Drae Bowles

[utkjoe]

So if Drae Bowles says the assault did not take place, how can someone file a lawsuit on his behalf?

The lawsuit isn't specifically over the Bowles assault, its about fostering an environment of sexual assault at the University. They allege in it the Bowles assault did happen, but I don't know how they plan to prove it without his cooperation.

They can bring it up in their lawsuit, but I imagine it will get destroyed in court. Even if Bowles changes his mind and claims the assault did happen, the defense can point to contrary statements and no criminal prosecution.

I guess they hope the lower burden of proof in civil court will allow some jurors (or the judge) to be swayed into believing the assault did happen, despite both parties involved denying it.

 

[utkjoe]

39-13-101. Assault.

(a) A person commits assault who:

(1) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another;

(2) Intentionally or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury; or

(3) Intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another and a reasonable person would regard the contact as extremely offensive or provocative.

Number 2 requires no physical contact.

BookVol is right (and you sort of are too). No physical contact is required, but that's not what he said. He said some action must be taken beyond verbal threats. Which is true.

Saying, "I'm going to kick your @$$", is not assault. Saying it then chasing after him with a bat probably is. You have to do something beyond using your words... though that doesn't have to be all they way to physical contact.

You have to actually have a reason to fear he's going to really do it, not just him mouthing off.

 

[Rifleman]

From reading this thread, it is obvious that only a few of us have actually read the lawsuit, so I am providing the full link below.

I would ask anyone who is making presumptions about what is actually being talked about here with no knowledge of the suit itself to please acquaint themselves with the assertions made in the suit and make your own judgments.

There is plenty of room for honest disagreement here, but please do not rely on the media to tell you what to think.


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2708071-Lawsuit.html


If you need enticement, here is some of the proof of a culture of "deliberate indifference" (the key measure that must be proven for the suit to be successful) offered in the suit:

141. On November 9, 2014, the University’s Athletic Department made arrangements to surprise the football team with a visit from popular rap artist, Lil’ Jon.
142. Prior to this visit and at the specific insistence of the football coaching staff, UT had adopted the rapper’s song “Turn Down for What”7 as its official 3rd down football anthem, playing the song in Neyland stadium during games each third down when the opposing team was on offense and using a play on the lyrics (as “Third Down for What”) for printing on official team merchandise.
143. For more than a decade, the rapper Lil’ Jon has been associated with sexual violence and rape culture.

 

[utkjoe]

141. On November 9, 2014, the University’s Athletic Department made arrangements to surprise the football team with a visit from popular rap artist, Lil’ Jon.
142. Prior to this visit and at the specific insistence of the football coaching staff, UT had adopted the rapper’s song “Turn Down for What”7 as its official 3rd down football anthem, playing the song in Neyland stadium during games each third down when the opposing team was on offense and using a play on the lyrics (as “Third Down for What”) for printing on official team merchandise.
143. For more than a decade, the rapper Lil’ Jon has been associated with sexual violence and rape culture.

Honestly, they are turning what should be a serious matter into a joke.

 

[madbamahater]

So, was Bowles assaulted or not? Is he saying that he never was assaulted or that he was? We definitely need some legitimate clarification?

 

[edyeary]

The whole thing is a huge quantum leap. Just reflects the idiocy and insanity of today's pc culture. The sad thing is there are people in high positions and in authority left winged, manipulative,politically motivated and stupid enough to give it credence.

 

[VolFootballIsLife]

LOL...so from my post, saying that if AJ did indeed commit this crime then he deserves everything coming to him, you think I want to contact this female?? I believe you should speed your brain up to catch up with your fingers typing.

How many people have contacted AJ or Mike Williams with their 2 cents? Or now, Drae Bowles, Orta, Maggit? I think it should be equal treatment for the accused and the accuser until the process is completed.

No way! Would make victims of rape less likely to come forward. That is definitely not what society needs. I agree these things get messy and I feel for those indivuduals who have been wrongly accused in other cases, but they deserve not to be hounded by the public. If they are truly a victim of rape, they have been through enough.

Further, imagine this is your daughter. It's easy for us fathers to do.

Now what we don't have in place is a way to rectify all the injustices that an innocent man suffers through during false accusations.

These things are just disasters on all fronts.

 

[Rifleman]

Honestly, they are turning what should be a serious matter into a joke.

I think that is largely true. My hope is that the suit gets the state to re-evaluate and improve their processes with regards to instances of sexual abuse and violence.

That would be the a positive outcome.

The process that UT is obliged to use as a state institution really does need to be altered to make it more just and allow victims to report incidences without fear.

Unfortunately, as the suit only targets one institution, not the state process as a whole, its aim seems to be to gain monetary compensation instead of the institutional change that is needed.

