Reported Sexual Assault at Armstrong's House Under Investigation

[broganreynik]

When there's a police report of a significant crime at an address of public interest, the media reports it. We aren't going to throw that by the wayside because it involves Nebraska football players.

Except there is no crime, as of yet - it's one reported allegation. There's a difference.
And do you really think stations like KETV and WOWT are going to follow up on this nonsense? We don't even know the suspect yet.

There's a good chance nothing will come of this and if that happens I highly doubt they're going to come out and say "well, sorry, we made a big deal about something that turned into nothing."

He said "When there's a police report of a significant crime at an address of public interest." That has happened. There is a police report of a significant crime. That is fact.

Police report does not equal crime.
I could go right now to a police station and a file a report saying you killed my dog. An investigation must take place before we know an actual crime took place.

Similarly speaking, a rape kit must be completed and a protocol followed before it can be determined there was a crime.

There is a difference.

I understand, bud. However, the post by broganreynik made no mention of whether or not there was a crime. He said it will be reported "When there's a police report of a significant crime at an address of public interest..

That has occurred.

There's no need to be condescending.
"When there is a police report of a significant crime."

There is a police report of a sexual assault allegation.

That is what has occurred. The language being thrown around on here suggests a crime has taken place and there is no public proof of that yet.

You realize that filing a false police report is a crime, right? If that ends up being the case, it's still reportable, considering the alleged location. Then it's a story of a woman making accusations involving people in the public spotlight.
Either way, it's irresponsible journalism for an outlet to not run the story, when they know damn well it's a huge public interest story. irs because of that very fact that we aren't just going to drop the ball it it ends up being untrue.

 

[InOmaha]

I'll wait for the case to settle, but it's another one of those cases where players put themselves in a bad situation for no good reason. I don't buy the 20 year old excuses. At that age my dad had been in the army, was married, had 2 kids, a house, and a job. If he started partying at 12:30 at night that would be a bad decision. I'm sure he partied, but kept it lower key because he knew better to respect his responsibilities and not risk his job doing something stupid. This isn't rocket surgery. These guys should do it simply because in the long run it's better for your prospects and goals. Go home, go to bed, get up earlier, spend an extra hour or two throwing the ball to each other or finishing homework. Instead they are risking their jobs.

These grown up kids should act more like adults if they want to be treated like an adult. But, I think there are a lot of adults that should act more like adults too.

Now you're insinuating that being a student-athlete is a job. In that case what is their annual salary? That's a whole other can of worms. Comparing your father's life (which he chose) to these kids is arguably pointless.

Add tuition and board together and there it is. I worked a jobs outside of school then handed my salary to the University to pay for that sort of stuff. Ask Avery Moss or Ernest Suttles or ..... whoever else has been removed from the team, what not being smart gets you. They can chose to be smarter and grow up a little, or chose to take risks that could cost them scholorships and the opportunity to play football. It's that simple.

The facts are the police were at their house investigating a potential crime and they didn't talk to their coaches about it. There is a risk now the incident could affect their scholorship and playing time regardless of an actual crime. Why take that sort of risk? Because they're thinking like a child and not an adult.

 

[SouthLincoln Husker]

As of right now, it is an allegation and no charges have been filed. Too many of you want to hang someone before the true comes out!

Ummm... Did you read the thread? Is there anyone in here who is calling anyone guilty of rape?

Not directly, because no one knows who the accused is. This why LPD will not give out this information. People overreact!

 

[Mavric]

[No message]

 

[knapplc]

That seems exceedingly long. Granted, I don't follow rape investigations very closely, but from what I understand the woman:

1. Identified her alleged attacker

2. Went through proper rape-reporting protocols

And the Police have:

1. Interviewed the woman

2. Identified and contacted the suspect

3. Interviewed the guys at the house (Tommy, Jordan & Trey)

That seems like a lot of information, and unless there's something weird or wonky going on, you'd think they could make an allegation pretty quickly after that.

Maybe BRI or someone could explain why that investigation would take up to nine months.

