty.

But based on the available evidence, it would be much easier to prove, for example, that Bush lied us into the Iraq war than that these three particular defendants raped their accuser. All you have to do is look at Bush's own statements.

[TorchTheWitch]

139. Sure they are

I guess you didn't hear of the '60's. Facial hair, long hair, pink hair, style of dress, tattoos, piercings, etc. are all free speech issues and always have been. Free "speech" isn't defined as the written or spoken word only. It's free expression, freedom of/from religion, the right to peacefully assemble, freedom of the press... it's all encompassed in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
~ Amendment I, The Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Duke having a no facial hair rule or uniform rule or other rules that defy the First Amendment sure looks like trying to muzzle their students. Schools are always making rules to muzzle their students... that's nothing new. Do you think Duke would approve of their lacrosse team wearing armbands during a game that said "Bush Sucks"? How about if the womens' lacrosse team decided they wanted to paint "Kiss My..." across the back of their shorts during a game... think Duke would approve of that? Duke, like any other school, makes these depressive expression rules because of concern for their image... nothing more than that. If they allow the "Innocent" armbands and disallow "Bush Sucks" armbands or pink hair or nose rings then they are showing how they stand as a school as to what the school believes.

[pnwmom]

94. Between games? Hah! Do you know how long it takes most young men to

grow a mustache? Besides, photos of the student involved don't show a mustache, either before or after.

[TorchTheWitch]

142. where's the before photo and when was it taken?

I know plenty of young men that can grow a significant amount of facial hair overnight to legitimately be called a mustache especially if the rest of the face is clean shaven to provide contrast. Evans has dark thick hair and eyebrows... he very well could grow enough hair on his upper lip to be called a mustache in a few days.

So, where's this before photo the defense claims to have?

[TorchTheWitch]

92. Now that's interesting

There are no OSHA regs on firefighters being clean shaven. OSHA only requires that the respirators used fit properly, work properly and are maintained properly. Many types of respirators don't require a person to be clean shaven for them to fit properly. Philadelphia FD has a rule where facial hair is forbidden for its firefighters because of the respirator seals, but other places don't... like Durham for instance. Maybe Duke should let the Durham FD know that they shouldn't be wearing mustaches.

Here's some of Durham's finest sporting quite a number of pushbrooms above their upper lips...






This is a firefighter's respirator which has a good reason for requiring a seal as they work with them on and in air that's unbreathable...


You aren't going to see one of these on any lacrosse field anywhere. If a player needs oxygen there's the good old fashioned oxygen mask that the EMS uses that doesn't require a seal.

Something tells me Duke's no mustache rule has absolutely nothing to do with the seal on a respirator.

But you may be happy to know that a Philadelphia judge ruled that a Muslim man on the Philadelphia FD is allowed to keep his religious beard despite the city ban on facial hair for firefighters...
http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=17114&sec=53&con=4

[jberryhill]

100. Allah Be Praised!

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLL!!!!!

[onenote]

104. so if an athlete gets a tattoo

that says: Stop the War, you would support the league if it required the player to cover up that slogan, even though they allow other non-political tattoos to go uncovered?

A couple of years ago there was a woman who played college basketball who would turn her back during the playing of the national anthem as a silent protest against the war. She took an enormous amount of flack. Do you think the flack-givers were right?

[TorchTheWitch]

143. Of course not

If they allow other tattoos to go uncovered then ALL tattoos on anyone should be allowed to go uncovered. The point is whether or not Duke is sticking to their own rules on this matter. If they had a rule that said no tattoos of any kind can be shown then they shouldn't allow someone to show a tattoo that says "Stop the War" because that would be going against their own rules, showing they believe the war should be stopped when they claim neutrality and is unfair to the players that have to follow the rules for their tattoos.

