Pre-Med Accused and Cleared of Rape Charges

[Psai]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I think schools really need to crack down more on sexual assault because the majority of times victims don't even come forward and not all men are rapists but the burden of proof should always be on the accused and you can't ask for tea if you're unconscious

you raped me

 

[efle]

Burden of proof is always on the accuser/state, it's a central principle of our justice system

you raped me

I can't prove that I didn't, so I guess I'll drop out of school and save the judicial board the effort of kicking me out

 

[deleted480308]

haha, I guess I deserved that then....

 

[mehc012]

I don't feel bad. I'd probably laugh at his face. You and I don't know people like this, cause we don't associate with freaks like this, haha.

lol I wish that were how the world worked...

 

[Spirit of the Student Doc]

Disgusting, this person deserves some old fashioned justice.

Spirit style

 

[cloudmurder1]

I cannot believe some of the stuff I have just read. What has this PC, liberal generation done to our society?? So just because a woman says she was raped, the person who is accused is guilty? Those media sources simply spelled out the testimonies of the woman; there was no evidence to verify rape at all despite what you all may think. I think that given that rape is a polarizing subject, more attention needs to be brought to evidence gathering than hearsay, victim blaming, or categorically claiming the accused is guilty.

And as for the comments about the racist chant from the OU fraternity, OU is funded by the state of Oklahoma and is therefore an extension of it; thus, it must abide by constitutional principles, including the first amendment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ity-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/) . What the OU president did is unconstitutional, and it is only a matter of time before a case is made against the OU president. The speech was not violent or inciting violence in any way. I do think that it was grotesque and should not have been said, but the 1A is there to protect all speech provided that it is not violent or inciting violence, whether or not we like it. And before any of you say "they're not free from the consequences of the speech," actually given that OU is a state university and must abide by the constitution, these fraternity boys are free from them.

 

[tiedyeddog]

And as for the comments about the racist chant from the OU fraternity, OU is funded by the state of Oklahoma and is therefore an extension of it; thus, it must abide by constitutional principles, including the first amendment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ity-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/) . What the OU president did is unconstitutional, and it is only a matter of time before a case is made against the OU president. The speech was not violent or inciting violence in any way. I do think that it was grotesque and should not have been said, but the 1A is there to protect all speech provided that it is not violent or inciting violence, whether or not we like it. And before any of you say "they're not free from the consequences of the speech," actually given that OU is a state university and must abide by the constitution, these fraternity boys are free from them.

Even though you quoted the first amendment you still don't understand it. It protects you from criminal persecution. It does not protect you from getting fires or expelled, no matter if the school is public or private. I bet if you would look there is probably a school bylaw prohibiting racist speech which this kid violated, anyway.

 

[cloudmurder1]

Even though you quoted the first amendment you still don't understand it. It protects you from criminal persecution. It does not protect you from getting fires or expelled, no matter if the school is public or private. I bet if you would look there is probably a school bylaw prohibiting racist speech which this kid violated, anyway.

It protects from punishment from the government, which is exactly what was dealt in this instance. Yes, being fired from a job would not be governmental punishment.

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

It protects from punishment from the government, which is exactly what was dealt in this instance. Yes, being fired from a job would not be governmental punishment.

I agreed with most of your other post but I don't think that is the case here. If because you have a government job it doesn't mean you can't be fired from it because of the 1A if you are openly racist to your coworkers. The first does protect you from criminal prosecution but not from any ramifications by any publicly funded entity.