Started By
Message
re: UGA Signee Arrested on Domestic Violence Charges
Posted on 4/23/17 at 2:42 pm to bham_tiger
Posted on 4/23/17 at 2:42 pm to bham_tiger
Best quote ever......
"We like to play Georgia early in the season, they usually have several players on suspension!"......Steve Spurrier
"We like to play Georgia early in the season, they usually have several players on suspension!"......Steve Spurrier
Posted on 4/23/17 at 2:42 pm to WG_Dawg
Everyone knows Auburn takes in whoever. It is what it is.
The two QB's for their recent two national championship appearances were both convicted thief's kicked off by other schools.
The two QB's for their recent two national championship appearances were both convicted thief's kicked off by other schools.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 2:42 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
He visited AU for the 2015 A-day game big guy
Anybody who wants to buy a ticket and come can say they "visited". Doesn't mean we invited him. There was never an official visit. If a player never took an official to a school it's obvious they weren't recruiting him very hard.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 2:53 pm to Prof
quote:
Your facts are wrong. That makes you dumb.
Helpful hint: The Title 9 lawsuit wasn't a federal investigation into violence against women. It was a procedural case and one brought by private citizens. There was never an allegation of malicious wrongdoing by the university and never an allegation of a cover-up. Those things never happened despite rivals loving to claim they did. It was at its core about whether or not every t was crossed and i dotted when it came to how student cases were adjudicated.
Help me out.
Title 9 is a federal law.
Investigating if the law b is broken is a federal investigation.
Breaking federal laws can begin with civil complaints.
Again... help me out here.
Federal law.
Investigation into breaking federal law.
Not federal investigation?
Posted on 4/23/17 at 3:01 pm to Korin
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 9:57 am
Posted on 4/23/17 at 3:04 pm to Rohan Gravy
Down voting the quote, Spurrier, or the facts?
Posted on 4/23/17 at 3:10 pm to TT9
quote:
The two QB's for their recent two national championship appearances were both convicted thief's kicked off by other schools
So much wrong with that BS sentence.
-Neither Newton or Marshall are "convicted" thiefs.
-Newton's charges were dropped
-Marshall was never even arrested
-Newton was never kicked off any team, he transferred from Florida on his own
quote:
Everyone knows Auburn takes in whoever. It is what it is.
Nah, we actually have standards unlike Bama. Y'all are the real Rehab U
Malzahn wouldn't even allow Jonathan Taylor to visit for A-Day. Bama opened their arms wide to get him, and got an innocent UA female student beat up on the name of winning football games. Pathetic.
Btw here's a classic from the great journalists at Capstone Report on Jonathan Taylor:
LINK
quote:
The Tiggers are once again actively pursuing a criminal for their football team.
quote:
Thug U. may soon be the new home for Jonathan Taylor, the former Georgia defensive lineman kicked out of the Bulldog program after being arrested and charged with aggravated assault/family violence.
good stuff. Funny they didn't write an article when Bama signed him.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 3:15 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
good stuff. Funny they didn't write an article when Bama signed him.
The Capstone Report vilified Dee Liner as well. I wonder if they've learned yet.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 3:35 pm to DuncanIdaho
quote:
He'll be a barner by next fall
quote:
Because LSU would never take a former UGA player, right?
It was domestic violence, not sexual assault. LSU wouldn't take him.
Ib4 Jonathan Taylor
Posted on 4/23/17 at 3:46 pm to meansonny
I hope you're playing. There are plenty of federal laws that people can and do sue under. Take discrimination cases where someone sues an employer because they feel they're being discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, religion or national origin which are covered under federal protections. An employer being sued because he doesn't allow someone to wear a hijab on a factory floor isn't under federal investigation. He may or may not be in violation of federal laws protecting against religious discrimination depending on the facts of the case.
Similarly, an employer who is sued for firing an employee who violates a no gun policy by bringing his gun to work isn't under federal investigation. However, the former employee suing is making his case based upon protections established by federal laws and his/his attorney's interpretation of them.
Now here's the pertinent part when it comes to Title IX (and yes, the following is going to be long because the issue is both complex and murky and is deserving of a detailed explanation):
With Title IX universities have to establish gender equity. Most of us are familiar with the sports scholarship side of it but aren't very familiar with the adjudication side. What I mean by that is that universities are expected to establish and run their own university courts so to speak and/or otherwise establish a universal (for that institution) means of adjudicating student conduct cases. Whether it's handled by administrators, professionals who aren't employed by that university, by student panels, or a student-faculty panel every university has to have one. And these 'courts' are separate from the criminal justice system. They handle student conduct cases -- everything from minor stuff to things that are criminal.
A lot of victims prefer to go to go through this process because it's less invasive, less drawn out, and when it comes to sexual assault which can be anything from groping to rape there's sometimes a preference to simply see the person punished but not so much that the victim wants to see that person go to jail. Other times a victim of rape is either better served emotionally by not going through the criminal justice system or simply not willing/prepared to do so (it's grueling to have your body and entire life put on display, especially when you're that young).
**Note any and all rape victims and crime victims in general can take advantage of both systems and have the person tried both in student court/disciplinary boards and criminal court.