The point is that if Duke who is claiming neutrality in the rape case allows "Innocent" armbands on the players during a game when they don't allow other statements on armbands during a game shows where they REALLY stand despite their claims. If the school wants to publically side with the players in this incident then fine, it would then be appropriate for the players to wear the armbands... and they should also then scrap any other freedom of expression rules and ALSO allow "Bush Sucks", "Drink Beer", "Save the Whales" or "Guilty" armbands right along with them. But Duke is going out of their way to project that they DON'T side with the accused or the accuser in this matter and should have no rules that stifle freedom of CERTAIN expressions rather than freedom of ALL expressions.

[onenote]

149. I didn't know they had rules about armbands and such

Link?

[IndianaGreen]

137. The accuser said Evans would look like the rapist if he had a mustache!

During a photo ID line-up with police, the woman said she was 90 percent certain that Evans was one of the three men who attacked her. "He looks just like him without the mustache," a transcript of the line-up shows the woman saying.

Monday, Cheshire said Evans has never worn a mustache, and that photos of him shot a day before and a day after the party show him without one. Cheshire said "scores and scores" of people told him they've never seen Evans with a mustache.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14586648.htm

[Moosepoop]

86. Duke women stand by their men

http://sports.bostonherald.com/college/view.bg?articleid=140894

Duke women stand by their men
By Stephen Harris
Friday, May 26, 2006 - Updated: 04:17 AM EST

<snip>

The Duke women have backed the men and will continue to show their support as they seek the NCAA championship this weekend at BU.

The Duke players, who face Northwestern in the semifinals this evening, will be wearing sweatbands with the word, “Innocent” on them.

“Our emotions have been pretty high a lot of the season with what’s transpired with our men’s program,” said Blue Devils coach Kerstin Kimel. “Any time we have the opportunity to step on the field and wear our uniforms, representing not just Duke, but Duke lacrosse, we do it with a sense of pride and a sense that we’re not just representing ourselves - we’re representing everyone (at the university), including our men’s team.

“Some people have used the word, ‘burden.’ I wouldn’t say it’s been that. If anything it’s been a huge source of pride for me and for our team. If there has been an extra sense of responsibility, it’s been something our kids are proud to do.”

I wonder if Tammy Wynette will be performing at half-time?

[timber84]

87. Tammy Wynette is dead.

[donsu]

102. well I got it and LOL

nt

[mitchum]

93. Class solidarity is not surprising

[pnwmom]

97. Especially when indictments are obtained as prematurely as these were,

under circumstances that stink of election politics. No wonder they're banding together.

[Shadowen]

96. Duke sucks.

/FARK

[DelawareValleyDem]

99. deleted nt

[Igel]

107. The women's lacrosse team has as much right to be in

solidarity with their fellow students because they share a game--and express it--as the students that were protesting the lacrosse team's assumed guilt had to protest in sympathy with the alleged victim. Then there were the civil rights guys who asserted the men's guilt, based on little more than the accuser's claims and similar dermal melanin concentrations. Or the women's rights groups who asserted the men's guilt based on little more than the accuser's claims and parallel anatomy. Or the group of Duke professors who assume the lacrosse players guilt, apparently confident that neither females or those of high melanin concentration can lie, while others acknowledge that the athletes' past records may not be spotless, but hardly supports the claim that the rape charges are just more of the same.

Not all the evidence is in, or shown to be true. But that hasn't stopped the people from making the lacrosse seniors' lives hell, based on unproven accusations, or from seriously messing with the other students' coming academic year. Or from the accuser's past being dragged out and dissected.

Or from people arguing that screaming "you filthy rapist" at a lacrosse player is perfectly justified while wearing 'innocent' armbands is a travesty of justice. Or the converse. :beer:

[stanwyck]

110. Reminds me of a horrible frat gang rape

story from years ago when the frat's "little sisters" of a fraternity that was involved in a gang rape of two very inebriated young women were just brutal about the behavior not of the frat boys...but of the women who were raped.
The women were left, passed out, in a shower with nasty words magic markered on their bodies.
And the frat "little sisters" totally defended the rapists' actions.
They deserved it. They were drunk. They were sluts.
In the Duke case, we don't know what happened. That's for the judicial system to determine.
The time for the "innocent" armbands has not yet come.

