Reported Sexual Assault at Armstrong's House Under Investigation

[Waldo]

 

Now on ESPN's college football main page. Just what we needed heading into the biggest week of the season.

Can you put away the fandom...please! Come on...did you not see that post

I missed it in all of your college partying and keggers talk. I should be worried about the woman involved and not the team. I apologize.

[teachercd]

 

 

Now on ESPN's college football main page. Just what we needed heading into the biggest week of the season.

Can you put away the fandom...please! Come on...did you not see that post

I missed it in all of your college partying and keggers talk. I should be worried about the woman involved and not the team. I apologize.

Ha! Thanks!

[knapplc]

 

 

This is the problem. Already, many people who see/read this story will assume it to be true even if no one is charged. It's one of the faults with reporting information before it's been hashed out in the legal process. Drawing comparison to the Patrick Kane rape accusation, many people believe or at least suspect he did it, when the case against him as in fact been dropped. I deeply appreciate the media and their job, but, it is a dilemma.

 

If TA doesn't talk to police, that's likely reported as TA and Co. refusing to answer questions. Legal, but to those on the outside, suspicious. If he does answer questions, the court of public opinion thinks he's probably innocent.

 

I have no idea if he had intent other than to just cooperate.

It's a pretty easy dilemma for the press to fix: Simply don't report the names of ANYONE involved, not the alleged victim, the alleged rapist/assaulter, the location, nothing. There is nothing altruistic about the press' reporting of rape. They do it, and attach the males' name to the allegation, because it provides them with revenue.

 

We've gotten to the point where the press, collectively, has agreed not to provide the names of victims. That's a good thing, and laudable. But they need to go the next step and not report anyone's names, exactly for the reasons you've said. Patrick Kane, the Duke case, now Tommy Armstrong & Jordan Westerkamp - these names are all attached to a heinous word now, "rape." And that's completely unfair to, for certain, Kane and the Duke players. If it turns out there was no assault here, and Armstrong & Westerkamp are completely innocent, great. But their names are the ones attached to this now.

 

It's a double-standard and it's crap, and it should stop.

 

Just curious, should this policy only apply to rape? What about Murder, Attempted Murder, etc. (crimes that are punished more severely than rape).

 

I want reporting done equally. If they report the name of the victim, they should report the name of the alleged. If not one, then not the other.

[RADAR]

Really don't like that Armstrong is talking to a newspaper and implying that the accuser is lying.

Girls don't lie??? That's a new one. Ever heard of a little situation that happened at Duke a few years back?

[STL Husker]

I have no idea what happened and I have no information, but I don't think it was the football players and especially Tommy. If Tommy was the accused, I would hope he or someone else would be smart enough to get him a lawyer right away and he wouldn't be talking to the paper about it. It also sounds like he wasn't a part of it when he says "it sounds like it was consensual". I think he sound a little more confident if it involved him. I also don't think he would be saying anything if it was another player on the team. It seems like it might involve someone who isn't on the team. This is just the sense I get from the situation. I really really hope I'm right.

[KazLong]

Well according to ESPN, she went to the hospital.

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14154519/police-investigating-report-rape-home-tommy-armstrong-jr-nebraska-cornhuskers

 

I am sure the cops did a dna swap of all suspects, and the rape kit will shot who did what...

 

Also cops always tell all suspects you are doing fine, you are ok, nothing to worry about... Not that arm-so-strong is a suspect, however that is par for the course. Also from what I read in the journal today, seems like Tommy and Foster and Westerkamp where questioned.

[BoNeyard]

I have no idea what happened and I have no information, but I don't think it was the football players and especially Tommy. If Tommy was the accused, I would hope he or someone else would be smart enough to get him a lawyer right away and he wouldn't be talking to the paper about it. It also sounds like he wasn't a part of it when he says "it sounds like it was consensual". I think he sound a little more confident if it involved him. I also don't think he would be saying anything if it was another player on the team. It seems like it might involve someone who isn't on the team. This is just the sense I get from the situation. I really really hope I'm right.

I sure hope our starting QB, who IF he was the accused, wouldn't come out to the media and say "it sounds like it was consensual"

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

This is the problem. Already, many people who see/read this story will assume it to be true even if no one is charged. It's one of the faults with reporting information before it's been hashed out in the legal process. Drawing comparison to the Patrick Kane rape accusation, many people believe or at least suspect he did it, when the case against him as in fact been dropped. I deeply appreciate the media and their job, but, it is a dilemma.

