Reported Sexual Assault at Armstrong's House Under Investigation

[Mierin]

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?

What a f'ing idiotic post.
Of course she could be lying, and I didn't say anything to the contrary. That doesn't mean Armstrong should imply she's lying, especially not to a damned newspaper reporter. He's likely going off the word of the accused. He doesn't know which of them is telling the truth.

How is only knowing the accused's side of the story and telling that to a reporter, insinuating the girl is lying?

It's insinuating she's lying because that isn't all he's heard. He was a) interviewed by the police and therefore knows she filed charges and b) may know that she went to the hospital.
So he knows the girl says she was raped. That's part of what he's heard. But he chose to say "From what we're hearing it was consensual." So he's writing off anything that she's said.

The main takeaway from this is don't talk to news reporters about rape allegations.

But "what he's heard" likely came from the source, the accused. I highly doubt he's heard anything from the alleged victim.

He's heard from the cops and the news reporter that she accused the accused of rape.

For the record I'm far more annoyed that he talked to news reporters at all than I am that he said something insensitive. I think he's a good guy. He probably didn't mean it to sound the way it did but if he's claiming to have heard it was consensual then he's ignoring the part he heard when the cops were talking directly to his face.

 

[Mierin]

Who cares what he said? Really, we know very, very little about this.

But the worst interpretation of "from what we're hearing, it was consensual" is that the accused is a friend of his and he chooses to believe his friend. That's pretty much how friendship works. I'd believe what my friend said on the matter too until I saw proof to the contrary.

Would you believe the friend and then answer a news reporter's questions about it knowing it would be reported all over? If it was me I'd be worried I'd accidentally say something stupid or insensitive, and imo that is what happened.

 

[HuskerExpat]

Who cares what he said? Really, we know very, very little about this.

But the worst interpretation of "from what we're hearing, it was consensual" is that the accused is a friend of his and he chooses to believe his friend. That's pretty much how friendship works. I'd believe what my friend said on the matter too until I saw proof to the contrary.

Would you believe the friend and then answer a news reporter's questions about it knowing it would be reported all over? If it was me I'd be worried I'd accidentally say something stupid or insensitive, and imo that is what happened.

If I believed my friend, I wouldn't think it "insensitive" to say so, to anyone. Kind of how it works.

 

[commando]

hopefully they name the accused soon and we can either suspend him (and anyone else who might have done anything wrong here) if he is a player. or get past this diversion for the players if it is none of them.

 

[HuskerNBigD]

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?

Because the public has the right to know who is being charged with a crime. That is why court documents, even complaints (ie the allegation) are public records. Any average joe can get a hold of it.

The public has an equal right to know who is accusing someone of a crime. Try again.

Why? What is the point of knowing the accusing name? If anything that individual should be protected. I can only imagine how many women feel nervous of coming out with an accusation like that, especially in a college town where football is king. Hell, there is a fraternity house on campus that covered up some charges like this. Wanna know how they covered it up? They got to the girl, whose own brother was in the chapter, and intimidated her so that she wouldn't press charges. I'd be willing to bet that if any of y'all had daughters attending UNL, you'd want to know about this. If you say otherwise, I'm calling bull f'ing sh#t. However, using your logic we'd never know about the situation. And don't give me the crap of, "well she should just come forward" - because if it were my daughter, I would not want her name in the papers.

 

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

It's a no win once the allegations come out, yall give the media too much credit. If he speaks on it he looks like an idiot to some, and if he says no comment then people will hover a cloud of guilt... Cuz human nature. Just let it run its course.

 

[BigRedBuster]

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?

Because the public has the right to know who is being charged with a crime. That is why court documents, even complaints (ie the allegation) are public records. Any average joe can get a hold of it.

The public has an equal right to know who is accusing someone of a crime. Try again.

Why? What is the point of knowing the accusing name? If anything that individual should be protected. I can only imagine how many women feel nervous of coming out with an accusation like that, especially in a college town where football is king. Hell, there is a fraternity house on campus that covered up some charges like this. Wanna know how they covered it up? They got to the girl, whose own brother was in the chapter, and intimidated her so that she wouldn't press charges. I'd be willing to bet that if any of y'all had daughters attending UNL, you'd want to know about this. If you say otherwise, I'm calling bull f'ing sh#t. However, using your logic we'd never know about the situation. And don't give me the crap of, "well she should just come forward" - because if it were my daughter, I would not want her name in the papers.

Read the rest of the thread and you will see that he isn't actually advocating for the victims name released. He is advocating for the accused names to not be released also.

Now, in this case, nobody has been named as an accused. However, there are 2-3 names tied to this story that everyone wishes were not tied to this story.

 

[knapplc]

Why? What is the point of knowing the accusing name? If anything that individual should be protected. I can only imagine how many women feel nervous of coming out with an accusation like that, especially in a college town where football is king. Hell, there is a fraternity house on campus that covered up some charges like this. Wanna know how they covered it up? They got to the girl, whose own brother was in the chapter, and intimidated her so that she wouldn't press charges. I'd be willing to bet that if any of y'all had daughters attending UNL, you'd want to know about this. If you say otherwise, I'm calling bull f'ing sh#t. However, using your logic we'd never know about the situation. And don't give me the crap of, "well she should just come forward" - because if it were my daughter, I would not want her name in the papers.

Go read the thread, man. Nobody is advocating releasing the accuser's name. Sheesh.