 

[VolFootballIsLife]

The whole thing is a huge quantum leap. Just reflects the idiocy and insanity of today's pc culture. The sad thing is there are people in high positions and in authority left winged, manipulative,politically motivated and stupid enough to give it credence.

Yep...listening to accusations of rape are left winged and politically motivated. You hear that all you Obama-loving rape victims!!! How dare you let yourself be forced upon by someone twice your size to further the Democrats hopes for higher office. How selfish.

Some people are unbelievable.

 

[utkjoe]

I think that is largely true. My hope is that the suit gets the state to re-evaluate and improve their processes with regards to instances of sexual abuse and violence.

That would be the a positive outcome.

The process that UT is obliged to use as a state institution really does need to be altered to make it more just and allow victims to report incidences without fear.

Unfortunately, as the suit only targets one institution, not the state process as a whole, its aim seems to be to gain monetary compensation instead of the institutional change that is needed.

I've only read through a little over half of it (thanks for linking it by the way), and I agree with what you are saying. It sounds like the issue they really have is with the process for reporting and adjudicating claims of sexual assault.

That process probably does need to be revised, but this lawsuit is written in such a way as to expose the fact that this case is about money.

I do feel bad for the woman that got kicked out of nursing school, if everything alleged is true. Traumas like that can negatively affect your grades and the school could have been more understanding and helpful (again, if her version of the story is true).

 

[top5vols]

BookVol is right (and you sort of are too). No physical contact is required, but that's not what he said. He said some action must be taken beyond verbal threats. Which is true.

Saying, "I'm going to kick your @$$", is not assault. Saying it then chasing after him with a bat probably is. You have to do something beyond using your words... though that doesn't have to be all they way to physical contact.

You have to actually have a reason to fear he's going to really do it, not just him mouthing off.

Wrong, No action is required. Verbal threats are considered assault when the victim fears bodily harm. I have been to court a number of times with these cases.

 

[BookVol]

Wrong, The individual must start the process. Unlike DV, the state will prosecute rregardless of the victim. Check TCA for assault .

I check TCA every day. It's part of my job. And if the state doesn't want to prosecute, then criminal charges won't be brought. Anyone can file a police report or talk to the DA to bring something to their attention but a private citizen cannot bring a criminal case. And no, threats aren't enough. There has to be a physical component, whether it's shaking a fist, rearing back or whatever.

I've gone through law school, passed the bar, and practice law in Tennessee. Trust me on this.

And what utkjoe said, contact isn't necessary, but swinging a baseball bat menacingly could be enough. Acting like you're going to throw something could be enough. Just standing there saying I'm going to kick your butt and turning around and walking away would not be enough. Could be harassment maybe though, if that's a pattern.

 

[top5vols]

Class A and Class B Misdemeanor

An assault in which the offender causes bodily injury or threatens the victim with immediate bodily harm is a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail or a fine up $2,500, or both. Physical contact that is provocative or offensive is a Class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to six months in jail, a fine up to $500, or both.

 

[wtorange]

Class A and Class B Misdemeanor

An assault in which the offender causes bodily injury or threatens the victim with immediate bodily harm is a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail or a fine up $2,500, or both. Physical contact that is provocative or offensive is a Class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to six months in jail, a fine up to $500, or both.

I have been in on some assault cases too and the sticky part is what constitutes threatens the victim with immediate bodily harm. Mere statements are rarely construed to meet the requirement. My experience has been that it requires a definite plan of committing the act.

 

[Rifleman]

The whole thing is a huge quantum leap. Just reflects the idiocy and insanity of today's pc culture. The sad thing is there are people in high positions and in authority left winged, manipulative,politically motivated and stupid enough to give it credence.

I check TCA every day. It's part of my job. And if the state doesn't want to prosecute, then criminal charges won't be brought. Anyone can file a police report or talk to the DA to bring something to their attention but a private citizen cannot bring a criminal case. And no, threats aren't enough. There has to be a physical component, whether it's shaking a fist, rearing back or whatever.

I've gone through law school, passed the bar, and practice law in Tennessee. Trust me on this.

And what utkjoe said, contact isn't necessary, but swinging a baseball bat menacingly could be enough. Acting like you're going to throw something could be enough. Just standing there saying I'm going to kick your butt and turning around and walking away would not be enough. Could be harassment maybe though, if that's a pattern.

Thank you for the definitive answer.

I think it is also important to continue to note:

* that the assault the civil suit alleges was denied to have been an assault by Bowles himself
* the suit charges that he transferred due to intimidation, but his transfer was in the pipeline before these incidents occurred, which undermines the cause and effect the suit forwards
* Bowles sought transfer due to a lack of playing time, according to Bowles own statements
* Bowles never sought to press charges against Maggit and Orta, though all those supporting Bowles say that he is the sort of person who will do the right thing even in a situation that is difficult
* none of those accused of assault in the civil suit have been charged with this crime in a criminal setting
* the mention of the assault in the civil suit is the anecdotal report of someone who was not a direct witness

 

[crusse10]

So if Drae Bowles says the assault did not take place, how can someone file a lawsuit on his behalf?

