Von Pearson Update

#3,052
#3,052
BearCat204 said:
People will refuse to listen to this. They have taken the DA's decision and made up their mind that nothing at all happened. We just dont know and the administration and Jones have a ton more info on the situation and what actually happened than any of us.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is true. There is always more to the story.
 
#3,053
#3,053
BigOrange15 said:
There was a guy claiming to be an attorney that called into Swain's show earlier that was saying that the only reason Von Pearson hadn't been reinstated was because the board of education had given notice to schools that in the event of an accusation like this, if the victim claims that he/she feels unsafe, then the accused must be removed from campus regardless of whether it was based in fact or whether the claim that he/she felt unsafe was legitimate. That's why Michael Williams was allowed to stay, because this rule was not in place at the time and the fact that it is now the new SOP is why Von is still out.

It was an interesting call at least. I have no idea if he was legit or if he was FOS but that would at least make a little sense out of what is keeping him out on the UT side.
Click to expand...

It's legit. Most of this stems from the Duke Lacrosse Case that took place in 2006. Many of you may be too young to remember it. Not sure.
 
#3,057
#3,057
BigOrangeD said:
It's legit. Most of this stems from the Duke Lacrosse Case that took place in 2006. Many of you may be too young to remember it. Not sure.
Click to expand...

So the stripper (and eventual murderer) didn't feel safe on the Duke campus? :ermm:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,059
#3,059
UGADawg4Life said:
The DA didn't say he didn't do it. He said "there's insufficient evidence to prosecute". Which might mean the young lady was presented with a deal and decided not to push forward with a criminal trial. I suspect you'll see civil proceedings though, which will probably be settled out of court.
Click to expand...

Serious speculation on your part. As one of the posters said on here, who's also a former Asst DA, "insufficient evidence" pretty much means no evidence to pursue charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,061
#3,061
butchna said:
So the stripper (and eventual murderer) didn't feel safe on the Duke campus? :ermm:
Click to expand...

Just the stripper. She made the rape accusation and the University automatically took her side before all the facts came out and then once they did, the University got shamed and the Locrosse Team finally got some justice but the coach lost his job and those boys lost a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,062
#3,062
BigOrangeD said:
I hear ya. I'm not liking it either. Maybe they can work something out with the young lady. Offer her 24/7 protection and a sum of money.
Click to expand...

The problem is that just because there was insufficient evidence to charge doesn't mean that he didn't do anything. That said, its weird that the wording of this rule seems to indicate that the alleged victim can just keep saying that they dont feel safe and indefinitely keep the accused off of campus. There doesn't seem to be a check system. Hopefully someone knows more than me, this was the first I had heard of this rule.
 
#3,063
#3,063
BigOrangeD said:
It's legit. Most of this stems from the Duke Lacrosse Case that took place in 2006. Many of you may be too young to remember it. Not sure.
Click to expand...

Duke Lacrosse case? Oh...you mean the case where the hooker, who later turned out to also be a murderer, completely made up the gang rape allegation, causing the lacrosse program to be shut down, and a lot of innocent young men to be ostracized and run off of campus/have their lives turned upside down by no less than the faculty and administration before the allegation was even appropriately and honestly investigated by a left wing crooked DA who was later disbarred? That Duke lacrosse case?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#3,064
#3,064
BigOrange15 said:
The problem is that just because there was insufficient evidence to charge doesn't mean that he didn't do anything. That said, its weird that the wording of this rule seems to indicate that the alleged victim can just keep saying they dont feel safe and indefinitely keep the accused off of campus. There doesn't seem to be a check system. Hopefully someone knows more than me, this was the first I had heard of this rule.
Click to expand...

You are correct. That is how it works. It's been in the news a lot lately about other similar cases and I can see both sides but the Constitution says you are innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately when on a college campus, it appears you are guilty until proven innocent. There has to be a better way to handle these cases. Just not sure what it is.
 
#3,065
#3,065
BigOrange15 said:
The problem is that just because there was insufficient evidence to charge doesn't mean that he didn't do anything. That said, its weird that the wording of this rule seems to indicate that the alleged victim can just keep saying that they dont feel safe and indefinitely keep the accused off of campus. There doesn't seem to be a check system. Hopefully someone knows more than me, this was the first I had heard of this rule.
Click to expand...

That was my first thought as well.

There has to be some sort of check, otherwise what in the hell is going on? If that's the case, THAT'S when people need to mobilize and organize.

Hoping someone can explain.
 