Now, here's where problems have started to arise. Title IX told universities that they needed these things but what it didn't do was establish a universal system for them to follow. One school may handled rape/sex assault cases using student-faculty panels while another may use an outsider and the variations are rather endless although the student run disciplinary committee is probably the most common.
What this variation means is that in order to determine whether or not a university's system for handling these cases is meeting Title IX requirements it pretty much has to go to court and have a judge rule on it one way or another.
These problems also extend to other aspects of sexual assault. Meaning that counseling centers, administration, housing, and many other policies that we rarely hear about are also operating blind. Again, Title IX lays out that universities have to have certain things but gives little to no guidelines on what meets those requirements.
Schools are left to try and figure all of that out on their own and they may or may not get it right - that wholly depends upon whether or not they get sued and the judge tells them it does or doesn't meet the requirements.
The lack of clarity in Title IX as it pertains to sexual assault has led to tons of problems and procedural nightmares. It hurts the victims, the accused and universities but when it was written these aspects of Title IX were afterthoughts and to be frank congress failed horribly at it.
There desperately needs to be a revision of this portion of Title IX because right now universities are ALL operating blind.
Similarly, an employer who is sued for firing an employee who violates a no gun policy by bringing his gun to work isn't under federal investigation. However, the former employee suing is making his case based upon protections established by federal laws and his/his attorney's interpretation of them.
Now here's the pertinent part when it comes to Title IX (and yes, the following is going to be long because the issue is both complex and murky and is deserving of a detailed explanation):
With Title IX universities have to establish gender equity. Most of us are familiar with the sports scholarship side of it but aren't very familiar with the adjudication side. What I mean by that is that universities are expected to establish and run their own university courts so to speak and/or otherwise establish a universal (for that institution) means of adjudicating student conduct cases. Whether it's handled by administrators, professionals who aren't employed by that university, by student panels, or a student-faculty panel every university has to have one. And these 'courts' are separate from the criminal justice system. They handle student conduct cases -- everything from minor stuff to things that are criminal.
A lot of victims prefer to go to go through this process because it's less invasive, less drawn out, and when it comes to sexual assault which can be anything from groping to rape there's sometimes a preference to simply see the person punished but not so much that the victim wants to see that person go to jail. Other times a victim of rape is either better served emotionally by not going through the criminal justice system or simply not willing/prepared to do so (it's grueling to have your body and entire life put on display, especially when you're that young).
**Note any and all rape victims and crime victims in general can take advantage of both systems and have the person tried both in student court/disciplinary boards and criminal court.
Now, here's where problems have started to arise. Title IX told universities that they needed these things but what it didn't do was establish a universal system for them to follow. One school may handled rape/sex assault cases using student-faculty panels while another may use an outsider and the variations are rather endless although the student run disciplinary committee is probably the most common.
What this variation means is that in order to determine whether or not a university's system for handling these cases is meeting Title IX requirements it pretty much has to go to court and have a judge rule on it one way or another.
These problems also extend to other aspects of sexual assault. Meaning that counseling centers, administration, housing, and many other policies that we rarely hear about are also operating blind. Again, Title IX lays out that universities have to have certain things but gives little to no guidelines on what meets those requirements.
Schools are left to try and figure all of that out on their own and they may or may not get it right - that wholly depends upon whether or not they get sued and the judge tells them it does or doesn't meet the requirements.
The lack of clarity in Title IX as it pertains to sexual assault has led to tons of problems and procedural nightmares. It hurts the victims, the accused and universities but when it was written these aspects of Title IX were afterthoughts and to be frank congress failed horribly at it.
There desperately needs to be a revision of this portion of Title IX because right now universities are ALL operating blind.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 4:00 pm to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
Calm your tits. Even Saban took Taylor.
Auburn just takes them more often than other's.
In Auburn's defense, I don't recall Auburn taking a player from another team who was released because of violence.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 4:02 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
In Auburn's defense, I don't recall Auburn taking a player from another team who was released because of violence.
Zero tolerance on violent charges. We do have our standards.
We also don't take alcoholic coaches.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 4:03 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
In Auburn's defense, I don't recall Auburn taking a player from another team who was released because of violence.
We can only reform the ones involved in petty stuff
Posted on 4/23/17 at 4:17 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Yet people try to claim we're a thug school? LOL
Not about the recruitment, it is about how a university handles things like this when they occur.
I think GA handled this one exactly the right way. Dismiss his arse and move on.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 4:21 pm to BowlJackson
quote:anymore. now you just take High school coaches.
We also don't take alcoholic coaches.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 4:25 pm to TT9
quote:
anymore
Pat Dye did have a great mentor.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 4:26 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
We also don't take alcoholic coaches
Ib4 Terry Bowden
And alcoholic coaches' wives...
Posted on 4/23/17 at 4:31 pm to BowlJackson
Priceless!
alabama
plainsmen
Georgia
Arguing about who is thuggier!
alabama
plainsmen
Georgia
Arguing about who is thuggier!
Posted on 4/23/17 at 4:47 pm to Rohan Gravy
Says an LSU fan....classic. You get a guy who was charged with a felony, reduced to a misdemeanor and glad he missed just a few minutes of football.....
We all recruit these same players, not school is exempt.
We all recruit these same players, not school is exempt.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 4:47 pm to Rohan Gravy
You're right, we're forgetting LSU. You guys have as good an argument as anybody
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News