Huskerzoo

6 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

For what it's worth, look at the dates and do some math. https://www.ncaa.com/final-four

The timing could work out for a splash hire. 

For most state positions, you have to have applicants taken. I've known quite a few inside hires in academia where people were still flown out for interviews who realistically had no chance for the position. 

3 hours ago, Huskerzoo said:

There's a rumor on reddit of a 3pm presser. No reason to believe in the person based on their posting history, but it's my contribution to this conversation. 

I was close. 

There's a rumor on reddit of a 3pm presser. No reason to believe in the person based on their posting history, but it's my contribution to this conversation. 

Folks. There will not be two threads like this. Sauces of all types are off limit here. 

1 minute ago, WyoHusker56 said:

Wow, Farmer might find himself sneaking into a late round pick. 

 

Kind of surprised at Freedom's bench press. 

Would've tied for top at the combine. Not really an event where you can inflate the numbers too much at a proday either (unlike say a 40 time). 

Just now, Saunders said:

I get that it's a separate charge, it just seems like there's a lot of inconsistency in the whole thing.

My impression is that it's because of the numerous legal things that are being brought up by the woman in the video. It's all kind of getting mushed together. I haven't seen anything that has linked Mo to being in the video in any way. I think a lot of people are having similar conversations to what we're seeing here. 

3 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

Moderators-Seriously?

@Saunders  @Huskerzoo @Enhance @Mavric

The pace is a little hard to keep up with. but I got it. 

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Although the numbers of false accusations are small, they are still damaging to those falsely accused.  The Duke Lacrosse case is only one very public example.

 

First bold - Yes.

 

Second bold - Yes, based on a preponderance of evidence, but asking if their freedom should be stripped is far different than asking if they should be publicly named. A person can be incarcerated pending trial based on evidence without telling the world what they're charged with. 

 

 

That makes sense to me. I think it's a tricky situation, especially with celebrities or psuedo celebrities like Mo. This information gets leaked and people have to be named in lawsuits. The only time I've ever seen this really been done well is when secrets are essential to the case (like clearing a whole court floor in the Mueller report). 

Any thoughts on how to navigate this skillfully for other situations? I don't disagree with you but I do think that false accusations are super rare (based on scientific findings shared before) and that we need to take all claims seriously and not dismiss them apriori as a person regretting an act which I feel like is being done in this thread at times. 

Again, I see your concerns, I agree with them, but I don't think I know how to navigate the (horrible) collateral damage. 

Just now, Saunders said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the two boys in the video were never charged with assault, and that all three of them were expelled after the incident. Then, one of the boys was charged for distributing the video? It seems like it was never being view through the lens of sexual assault until after Washington was involved? So, does that mean they go back and prosecute the two boys now?

You're only partially correct. 

Mo - Being charged with (not found guilty of yet) revenge porn and child porn. That is to say he's distributing the video. He's not charged with sexual assault. 

The three students in the video were all expelled is my understanding. Mo's ex only recently stated that it was a rape rather than consensual. However, this issue is separate from Mo. 

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

 

I feel like both parties should be treated equally.  The alleged victim could be right or making false accusations. The alleged victim deserves no special privileges, but does deserve a safe space to make their accusation.

 

In the same way, the alleged perpetrator deserves a safe space before all the facts are in. Personally, I don't think the accused should be named in rape cases until they go to trial.

I again want to encourage you to read some of the data on false accusations. The numbers are small. 

However, I'm curious about this. Do you feel like these same rights should be given to people charged with other crimes? Lets look at other crimes that involve 2 people regularly, murder. So if someone is accused of murder and the claims have at least some weight (so like in this case, we have a video showing a sexual act....lets say there's a video of the murdered person and someone accused of murder recently arguing and it's known that the person accused has access to a weapon) should the accused be able to walk around freely without having their name disclosed until their day in court? 

If no, why is this different? 

If yes, is there any case where a person without definitive proof should have their freedom stripped before they are found guilty? 

This is a genuine question, not trying to prove a point. 

Just now, knapplc said:

 

So any person who makes an accusation is to be believed, period?  Because that's a really, really bad policy.

Knapp, that's certainly not what I said. Additionally, you clearly didn't read what I put out there. 

Yes, there are false allegations. However, those numbers are extremely low with the most generous of numbers putting it at 5% of reported rapes which are thought to be (generously again) at 17% of all rapes. 

But I will say it here. Yes people should be believed and yes people should be given due process. And yes, we as a society are awful about blaming the victim in rape situations. And yes, we will get it wrong once in awhile, the same way we do with any other crime. 

9 minutes ago, Redux said:

This is going to sound incredibly heartless and I give this as a spontaneous opinion not knowing anything more than any of you.  But of course she now says it wasn't consensual.  We live in a society now that encourages the notion that if you do something and later on regret it, you can cry rape and get revenge.  Honestly I hope she is lying because even if you take Washington out of the picture, this is about to ruin a few kids lives if she is lying.  And I say I hope she is lying because I would rather the sex on film be consensual and regret driven than it actually being a rape video.  Neither are good by any means.

First, thank you for framing this as an opinion. 

No.

Just no. 

This isn't how the world works, there's no evidence this is how the world works. None of the literature supports this notion. In fact, the literature says that the reason people don't report rape is for exactly what has been going on in this thread. People are arguing about semantics, questioning if she just wants to save face or not, saying that oral sex can't be forced. We are all the problem here and we use it as further justification to discredit the victim. 