 

[Enhance]

When there's a police report of a significant crime at an address of public interest, the media reports it. We aren't going to throw that by the wayside because it involves Nebraska football players.

Except there is no crime, as of yet - it's one reported allegation. There's a difference.
And do you really think stations like KETV and WOWT are going to follow up on this nonsense? We don't even know the suspect yet.

There's a good chance nothing will come of this and if that happens I highly doubt they're going to come out and say "well, sorry, we made a big deal about something that turned into nothing."

He said "When there's a police report of a significant crime at an address of public interest." That has happened. There is a police report of a significant crime. That is fact.

Police report does not equal crime.
I could go right now to a police station and a file a report saying you killed my dog. An investigation must take place before we know an actual crime took place.

Similarly speaking, a rape kit must be completed and a protocol followed before it can be determined there was a crime.

There is a difference.

I understand, bud. However, the post by broganreynik made no mention of whether or not there was a crime. He said it will be reported "When there's a police report of a significant crime at an address of public interest..

That has occurred.

There's no need to be condescending.
"When there is a police report of a significant crime."

There is a police report of a sexual assault allegation.

That is what has occurred. The language being thrown around on here suggests a crime has taken place and there is no public proof of that yet.

You realize that filing a false police report is a crime, right? If that ends up being the case, it's still reportable, considering the alleged location. Then it's a story of a woman making accusations involving people in the public spotlight.
Either way, it's irresponsible journalism for an outlet to not run the story, when they know damn well it's a huge public interest story. irs because of that very fact that we aren't just going to drop the ball it it ends up being untrue.

It's not irresponsible - it's making an ethical decision. A lot of people on this board would disagree with you, as well. Some here have even applauded the outlets that haven't run a story because of the lack of information.

Some news outlets, regardless of perpetrator, don't run sexual assault stories unless there are actual arrests and/or charges. And they don't drag people's names through the mud who may have had nothing to do with it.

 

[Mierin]

That seems exceedingly long. Granted, I don't follow rape investigations very closely, but from what I understand the woman:

1. Identified her alleged attacker

2. Went through proper rape-reporting protocols

And the Police have:

1. Interviewed the woman

2. Identified and contacted the suspect

3. Interviewed the guys at the house (Tommy, Jordan & Trey)

That seems like a lot of information, and unless there's something weird or wonky going on, you'd think they could make an allegation pretty quickly after that.

Maybe BRI or someone could explain why that investigation would take up to nine months.

It says in the article it takes 6-9 months to get DNA tests back.

It would be nice if someone would just flat out say that DNA tests were not taken from whoever they weren't taken from. That way their names could at least be somewhat detached from the story.

 

[southernoregonhusker]

That seems exceedingly long. Granted, I don't follow rape investigations very closely, but from what I understand the woman:

1. Identified her alleged attacker

2. Went through proper rape-reporting protocols

And the Police have:

1. Interviewed the woman

2. Identified and contacted the suspect

3. Interviewed the guys at the house (Tommy, Jordan & Trey)

That seems like a lot of information, and unless there's something weird or wonky going on, you'd think they could make an allegation pretty quickly after that.

Maybe BRI or someone could explain why that investigation would take up to nine months.

You have to wait for the "rape kit" to be tested at the crime lab. Takes up to 6 months here in Oregon. It's not like CSI on TV.

 

[Enhance]

When there's a police report of a significant crime at an address of public interest, the media reports it. We aren't going to throw that by the wayside because it involves Nebraska football players.

Except there is no crime, as of yet - it's one reported allegation. There's a difference.
And do you really think stations like KETV and WOWT are going to follow up on this nonsense? We don't even know the suspect yet.

There's a good chance nothing will come of this and if that happens I highly doubt they're going to come out and say "well, sorry, we made a big deal about something that turned into nothing."

He said "When there's a police report of a significant crime at an address of public interest." That has happened. There is a police report of a significant crime. That is fact.

Police report does not equal crime.
I could go right now to a police station and a file a report saying you killed my dog. An investigation must take place before we know an actual crime took place.