[Buzz Clik]

111. Not many similarities here...

... and the "innocent" arm bands are a statement of support and really shouldn't be confused with a judicial ruling.

[stanwyck]

113. disagree that claiming innocence

is merely support. Sounds like they've had their trial and the verdict is in.
The women players should respect those accused AND the accuser and let our justice system decide innocence or guilt.
By wearing "innocent" armbands, they've made their decision. Based on what? They like the men? They don't believe the players would ever be capable of rape? The woman MUST be lying?
The similarity to the gang rape case I mentioned is that the women have rushed to the defense of the men they know.
They need to at least consider the possibility that they don't know these men as well as they think they do.
Our system of justice allows both the accused and the accuser their day in court.
Sounds like they've made their minds up and aren't afraid to proclaim the verdict now - justice be damned.

[onenote]

114. sounds only like they're expressing their opinion - what's wrong with that

Folks here at DU express opinions about the guilt or innocence of various individuals who have been accused of a crime(and in many instances the guilt or innocence of people who haven't yet been charged with a crime) hundreds of times each day. Do you think the moderators should stop it? Why should we be allowed to publicly express our opinions on matters of guilt and innocence, but not the Duke Women's lacrosse team?

[stanwyck]

117. they're free to do so

my objection is that they're proclaiming an outcome that hasn't happened yet. Innocent implies the verdict. I question their judgment. They're a sports team. They should understand fair play. They should understand there is a process which will decide the verdict.
They are acting as the jury. They are proclaiming innocence.
They know as much of the facts as we do. No more.
Yet they've made their decision. And they're free to do so.
I would not be proud of my daughter if she chose this display of blind devotion - justice system, fairness be damned. I'm judge and jury and those guys are just so nice and cute.....
A sense of self dignity and caution is advisable.
This reeks a little too much of "us" vs...."her".

[Captain Hilts]

121. We're not representing Duke U. We represent only ourselves. nt

[onenote]

131. I'm still waiting to hear what you think of athletes who protest the war

or otherwise express their views on matters of public interest by tattoos, words written on headbands, gestures such as turning their back during the national anthem, etc. Do you oppose such actions and stand with those who would silence these athletes while they are "representing their school/team/league?

Should atheletes be barred from wearing ribbons to indicate support for a particular cause? From wearing wristbands that indicate support for a particular cause? From wearing black armbands in memory of a particular coach or teammate or relative? What is a permissible expression of personal opinion by an athlete and who decides?

I've asked several times, but no one seems to have an answer.

[Captain Hilts]

133. What a professional athlete chooses to do is up to their team/league...

Yes, I do oppose political acts by college athletes. I don't want to see pro-war/anti-war/pro-life/pro-choice banners.

Tattoos are easy enough to ignore.

I watch sports to get away from politics.

I don't want kids representing my university using the school uniform to further their political causes.

[pnwmom]

134. Then you should make your view known to your university.

Which I suspect isn't Duke.

[Captain Hilts]

147. When the students, faculty, staff, donors, board of visitors, provost and

president of Duke all vote in favor of the lacrosse team wearing armbands, then, fine.

What the lacrosse team wears and considers a uniform is not up to the team's players.

[Buzz Clik]

167. The university gave its blessing to the armbands

http://www.herald-sun.com/sports/duke/39-738356.html

[Captain Hilts]

168. And they chose NOT to wear them. Good for them. nt

[Buzz Clik]

174. I'm glad you finally approve...

that the women wore the men's numbers. The message of support is just as clear.

[pnwmom]

123. The time is here, now. They ARE legally innocent -- until proven guilty.

And the guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how our system works. And I think the women on the lacrosse team feel a need to remind people about that.