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00160012.pdf - legal journal

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077801210387749 - psych journal probably the best article to read. 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077801216630147 - psych journal

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077801213487044 - psych journal

https://xyonline.net/content/false-allegations-sexual-assault-and-domestic-violence - less scientific but a decent summary. 

I'm embarrassed by this thread. It's not a good look for us. Even more so, that the nature of the crime as it's relevant to Nebraska football has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEX. It has to do with the video and sharing the video. 

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, if a person you are friends with screws up and does one thing wrong, you condemn them as a horrible person and disassociate with them.

 

Wow....that's some pretty high standards that I hope you can live up to yourself.  If you can, you are one hell of an amazing person.

I'm gonna go ahead and step in here as a psychologist. Behavior only changes when there are consequences. 

There are two variables in play here that the conversation is going back and forth on. The first is, do we know for sure he did it (and what is the context of him doing it)? 

The second is, if he did it should there be consequences and if so, what should the consequences be?

Your comment is mushing it all together and spinning peoples comments. 

The nice thing here is if we're patient, we will know number 1. Unless they used an encrypted software like what's app and they didn't save the messages, we will know all the information about if he did it and the rest of the conversation looked like. I think the problem that many people here are attending to is not taking the victim serious. Which is the sad history surrounding sex related laws in our country. These are also notoriously hard to prove because the evidence is temporary, and there are variables related to shame, embarassment, etc that come with sex crimes that prevent people from wanting to share. 

So while we should take an innocent until proven guilty stance, I think we lose track of other things. If he were accused of murder, would you say "until he's proven guilty he should stay on the team"? If your answer is no, we're drawing an arbitrary line somewhere. At some point, we take allegations seriously and there are consequences while we sort things out. This is how the legal system regularly plays out. So if you think he should be the equivalent of suspended without pay while we investigate, I'm game. But this no consequences until found guilty thing isn't how the world works. 

12 hours ago, Landlord said:

y'all know that teenagers these days send and receive sexually explicit photos/videos/language all the time, right? Especially women receiving dick pics. It's probably morally and ethically wrong and in poor taste, but it's also extremely normal.

 

12

I think this is the problem Landlord. You're saying it's normal so nothing should be done about it. Rather than saying it's normal and that's messed up. This stuff does harm to people and there's evidence that the culture we're living in increases the likelihood of more severe downstream behaviors. So while it is normal, I'd also say we need to take it seriously and provide consequences to make it understood it's not acceptable. It's not that sexuality in and of its self is bad. However, when you talk to those girls getting dick pics, how many of them do you think the women want to see? How many do you think were solicited? We're using sex both as a weapon (such as what is being suggested MW did) and we're using it in inappropriate and non-consensual ways and that isn't "morally and ethically wrong and in poor taste" it's causing psychological harm to the victims and sometimes harm in the career/life domains and should be taken seriously, not dismissed as this is just the world we live in. 

We all need to take a hard look at ourselves if we're going to defend the alleged actions.

I'm not going to rush to judgment until all the info comes out, but if he sent that video he should be held accountable and there should be consequences. Do I think it should ruin his career? Probably not, but maybe he should get some help with emotion regulation and get suspended long enough to make time for him to change some of what's going to get in the way of his life down the road. 

29 minutes ago, SouthLincoln Husker said:

We basically put are class together on the early signing period.  Not worried, as I think they have been spending more time on the 2020 class.

This loss stings, but remember that the transfer portal is also going to change things up. 

Fiesta Nueces checking in. 

I'm not convinced that he didn't sign. HCSF said on his signing day show that there were 2 more players they were waitiing for. In my mind that was the Pola boys. If they waited until the end of the early signing period, all the heat would be off of them, it's low odds of getting leaked, they could still announce at the game. Additionally, when we saw other offers going out, we were not sending out offers to secondary players which is still a position of need. 

This is all just a hunch, but it seems more likely than 2 players that weren't on our collective radar signing. 

Also, for anyone that thinks Russia was not involved with anything. 

Butina just pled guilty. 

If you think that she was the only one doing anything, you need to read a bit more about international politics. 

8 hours ago, HS_Coach_C said:

I'm curious what other recruits think of this when they only get two coaches to visit.

"Good Lord we need a pass rush"

9 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

"When you commit to us, we commit to you."--Scott Frost

It seems that there are two possibilities here. One is there's more going on than we can see. The second is SF is ruthless when it comes to recruiting. We will see how this plays out. That said, we may not ever get the whole picture. 

3 minutes ago, spurs1990 said:

Bold on their part considering he's not committed and I'd hope Daniels will have progressed enough in two years to hold on to that starting position.

 

 

Absolutely. Though right now, I would not bet against this staff when they identify their top target. It's pretty fun to watch them work. 

23 minutes ago, The Murphinator said:

How does rivals still have him as a 3 star?

Re-evaluation in January. I think it's just that they don't update in an ongoing basis. 

5 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

That doesnt help after this season though. If you bring in Fair you give yourself a JR in 2019 and a SR in 2020 instead of having Daniels a So and Piper a Rs FR going into 2020 as your NT depth

From my understanding, the game plan is to get Nash and it's possible he'll be your starter from day one in 2020. 

3 hours ago, ADS said:

Calvin Avery

 

I've seen this a few places. Who introduced the idea he might transfer in?