Reported Sexual Assault at Armstrong's House Under Investigation

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

The first time I had the sweet sweet love with my wife she was heavily under the influence. And still to the day she swears I consented to sexual relations.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Not stating if I think anyone is guilty or not. I do have one question that if I heard it right I am not sure I understand.

The female mentioned that the rape happened between the hours of 2:30 sunday morning to 9:30 am. Why could she not narrow a time better down better than 7 hours?

If I misheard, please correct me.

It could have happened while she was asleep, then she woke up and figured out what happened. Or since they were at a party alcohol may have been involved.

I never buy that as an excuse. If you choose to drink then you need to understand that the things you do while under the influence may or may not be agreeable to you when you sober up, but it was YOUR decision to drink so you get to live with the consequences of your actions. (When I use the word you in this post, I don't necessarily mean you Moiraine.)

Elf, just no. Maybe the way she was dressed, "she was just asking for it" too? No.

If she says yes while drunk, or even because she was drunk, when she sobers up it doesn't become rape. And no I was not implying that by drinking that she was "asking for it".
*Edit* I've heard some information within the last 12 hours that leads me to believe this. That's all I'm saying.

You said "it was YOUR decision to drink so you get to live with the consequences of your actions". This is disgusting to hear, and honestly, if that is how you feel, I am ashamed for you.
You are now saying that agreeing to sex while drunk gives the women no legal rights. However, consent cannot be given by someone who is mentally incapable or physically helpless, including as a result of alcohol. You want consequences for actions, well don't sleep with someone who is drunk; otherwise, you can live with the consequences when they sober up.

Living with the consequences of our decisions to drink alcohol goes far beyond a choice to partake of sexual activities. We could list example after example of bad choices that are made while under the influence of alcohol and in the vast majority of cases we still hold those people accountable for their actions.
I think it goes without saying that someone who is mentally incapable or physically helpless cannot give consent. These would be obvious exceptions to the above.

Oh, in regards to your last sentence, what happens when they are both drunk and make bad decisions, what then?

Simple, then both have legal rights. Of course, the woman may file for rape (which requires penetration) while the man may file for sexual assault.
Consequences for actions. You keep saying that, but clearly, you have a double standard in this situation, for whatever reason.

Where is my double standard?

"Living with the consequences of our decisions to drink alcohol". If you think they both drank, great. Both will live with the consequences of their actions following that choice. If you agree, what are we talking about?

 

[TAKODA]

Posted Today, 09:36 AM


[SIZE=10.5pt]While I will not add to the already long laundry list of rumors, I will speak to the "why" a DNA test may possibly be important in an investigation. [/SIZE]

Note! I am not speaking to this case at all, but in general terms only.

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]In cases that involve numerous parties, it is quite possible that consensual sex between "any number of individuals" could be a fact; however if the alleged victim was under the influence whereby the alleged victim was incapacitated to a degree where alleged victim was not in control, and if after having consensual sex, alleged victim was sexually assaulted by some perpetrator and that perpetrator was to deny they had sex with alleged victim, this very well could be the crux of the matter.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

Again, I am not speaking to this case but it was posed by someone earlier as to why a DNA test might be important. It also could be that once a rape claim is committed, it is the protocol that agency elects to follow.

That's all true. And I think a DNA test is part of a standard assault forensic exam that a person undergoes when a rape is reported. It's voluntary, but the person is encouraged to let them work through the rape kit to collect evidence. There might be a lot of uncertainty as to what went on. The rape kit can provide hard evidence to confirm parts of an allegation.

Yep!

Regardless of the what, why and when, (in any case); if coitus is not by consented by all the involved parties and the alleged perpetrator stated to law enforcement that they did not have coitus with the alleged victim, yet collected evidence indeed shows they had, then well, it will get ugly.

If my explanation above turns out to be what is occurring here in this case, I suspect there would be charges filed and the defense attorney to whomever the alleged perpetrator was/is, would then change the argument to something along the lines that their client (the defendant) was impaired to the point that they could not recall it happening and or that the alleged victim gave the alleged perpetrator all the signals that they were giving consent. But even with that defense, it would be slim that the charges were dropped (if they are ever filed to begin with). If the latter part of this occurs, you will see the attorney for the defendant attempt to defame the alleged victim by calling into question their values and potential sexual habits, which if a rape occurred (regardless of misinformed signals or not), would be the very reason why many women elect not to press charges. They are dragged through the mud as if they are at fault. Sad!