[stanwyck]

135. They are presumed innocent

a verdict will proclaim either guilty or innocent.
Apparently, these women are either psychic or consider themselves judge and jury. That should save the taxpayers some money. Why have a trial? The women's lacrosse team has already ruled: the verdict is innocent.
And how, exactly, did they arrive at their verdict? Did they review all the evidence? Call witnesses? Interrogate the accuser?
What was their criteria for this verdict?
Cute guys....my daddy knows their daddy...I want them to like me?
What evidence are they using for their proclamation?
The accused are presumed innocent.
This is not the same as innocent.
Even OJ was presumed innocent.

[pnwmom]

138. You appear to be reading the women's team members' minds,

when you say that they are already pronouncing a verdict. They are not. I've read their statements, and they referred to the fact that anyone is innocent until proven guilty. They're trying to remind people of that.

Suppose you were right, that only a verdict will "proclaim guilty or innocent". In that case, if the charges were simply dropped, these men would NEVER be innocent, because a verdict would never have been rendered.

Fortunately, we live in a different legal system. Anyone who is charged with a crime remains legally innocent unless and until that crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the very definition of the "presumption of innocence."

[mitchum]

154. And you appear to be reading the women's team members' press release...

or maybe you wrote it?

[pnwmom]

155. I think I did read one, when I looked at the Duke website.

So?

[superconnected]

140. It looks like a statement saying the men actually are

innocent of raping the woman. Which nobody knows for sure.

They didn't say innocent of a guilty verdict. They said innocent. One would assume that means they pronounce the men didn't commit the crime, verdict or not.

You're right, they must be psychic - or dishonest. Because if they don't know, but they are claiming the men are innocent of rape, then they are being dishonest.

They should wear honest arm bands stating "we feel they are innocent".

But they'll still be the slime of women for enforcing the patriarchy in their attempt to not to let women be allowed to file rape charges, or have them brought to court.(many men here are ticked that OMG a woman accused a man of rape, how DARE she). Much like the people here who don't believe a victim has the right to press charges because she may be lying and it would defame the accused.

You'd think college educated women of anyone would understand the big picture. 3 generations of feminism down the drain when women decide to support the male attacker and attack the female for coming forward.

They should be supporting the woman for coming forward. They should look forward to a trial. They should be ready to be angry if she lied becuase it doesn't help future victims. But that should be decided at the trial. And they should realize that statistically there's over a 90% chance the accuser is not lying. That nearly all rapes are un-reported. That nearly all rapist get away with it. That sex offenders are repeat offenders. And that the big problem hasn't been accusing innocent men, it's been remaining silent.

These women are as bad as the beer guzzling libido controlled men who don't care if a woman is raped or not but only want the accusation squelched on the FAKE grounds that it accuses innocent men. If that were true then they should want ALL accusations for all crimes squelched.

Instead they want women to not be able to report rape.

Women enforcing that, will always find out that it doesn't serve them, their daughters, sisters, or even society in the end.

What fools these women are. What Stupid asses. They'll wake up eventually, when they have their own crimes to report. And they will be fighting this mentality they helped to maintain.

:puke:

[pnwmom]

144. They're NOT saying the woman shouldn't be "allowed" to have filed

charges or that the case shouldn't be brought to court. They HAVE been quoted as saying that the players are innocent until proven guilty.

[onenote]

148. how are they attempting to prevent the accused have her day in court

that is ridiculous. They are expressing their opinion and their support for their fellow students and athletes -- people they probably know personally. They may well be wrong in their opinion, but why shouldn't they express it? Simply because they are women? Should every woman have stood up in support of Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey? Gender isn't everything. These women know the guys accused in this instance far better than they know the accuser and, certainly based on what's been reported, its neither surprising nor irrational for them to form the opinions they have formed. (In contrast, since I know neither the accused or accuser first hand, my position is that it would be premature for me to form an opinion as to their guilt or innocence -- I'll await the disclosure and testing of the evidence at trial to do that. And the fact that these women believe the charges are without merit isn't going to influence my opinion any more than I would expect my lack of opinion to influence theirs).