 

[HuskerNBigD]

Why? What is the point of knowing the accusing name? If anything that individual should be protected. I can only imagine how many women feel nervous of coming out with an accusation like that, especially in a college town where football is king. Hell, there is a fraternity house on campus that covered up some charges like this. Wanna know how they covered it up? They got to the girl, whose own brother was in the chapter, and intimidated her so that she wouldn't press charges. I'd be willing to bet that if any of y'all had daughters attending UNL, you'd want to know about this. If you say otherwise, I'm calling bull f'ing sh#t. However, using your logic we'd never know about the situation. And don't give me the crap of, "well she should just come forward" - because if it were my daughter, I would not want her name in the papers.

Go read the thread, man. Nobody is advocating releasing the accuser's name. Sheesh.

I understand that, what you said was its either both or neither until the verdict. What I am saying is I would rather have the information out there about the accusation. Again, talking about the cover up of individuals that never make the media or public records that should still be known about for other's safety.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Actually, at this point in time, I am sort of glad he said something to the media.

If he hadn't said anything and it came out that the alleged rape happened at his house and he simply said..."no comment". WOW...what a sh#t storm that would have caused. This way, by his comments, it is fairly clear he and his two room mates may not be involved.

 

[knapplc]

Why? What is the point of knowing the accusing name? If anything that individual should be protected. I can only imagine how many women feel nervous of coming out with an accusation like that, especially in a college town where football is king. Hell, there is a fraternity house on campus that covered up some charges like this. Wanna know how they covered it up? They got to the girl, whose own brother was in the chapter, and intimidated her so that she wouldn't press charges. I'd be willing to bet that if any of y'all had daughters attending UNL, you'd want to know about this. If you say otherwise, I'm calling bull f'ing sh#t. However, using your logic we'd never know about the situation. And don't give me the crap of, "well she should just come forward" - because if it were my daughter, I would not want her name in the papers.

Go read the thread, man. Nobody is advocating releasing the accuser's name. Sheesh.

I understand that, what you said was its either both or neither until the verdict. What I am saying is I would rather have the information out there about the accusation. Again, talking about the cover up of individuals that never make the media or public records that should still be known about for other's safety.

Clearly you don't understand. The ridiculously obvious takeaway from that was PUBLISH NEITHER NAME.

They did that, right here. Here's your facts, no names, but the information is out there.

LINK

Just after 2 a.m. Sunday, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln Police officer was dispatched to a residence near East Campus in regard to a UNL student who reported she was the victim of a sexual assault that recently occurred off campus.

The victim was interviewed; a safety plan was discussed, and she was given information about Voices of Hope and a UNL victim resource guide.

 

[HuskerNBigD]

Why? What is the point of knowing the accusing name? If anything that individual should be protected. I can only imagine how many women feel nervous of coming out with an accusation like that, especially in a college town where football is king. Hell, there is a fraternity house on campus that covered up some charges like this. Wanna know how they covered it up? They got to the girl, whose own brother was in the chapter, and intimidated her so that she wouldn't press charges. I'd be willing to bet that if any of y'all had daughters attending UNL, you'd want to know about this. If you say otherwise, I'm calling bull f'ing sh#t. However, using your logic we'd never know about the situation. And don't give me the crap of, "well she should just come forward" - because if it were my daughter, I would not want her name in the papers.

Go read the thread, man. Nobody is advocating releasing the accuser's name. Sheesh.

I understand that, what you said was its either both or neither until the verdict. What I am saying is I would rather have the information out there about the accusation. Again, talking about the cover up of individuals that never make the media or public records that should still be known about for other's safety.

Clearly you don't understand. The ridiculously obvious takeaway from that was PUBLISH NEITHER NAME.

They did that, right here. Here's your facts, no names, but the information is out there.

LINK

Just after 2 a.m. Sunday, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln Police officer was dispatched to a residence near East Campus in regard to a UNL student who reported she was the victim of a sexual assault that recently occurred off campus.

The victim was interviewed; a safety plan was discussed, and she was given information about Voices of Hope and a UNL victim resource guide.

AH perfect, all females stay away from residence near East Campus.

And I do understand, you were the one that said, "The public has an equal right to know who is accusing someone of a crime. Try again." which is something I strongly disagree with. But to each their own.

 

[commando]

FWIW.....i think this was going to come out very quickly anyway. can you imagine the people in the neighborhood being quiet about all the police cars parked over at tommys place? the speculation that would have blown up from that would be worse than what we see right now. way too much social media for it to not be all over the place already

 

[knapplc]

AH perfect, all females stay away from residence near East Campus.

And I do understand, you were the one that said, "The public has an equal right to know who is accusing someone of a crime. Try again." which is something I strongly disagree with. But to each their own.

Don't troll me. It won't work.

 

[NUance]

Who cares what he said? Really, we know very, very little about this.

But the worst interpretation of "from what we're hearing, it was consensual" is that the accused is a friend of his and he chooses to believe his friend. That's pretty much how friendship works. I'd believe what my friend said on the matter too until I saw proof to the contrary.

Would you believe the friend and then answer a news reporter's questions about it knowing it would be reported all over? If it was me I'd be worried I'd accidentally say something stupid or insensitive, and imo that is what happened.

I dunno. Knowing that this thing would be under a microscope might be reason enough *to* say something. I mean, if he declined to say anything it would make it look like he is somehow involved. And *that* would cause the Huskernation rumor machine to shift into overdrive. He said enough to let people know that he wasn't involved, and didn't know about any situation that happened at his house. But now, going forward, he should decline to say anything further. Except maybe that he didn't have anything to do with it, or any knowledge that something went on (assuming that's the case).