Again, not speaking to this particular case, just potential reasons for a DNA test to be done other than if it SOP for the agencies involved.

 

[74Hunter]

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.

I haven't read every post, but what he did was dumb.
Should've said something like "the police are investigating an incident that occurred at my residence. Since the investigation is ongoing, I cannot further comment on it. I can tell you that at this time I am not being accused of any wrongdoing ( if true).

I really don't care how this affects the team, this is much bigger than any football game.

How would that be any better than what he actually said? ("From what were hearing, everything was consensual.")

:

Um, it's quite a bit better actually. His opinion on whether she was raped or not is irrelevant if he didn't witness it so he should have kept his mouth shut. His opinion on it comes from the word of some of his buddies. Saying he can't comment on it is way better than saying from what he heard this woman, who went to the hospital and caused 5 cops to come to his house, wasn't really raped.

So, if the statement that Tommy heard turned out to be false, do you think he could be sued for defamation or something? I just don't see how he could get into trouble for that statement. In what other possible way could that get him into trouble?

Sure, you and I would have handled it differently. But we're not 22 year old college students. Tommy apparently felt he had to say something, and I just don't think what he said is that big of a deal.

He's 22, not 18. You should know by then if accused ad something of this level to lawyer up.
The university should be telling the kids the same thing. If you get in trouble, don't talk to the police or press. Call us or your lawyer first even if you think you've done nothing wrong.

You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. (I'm talking about the brief statement Tommy made. Not the crime itself.) What Tommy said wasn't that big of a deal.

Did you have a lawyer at age 22? I didn't. In fact, I still have never engaged a criminal lawyer. Then again, I've never committed any crime. Or at least I've never committed any crime worse than taking too many free baloney bite samples from the local butcher. lol

Off topic, but I'd be shocked if any poster hadn't committed a crime ( even if inadvertently), I know I have done plenty. Speeding, public urination, spitting on a public sidewalk, not coming to be 3 second stop before turning, jaywalking, etc.

But anyway, back to the topic. Its not about defamation, it's about looking really, really bad. Stating that the police said "they should be fine" can be interpreted that the police are going to sweep this under the rug, saying that it was consensual is hearsay.

 

[RedSavage]

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.

I haven't read every post, but what he did was dumb.
Should've said something like "the police are investigating an incident that occurred at my residence. Since the investigation is ongoing, I cannot further comment on it. I can tell you that at this time I am not being accused of any wrongdoing ( if true).

I really don't care how this affects the team, this is much bigger than any football game.

How would that be any better than what he actually said? ("From what were hearing, everything was consensual.")

:

Um, it's quite a bit better actually. His opinion on whether she was raped or not is irrelevant if he didn't witness it so he should have kept his mouth shut. His opinion on it comes from the word of some of his buddies. Saying he can't comment on it is way better than saying from what he heard this woman, who went to the hospital and caused 5 cops to come to his house, wasn't really raped.

So, if the statement that Tommy heard turned out to be false, do you think he could be sued for defamation or something? I just don't see how he could get into trouble for that statement. In what other possible way could that get him into trouble?

Sure, you and I would have handled it differently. But we're not 22 year old college students. Tommy apparently felt he had to say something, and I just don't think what he said is that big of a deal.

He's 22, not 18. You should know by then if accused ad something of this level to lawyer up.
The university should be telling the kids the same thing. If you get in trouble, don't talk to the police or press. Call us or your lawyer first even if you think you've done nothing wrong.

You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. (I'm talking about the brief statement Tommy made. Not the crime itself.) What Tommy said wasn't that big of a deal.

Did you have a lawyer at age 22? I didn't. In fact, I still have never engaged a criminal lawyer. Then again, I've never committed any crime. Or at least I've never committed any crime worse than taking too many free baloney bite samples from the local butcher. lol

Off topic, but I'd be shocked if any poster hadn't committed a crime ( even if inadvertently), I know I have done plenty. Speeding, public urination, spitting on a public sidewalk, not coming to be 3 second stop before turning, jaywalking, etc.

But anyway, back to the topic. Its not about defamation, it's about looking really, really bad. Stating that the police said "they should be fine" can be interpreted that the police are going to sweep this under the rug, saying that it was consensual is hearsay.

How much time do you think Tommy had before he made his comments? Do you think he had well thought out and prepared statements to give or do you think what he said was more on the fly, being pressured by the press to comment on the situation? I'm betting on the latter.