 

If TA doesn't talk to police, that's likely reported as TA and Co. refusing to answer questions. Legal, but to those on the outside, suspicious. If he does answer questions, the court of public opinion thinks he's probably innocent.

 

I have no idea if he had intent other than to just cooperate.

It's a pretty easy dilemma for the press to fix: Simply don't report the names of ANYONE involved, not the alleged victim, the alleged rapist/assaulter, the location, nothing. There is nothing altruistic about the press' reporting of rape. They do it, and attach the males' name to the allegation, because it provides them with revenue.

 

We've gotten to the point where the press, collectively, has agreed not to provide the names of victims. That's a good thing, and laudable. But they need to go the next step and not report anyone's names, exactly for the reasons you've said. Patrick Kane, the Duke case, now Tommy Armstrong & Jordan Westerkamp - these names are all attached to a heinous word now, "rape." And that's completely unfair to, for certain, Kane and the Duke players. If it turns out there was no assault here, and Armstrong & Westerkamp are completely innocent, great. But their names are the ones attached to this now.

 

It's a double-standard and it's crap, and it should stop.

 

Just curious, should this policy only apply to rape? What about Murder, Attempted Murder, etc. (crimes that are punished more severely than rape).

 

I want reporting done equally. If they report the name of the victim, they should report the name of the alleged. If not one, then not the other.

 

you do realize the policy behind the rule, correct? It has nothing to do with fairness. The policy is to remove a barrier for rape victims to report the crime. It is well documented that rape victims historically have refused to report the crime, expecially against athletes and other prominent figures, for fear of ridicule and even their own safety.

 

Unfortunately, naming a witness or the accused has no effect on whether or not the crime will be reported.

 

Its not fair, but, as they say, life isn't fair.

 

And the obvious end of this line of questioning comes out.

 

Of course everyone knows why victims' names aren't reported. "Life isn't fair" isn't a good reason to besmirch someone's name, and is a wrong very easily fixed by not reporting alleged perpetrators' names until a court decides guilt.

[VectorVictor]

Someone already made a LP reference on deadspin.... smh.

 

Deadspin is nothing but a wretched hive of clickbait scum and misreported villainy anymore.

 

So like Fox News, but without the eye candy.

[Waldo]

 

I have no idea what happened and I have no information, but I don't think it was the football players and especially Tommy. If Tommy was the accused, I would hope he or someone else would be smart enough to get him a lawyer right away and he wouldn't be talking to the paper about it. It also sounds like he wasn't a part of it when he says "it sounds like it was consensual". I think he sound a little more confident if it involved him. I also don't think he would be saying anything if it was another player on the team. It seems like it might involve someone who isn't on the team. This is just the sense I get from the situation. I really really hope I'm right.

I sure hope our starting QB, who IF he was the accused, wouldn't come out to the media and say "it sounds like it was consensual"

I sure hope Armstrong keeps quiet moving forward. As a 21 or 22 year old, I sure hope they are smart enough to not speak with the public about the ongoing investigation. Nothing good can come from that.

[Savage Husker]

He was probably informed by the university to no longer talk. He's still pretty young and probably doesn't know any better. And really, that's the last problem of this whole situation.

[Dbqgolfer]

 

 

 

 

This is the problem. Already, many people who see/read this story will assume it to be true even if no one is charged. It's one of the faults with reporting information before it's been hashed out in the legal process. Drawing comparison to the Patrick Kane rape accusation, many people believe or at least suspect he did it, when the case against him as in fact been dropped. I deeply appreciate the media and their job, but, it is a dilemma.

 

If TA doesn't talk to police, that's likely reported as TA and Co. refusing to answer questions. Legal, but to those on the outside, suspicious. If he does answer questions, the court of public opinion thinks he's probably innocent.

 

I have no idea if he had intent other than to just cooperate.

It's a pretty easy dilemma for the press to fix: Simply don't report the names of ANYONE involved, not the alleged victim, the alleged rapist/assaulter, the location, nothing. There is nothing altruistic about the press' reporting of rape. They do it, and attach the males' name to the allegation, because it provides them with revenue.

 

We've gotten to the point where the press, collectively, has agreed not to provide the names of victims. That's a good thing, and laudable. But they need to go the next step and not report anyone's names, exactly for the reasons you've said. Patrick Kane, the Duke case, now Tommy Armstrong & Jordan Westerkamp - these names are all attached to a heinous word now, "rape." And that's completely unfair to, for certain, Kane and the Duke players. If it turns out there was no assault here, and Armstrong & Westerkamp are completely innocent, great. But their names are the ones attached to this now.