[Captain Hilts]

152. They shouldn't have 'Eat at Joe's' on their uniforms unless the Univ.

Athletic Dept. sanctions it. For something like this, I'll bet it goes beyond the athletic dept.

[Buzz Clik]

169. You keep saying that, but you never checked.

The university is aware of the armbands and let it go:

http://www.herald-sun.com/sports/duke/39-738356.html

[Captain Hilts]

170. It would be fine if it was okay with the NCAA.

Remember, the NCAA does not permit SPECTATORS carry banners to championship series. This policy is specifically to avoid this kind of thing.

The team did not wear the headbands.

If athletes were permitted - as individuals - to flog whatever their favorite cause was, imagine all the Bible-thumping we'd be subjected to every time we tuned in. No messages by anybody is better.

[Buzz Clik]

173. ... and you checked to see the NCAA's stand on this?

The women all wore the number of a men's lacrosse player on an armband making a clear statement. But you applaud that.

You seem to have a problem finding a consistent position on this matter.

[pnwmom]

156. good post, onenote.

I too have no idea where the "truth" of this matter lies, but I'm afraid that the prosecutor and the police have so botched the case (with the two lineups and so forth), that we'll never know.

On the other hand, I'm shocked by how many DU'ers don't seem to understand, or care, that the presumption of innocence means that in ANY case where charges are brought, the accused is innocent and remains innocent unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Legally, there is no such thing as limbo. It doesn't matter that "90 % are guilty" or that "sex offenders are repeat offenders" or that you come from the ghetto or a country club town. Or even if your parents are rich Republicans! You are innocent, period -- until a jury finds you guilty.

[onenote]

160. exactly a point I meant to make

The fact that "statistically there's over a 90% chance the accuser is not lying" and that far too many rapists get away with their crimes and that women remain silent about rape far more often than they make false accusations may well be reasons for some people to reach an opinion that the Duke students who stand accused are likely guilty. But it isn't a reason for everyone to reach that conclusion. Each case stands on its own. People weigh what they know and feel about this case differently. The fact that the Duke women lacrosse players, who probably know the accused personally approach this case differently from someone who doesn't know them at all or only knows what has been reported in the press about them is neither surprising nor irrational. What they know about these guys may turn out to be wrong -- it may be that they've misjudged them. I certainly haven't made up my mind either way. But its absurd to think that they should think about a specific case that involves people that they are familiar with on the basis of abstract statistics.

[pnwmom]

162. Right. Anymore than I would if the accused was my brother.

[mitchum]

151. Damn! They're just like the Scottsboro Boys...if the Scottsboro Boys...

were spoiled, elitist brats

[pnwmom]

158. Being a spoiled elitist brat doesn't make you a rapist any more

than being a tough, underprivileged kid from the ghetto makes you one.

[onenote]

153. Change in plans: sweatbands simply to have male player's numbers

I understand that the Duke women's lacrosse team has changed its plans and is going to wear sweatbands with the accused male players' numbers rather than the word innocent.

By the way, to clarify a misconception that has persisted since the inaccurate heading on the OP -- the plan has always been to convey support for the accused men on sweatbands, not "armbands." Sweatbands are a normal part of the uniform and a far less obtrusive way of making a statement than an armband. The story on espn.com clearly says sweatbands in the title. I don't know if they corrected after the thread was started, or if the OP re-wrote the title in violation of LBN news.

[pnwmom]

159. I believe I copied the original title correctly, but I can't swear to it

in a court of law . . .

[onenote]

161. didn't mean to suggest you didn't -- it may have been changed

usually a mod or another poster will pick up on a misquoted headline right away. The fact that no one did here suggests that maybe you got it right.

By the way, for those who are karma believers (and I'm not one), the Duke women lost today, 11-10 on a last second goal. Their season is over, which might be what this thread needs to be too!