 

[74Hunter]

Not stating if I think anyone is guilty or not. I do have one question that if I heard it right I am not sure I understand.

The female mentioned that the rape happened between the hours of 2:30 sunday morning to 9:30 am. Why could she not narrow a time better down better than 7 hours?

If I misheard, please correct me.

It could have happened while she was asleep, then she woke up and figured out what happened. Or since they were at a party alcohol may have been involved.

I never buy that as an excuse. If you choose to drink then you need to understand that the things you do while under the influence may or may not be agreeable to you when you sober up, but it was YOUR decision to drink so you get to live with the consequences of your actions. (When I use the word you in this post, I don't necessarily mean you Moiraine.)

Elf, just no. Maybe the way she was dressed, "she was just asking for it" too? No.

If she says yes while drunk, or even because she was drunk, when she sobers up it doesn't become rape. And no I was not implying that by drinking that she was "asking for it".
*Edit* I've heard some information within the last 12 hours that leads me to believe this. That's all I'm saying.

You said "it was YOUR decision to drink so you get to live with the consequences of your actions". This is disgusting to hear, and honestly, if that is how you feel, I am ashamed for you.You are now saying that agreeing to sex while drunk gives the women no legal rights. However, consent cannot be given by someone who is mentally incapable or physically helpless, including as a result of alcohol. You want consequences for actions, well don't sleep with someone who is drunk; otherwise, you can live with the consequences when they sober up.

I was going to say that I think that in the state of Nebraska having sex with an inebriated person ( drugs or booze) is considered to be sexual assault. I could have misunderstood that however.

If that is correct, I'm not so sure that i know too many people who haven't engaged in sex either while inebriated or with someone that was. Not that it makes it right.

 

[74Hunter]

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.

I haven't read every post, but what he did was dumb.Should've said something like "the police are investigating an incident that occurred at my residence. Since the investigation is ongoing, I cannot further comment on it. I can tell you that at this time I am not being accused of any wrongdoing ( if true).

I really don't care how this affects the team, this is much bigger than any football game.

How would that be any better than what he actually said? ("From what were hearing, everything was consensual.")

:

Um, it's quite a bit better actually. His opinion on whether she was raped or not is irrelevant if he didn't witness it so he should have kept his mouth shut. His opinion on it comes from the word of some of his buddies. Saying he can't comment on it is way better than saying from what he heard this woman, who went to the hospital and caused 5 cops to come to his house, wasn't really raped.

So, if the statement that Tommy heard turned out to be false, do you think he could be sued for defamation or something? I just don't see how he could get into trouble for that statement. In what other possible way could that get him into trouble?

Sure, you and I would have handled it differently. But we're not 22 year old college students. Tommy apparently felt he had to say something, and I just don't think what he said is that big of a deal.

He's 22, not 18. You should know by then if accused ad something of this level to lawyer up.The university should be telling the kids the same thing. If you get in trouble, don't talk to the police or press. Call us or your lawyer first even if you think you've done nothing wrong.

You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. (I'm talking about the brief statement Tommy made. Not the crime itself.) What Tommy said wasn't that big of a deal.

Did you have a lawyer at age 22? I didn't. In fact, I still have never engaged a criminal lawyer. Then again, I've never committed any crime. Or at least I've never committed any crime worse than taking too many free baloney bite samples from the local butcher. lol

Off topic, but I'd be shocked if any poster hadn't committed a crime ( even if inadvertently), I know I have done plenty. Speeding, public urination, spitting on a public sidewalk, not coming to be 3 second stop before turning, jaywalking, etc.

But anyway, back to the topic. Its not about defamation, it's about looking really, really bad. Stating that the police said "they should be fine" can be interpreted that the police are going to sweep this under the rug, saying that it was consensual is hearsay.

How much time do you think Tommy had before he made his comments? Do you think he had well thought out and prepared statements to give or do you think what he said was more on the fly, being pressured by the press to comment on the situation? I'm betting on the latter.

Doesn't matter. Then a simple "no comment" would suffice. It doesn't take an experienced attorney to do that for you, it's common sense.

 

[RedSavage]

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.

I haven't read every post, but what he did was dumb.Should've said something like "the police are investigating an incident that occurred at my residence. Since the investigation is ongoing, I cannot further comment on it. I can tell you that at this time I am not being accused of any wrongdoing ( if true).