 

It's a double-standard and it's crap, and it should stop.

 

Just curious, should this policy only apply to rape? What about Murder, Attempted Murder, etc. (crimes that are punished more severely than rape).

 

I want reporting done equally. If they report the name of the victim, they should report the name of the alleged. If not one, then not the other.

 

 

you do realize the policy behind the rule, correct? It has nothing to do with fairness. The policy is to remove a barrier for rape victims to report the crime. It is well documented that rape victims historically have refused to report the crime, expecially against athletes and other prominent figures, for fear of ridicule and even their own safety.

 

Unfortunately, naming a witness or the accused has no effect on whether or not the crime will be reported.

 

Its not fair, but, as they say, life isn't fair.

 

And by not reporting the names of the alleged, it removes an incentive to falsely accuse someone. Like mentioned before, once someone is named, their name is linked to the crime forever, whether guilty or not.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

This is the problem. Already, many people who see/read this story will assume it to be true even if no one is charged. It's one of the faults with reporting information before it's been hashed out in the legal process. Drawing comparison to the Patrick Kane rape accusation, many people believe or at least suspect he did it, when the case against him as in fact been dropped. I deeply appreciate the media and their job, but, it is a dilemma.

 

If TA doesn't talk to police, that's likely reported as TA and Co. refusing to answer questions. Legal, but to those on the outside, suspicious. If he does answer questions, the court of public opinion thinks he's probably innocent.

 

I have no idea if he had intent other than to just cooperate.

It's a pretty easy dilemma for the press to fix: Simply don't report the names of ANYONE involved, not the alleged victim, the alleged rapist/assaulter, the location, nothing. There is nothing altruistic about the press' reporting of rape. They do it, and attach the males' name to the allegation, because it provides them with revenue.

 

We've gotten to the point where the press, collectively, has agreed not to provide the names of victims. That's a good thing, and laudable. But they need to go the next step and not report anyone's names, exactly for the reasons you've said. Patrick Kane, the Duke case, now Tommy Armstrong & Jordan Westerkamp - these names are all attached to a heinous word now, "rape." And that's completely unfair to, for certain, Kane and the Duke players. If it turns out there was no assault here, and Armstrong & Westerkamp are completely innocent, great. But their names are the ones attached to this now.

 

It's a double-standard and it's crap, and it should stop.

 

Just curious, should this policy only apply to rape? What about Murder, Attempted Murder, etc. (crimes that are punished more severely than rape).

 

I want reporting done equally. If they report the name of the victim, they should report the name of the alleged. If not one, then not the other.

 

 

you do realize the policy behind the rule, correct? It has nothing to do with fairness. The policy is to remove a barrier for rape victims to report the crime. It is well documented that rape victims historically have refused to report the crime, expecially against athletes and other prominent figures, for fear of ridicule and even their own safety.

 

Unfortunately, naming a witness or the accused has no effect on whether or not the crime will be reported.

 

Its not fair, but, as they say, life isn't fair.

 

I completely 100% agree to not print the victims name for the reasons you stated and the sheer trauma they are going through. They don't need the public humiliation on top of it.

HOWEVER.....This rule has also made it much easier for women to lie about these situations with very little ramifications against them (at least in their minds). Want to get back at some guy you don't like? accuse him of rape and his name is drug through the mud immediately.

 

NO, I am not saying this is the case here at all. Nobody knows yet what happened here. But, to Knapp's point, there is no need to put the accused name in the news until something is proven.

[knapplc]

First. They are not besmirching anybody's name. They paper reported that somebody reported a crime that took place at Armstrong's and Westerkamp's house. That is a fact. Somebody did report that.

 

You want the papers to not report alleged criminals until a "court decides guilt". Do you know how impractical and against public policy that is? You want news to refrain from reporting OJ Simpson is a murder suspect until the guilty verdict? So, in your mind, Jamies Winston, Big Ben, Kobe Bryant, Ray Lewis, etc. should not have made the news at all because there was no guilty verdict?

 

Maybe you are right in theory, but that will literally never happen.

What benefit is there to reporting the man's name, other than selling newspapers?

[Mavric]

 

Someone already made a LP reference on deadspin.... smh.

 

Deadspin is nothing but a wretched hive of clickbait scum and misreported villainy anymore.

 

So like Fox News, but without the eye candy.

 

 

I was told by a reliable source that it's not as bad there as some other places....