#3,066
#3,066
KBVol said:
Duke Lacrosse case? Oh...you mean the case where the hooker, who later turned out to also be a murderer, completely made up the gang rape allegation, causing the lacrosse program to be shut down, and a lot of innocent young men to be ostracized and run off of campus/have their lives turned upside down by no less than the faculty and administration before the allegation was even appropriately and honestly investigated by a left wing crooked DA who was later disbarred? That Duke lacrosse case?
Click to expand...

Not that one. The other one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,067
#3,067
KBVol said:
Duke Lacrosse case? Oh...you mean the case where the hooker, who later turned out to also be a murderer, completely made up the gang rape allegation, causing the lacrosse program to be shut down, and a lot of innocent young men to be ostracized and run off of campus/have their lives turned upside down by no less than the faculty and administration before the allegation was even appropriately and honestly investigated by a left wing crooked DA who was later disbarred? That Duke lacrosse case?
Click to expand...

Exactly. The team were guilty until proven innocent. Unfortunately a lot of people got hurt in the process.
 
#3,068
#3,068
BigOrange15 said:
There was a guy claiming to be an attorney that called into Swain's show earlier that was saying that the only reason Von Pearson hadn't been reinstated was because the board of education had given notice to schools that in the event of an accusation like this, if the victim claims that he/she feels unsafe, then the accused must be removed from campus regardless of whether it was based in fact or whether the claim that he/she felt unsafe was legitimate. That's why Michael Williams was allowed to stay, because this rule was not in place at the time and the fact that it is now the new SOP is why Von is still out.

It was an interesting call at least. I have no idea if he was legit or if he was FOS but that would at least make a little sense out of what is keeping him out on the UT side.
Click to expand...

That cannot be the SOP. Not a chance
 
#3,070
#3,070
BigOrangeD said:
Just the stripper. She made the rape accusation and the University automatically took her side before all the facts came out and then once they did, the University got shamed and the Locrosse Team finally got some justice but the coach lost his job and those boys lost a lot.
Click to expand...

I hate Duke, so I followed the story. A Rush To Injustice follows that dumpster fire full of political agendas and race baiting. After the initial firestorm and Serena Roberts roasting them on ESPN ad nauseum, I kept waiting for the mountain of evidence that would bury these young men. Pure travesty. Just wondering how that correlates to the Pearson situation and how it could inspire a rule that PUNISHES him?
 
#3,071
#3,071
BigOrangeD said:
It seems to be at the moment. The attorney on the Swain Event said that many Universities have not caught up to the law with their Policies as of yet. So it may change.
Click to expand...

That is the case. However I believe their would have to be some sort of evidence of that fear being real.

I posted yesterday that most kids are removed from campus for what happens after the original complaint. Most of the time there are phone calls or text messages to the victim used to proved that fear is real.

Hoping that isn't the case here
 
#3,072
#3,072
butchna said:
I hate Duke, so I followed the story. A Rush To Injustice follows that dumpster fire full of political agendas and race baiting. After the initial firestorm and Serena Roberts roasting them on ESPN ad nauseum, I kept waiting for the mountain of evidence that would bury these young men. Pure travesty. Just wondering how that correlates to the Pearson situation and how it could inspire a rule that PUNISHES him?
Click to expand...

The only correlation is the University Policy of Guilty until proven innocent which remains to this day.
 
#3,073
#3,073
BruinVol said:
That is the case. However I believe their would have to be some sort of evidence of that fear being real.

I posted yesterday that most kids are removed from campus for what happens after the original complaint. Most of the time there are phone calls or text messages to the victim used to proved that fear is real.

Hoping that isn't the case here
Click to expand...

The attorney on the Swain Event addressed that. He said as of now, the accusation is enough. This is why he stated that a federal lawsuit may be required to iron this rule\law out. (I'm paraphrasing here.)
 
#3,074
#3,074
BigOrangeD said:
Exactly. The team were guilty until proven innocent. Unfortunately a lot of people got hurt in the process.
Click to expand...

Are they not presuming guilt first by banning a student from academics based on a claim that hasn't been proven substantial at this point? Banning him because someone doesn't feel safe without proof of stalking or an actual crime being committed would be ridiculous and I don't believe the university would open itself up with a decision like that. Now if they have tangible proof then thats different.
 
#3,075
#3,075
BigOrangeD said:
The attorney on the Swain Event addressed that. He said as of now, the accusation is enough. This is why he stated that a federal lawsuit may be required to iron this rule\law out. (I'm paraphrasing here.)
Click to expand...

Interesting. I know it's up to the school to decide what is real "fear" and with the Feds snooping around it's very possible they are so scared they jumped at the request without any other background
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top