Similarly speaking, a rape kit must be completed and a protocol followed before it can be determined there was a crime.

There is a difference.

I understand, bud. However, the post by broganreynik made no mention of whether or not there was a crime. He said it will be reported "When there's a police report of a significant crime at an address of public interest..

That has occurred.

There's no need to be condescending.
"When there is a police report of a significant crime."

There is a police report of a sexual assault allegation.

That is what has occurred. The language being thrown around on here suggests a crime has taken place and there is no public proof of that yet.

No. The police report documents the allegation. The police report is not an allegation of an allegation.
There is a police report (allegation) of a significant crime.

Either way, we are getting into semantics and we just clearly disagree on this issue.

It's not semantics, it's law.

Crimes come in the form of citations, court charges and arrests. A police report is an entirely separate entity. It's evidence.

The proper terminology is "a police report of an alleged sexual assault" or an "alleged crime." And while you may think it's semantics, it can often be the the difference between accusing someone or not.

 

[Red Five]

That seems exceedingly long. Granted, I don't follow rape investigations very closely, but from what I understand the woman:

1. Identified her alleged attacker

2. Went through proper rape-reporting protocols

And the Police have:

1. Interviewed the woman

2. Identified and contacted the suspect

3. Interviewed the guys at the house (Tommy, Jordan & Trey)

That seems like a lot of information, and unless there's something weird or wonky going on, you'd think they could make an allegation pretty quickly after that.

Maybe BRI or someone could explain why that investigation would take up to nine months.

https://twitter.com/paulhammelowh/status/667007175273807872

 

[Caven]

http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/dna-resource-center-documents/dna-sak-victim-brofinal.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Testing can happen in less than a week but that is usually only in high priority cases. Usually takes 3-6 months or longer - generally due to a lack of funding. Towards the end it specifies that outside funding can not be used to pay for the kit to be processed faster.

 

[knapplc]

But you don't have to have DNA evidence to arrest someone, or charge them with the crime. DNA is necessary for a conviction, maybe, but not utterly necessary for a charge.

Also, while it can take 6-9 months, DNA testing - at least to find a match - can be done in as little as 24 hours. Getting lab time is often the biggest delay. But I have a hard time believing that we're backed up on lab testing for six to nine months.

I hate to speculate why they're focusing so much on the DNA kit.

 

[JJ Husker]

6-9 months for DNA results in a possible rape case.......I don't believe that for a moment.

We had a guy that broke into my business, left a little blood on the floor from breaking a window, and they tested that sample and got a saliva sample from our number one suspect and had them matched up and confirmed within 1 1/2 to 2 weeks.

This is off topic but it is funny how they got him to agree to giving a saliva sample. They told him the suspect sh#t on the floor and spit on the walls. Well, he knew he didn't do that so he agreed to give them the saliva sample, I guess he didn't know it's the same DNA in blood or spit

 

[Warrior10]

Now you're insinuating that being a student-athlete is a job. In that case what is their annual salary?

Sean Callahan said last night on KFAB that each of the three players receives $1,300 a month for off campus living expenses. So in that case, it is at least $15,600.

Nah, couple friends of mine had purely academic based scholarships that provided money for off campus living.

 

[Kernal]

But you don't have to have DNA evidence to arrest someone, or charge them with the crime. DNA is necessary for a conviction, maybe, but not utterly necessary for a charge.

Also, while it can take 6-9 months, DNA testing - at least to find a match - can be done in as little as 24 hours. Getting lab time is often the biggest delay. But I have a hard time believing that we're backed up on lab testing for six to nine months.

I hate to speculate why they're focusing so much on the DNA kit.

The only reason that makes sense for waiting for the DNA testing is that there isn't enough other evidence to charge, but rather than dismiss the accusations and risk public charges of "protecting the football team," prosecutors/police can wait for the DNA testing even though they aren't likely to contain anything incriminating.

Because what could DNA possibly show that isn't already known? DNA only proves participation, not consent, and participation doesn't seem to be disputed.