Orta literally told police what he did

 

[crusse10]

Class A and Class B Misdemeanor

An assault in which the offender causes bodily injury or threatens the victim with immediate bodily harm is a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail or a fine up $2,500, or both. Physical contact that is provocative or offensive is a Class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to six months in jail, a fine up to $500, or both.

it becomes way worse when the assault can be considered witness tampering, which it's possible that his could be

 

[top5vols]

Tennessee Assault Laws

The basic offense of assault is defined as:

Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to someone;
Intentionally or knowingly causing another to reasonably fear imminent injury; or
Intentionally or knowingly causing physical contact with someone that they would regard as offensive or provocative.

Does this mean I can be charged with assault even if I don’t touch someone?

Yes. If you cause someone to “reasonably fear” bodily injury, then you can be charged with assault, even if you do not touch them in any manner.

I have been in on some assault cases too and the sticky part is what constitutes threatens the victim with immediate bodily harm. Mere statements are rarely construed to meet the requirement. My experience has been that it requires a definite plan of committing the act.

 

[utkjoe]

Wrong, No action is required. Verbal threats are considered assault when the victim fears bodily harm. I have been to court a number of times with these cases.

The key in the law was "reasonably fear imminent injury". Nothing more than a verbal threat won't generally rise to "reasonably fear imminent injury". Something has to be happening to cause a normal, rational person to fear the threat is going to be carried out right then.

That usually requires some action beyond just a verbal threat. Established case law will give you the clues you need to determine what level of further action is required for the victim to "reasonably fear imminent injury".

 

[Rifleman]

Orta literally told police what he did

From the lawsuit all we know that Orta said to the Police were these words, two phrases stripped of their overall context:

PHRASE ONE:

"in his face"

PHRASE TWO:

"some threatening things"


You may be willing to heap a number of charges on Orta based on those two phrases;

You may be willing to see a full confession to a felony in those two phrases;

But it seems that the KPD was unwilling to pursue any charges based on Orta's full testimony.

In this widening conspiracy which you seem to have great insight into, should we be adding the KPD to the bad actors at work here?

After all, they purposefully ignored this two phrase confession of Orta's which you see as definitive proof of a very serious crime.

 

[crusse10]

I wasn't there and nobody else in this thread was there. But if Orta was willing to tell police that he said threatening things to Bowles and also tell police that, where he's from, people get shot for that, I'd guess that words he may have said to Bowles probably could have resulted in Bowles fearing imminent injury.

 

[crusse10]

From the lawsuit all we know that Orta said to the Police were these words, two phrases stripped of their overall context:

PHRASE ONE:

"in his face"

PHRASE TWO:

"some threatening things"


You may be willing to heap a number of charges on Orta based on those two phrases;

You may be willing to see a full confession to a felony in those two phrases;

But it seems that the KPD was unwilling to pursue any charges based on Orta's full testimony.

In this widening conspiracy which you seem to have great insight into, should we be adding the KPD to the bad actors at work here?

After all, they purposefully ignored this two phrase confession of Orta's which you see as definitive proof of a very serious crime.

Most of this case has seemed bungled up by the KPD, so I wouldn't be shocked. But does it not seem odd to you that (1) Bowles helped the victim, (2) Orta admitted that he and Maggitt, on separate occasions and in different locations, verbally assaulted Bowles regarding the matter, then (3) Bowles claims nothing happened

It just seems weird that they'd have a confession like that and do nothing with it.

 

[top5vols]

The key in the law was "reasonably fear imminent injury". Nothing more than a verbal threat won't generally rise to "reasonably fear imminent injury". Something has to be happening to cause a normal, rational person to fear the threat is going to be carried out right then.

That usually requires some action beyond just a verbal threat. Established case law will give you the clues you need to determine what level of further action is required for the victim to "reasonably fear imminent injury".

Yes. If you cause someone to “reasonably fear” bodily injury, then you can be charged with assault, even if you do not touch them in any manner.

 

[utkjoe]

Yes. If you cause someone to “reasonably fear” bodily injury, then you can be charged with assault, even if you do not touch them in any manner.

Okay, You're sounding obsessed with touching people, no one said anything about touching.

A step beyond verbal threats or some action taken is not the same as touching.

 

[BookVol]

Yes. If you cause someone to “reasonably fear” bodily injury, then you can be charged with assault, even if you do not touch them in any manner.

The key point is that you can't cause someone to reasonably fear imminent contact by just words alone.

Fear has to be reasonable, and it's not considered reasonable unless there's enough to suggest IMMINENT harm or contact is about to occur.

Threats without accompanying body language does not suggest imminence.