I really don't care how this affects the team, this is much bigger than any football game.

How would that be any better than what he actually said? ("From what were hearing, everything was consensual.")

:

Um, it's quite a bit better actually. His opinion on whether she was raped or not is irrelevant if he didn't witness it so he should have kept his mouth shut. His opinion on it comes from the word of some of his buddies. Saying he can't comment on it is way better than saying from what he heard this woman, who went to the hospital and caused 5 cops to come to his house, wasn't really raped.

So, if the statement that Tommy heard turned out to be false, do you think he could be sued for defamation or something? I just don't see how he could get into trouble for that statement. In what other possible way could that get him into trouble?

Sure, you and I would have handled it differently. But we're not 22 year old college students. Tommy apparently felt he had to say something, and I just don't think what he said is that big of a deal.

He's 22, not 18. You should know by then if accused ad something of this level to lawyer up.The university should be telling the kids the same thing. If you get in trouble, don't talk to the police or press. Call us or your lawyer first even if you think you've done nothing wrong.

You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. (I'm talking about the brief statement Tommy made. Not the crime itself.) What Tommy said wasn't that big of a deal.

Did you have a lawyer at age 22? I didn't. In fact, I still have never engaged a criminal lawyer. Then again, I've never committed any crime. Or at least I've never committed any crime worse than taking too many free baloney bite samples from the local butcher. lol

Off topic, but I'd be shocked if any poster hadn't committed a crime ( even if inadvertently), I know I have done plenty. Speeding, public urination, spitting on a public sidewalk, not coming to be 3 second stop before turning, jaywalking, etc.

But anyway, back to the topic. Its not about defamation, it's about looking really, really bad. Stating that the police said "they should be fine" can be interpreted that the police are going to sweep this under the rug, saying that it was consensual is hearsay.

How much time do you think Tommy had before he made his comments? Do you think he had well thought out and prepared statements to give or do you think what he said was more on the fly, being pressured by the press to comment on the situation? I'm betting on the latter.

Doesn't matter. Then a simple "no comment" would suffice. It doesn't take an experienced attorney to do that for you, it's common sense.

And again we're back to the sh#tstorm that would ensue around this situation about Tommy being guilty because of no comment. Tommy looks much more innocent from an outsiders perspective by commenting on the situation, which if he's innocent, I'm sure that's what he wants. When you are innocent you typically have the mentality of "nothing to hide". As already stated in this thread, if Tommy ends up being guilty then he's a moron for his comments.

 

[wanderful]

I'm not blaming the OWH at all for what they did. A potential rape happened at the house of the 2 most noticeable/popular football players on this year's team. TA and JW are celebrities. Like it or not, celebrity news gets reported more that "normal" news, its just what happens now. If this happened at Iowa or Oklahoma or Alabama do you think that their local newspapers would not have reported it? And the article/headline does not state that TA, JW, or TF are suspects, just that the incident happened at their house.

IMO its probably better this came out now. This was going to come out at some point. Be it now or one week or one month down the road. Imagine the s***storm that would have happened if this came out in a month and now people are asking UNL questions about how they "covered up" a potential rape at the house of the starting QB and WR.

Do you know how many rapes are reported to UNL? Several a week. They investigate every single one, but most turn into nothing or there's little to prove anything happened. They probably "cover up", as you put it, several rapes simply because they never amount to a charge/arrest.

Now, I won't deny that being a "celebrity" or a public figure of sorts is often reason to report news you wouldn't normally report. But, are you saying because TA and JW are celebrities they deserve to have their names forever tied to a heinous crime that there's currently no factual proof they had anything to do with?

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/news/unl-student-reports-rape-sunday-morning/article_66b93b18-8c0a-11e5-94b0-1b939f025e34.html

According to the Daily Nebraskan, there have been only 6 reported rapes in 2015 and only 4 this semester. Still way too many rapes, but thankfully not nearly as bad as several rapes a week.

So here's a thought: the fact that neither Armstrong, Westy, or Foster thought that the accusation was relevant enough to the team to report it to their coaches means that the person accused of the rape probably wasn't a football player.

 

[74Hunter]

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.

I haven't read every post, but what he did was dumb.Should've said something like "the police are investigating an incident that occurred at my residence. Since the investigation is ongoing, I cannot further comment on it. I can tell you that at this time I am not being accused of any wrongdoing ( if true).

I really don't care how this affects the team, this is much bigger than any football game.

How would that be any better than what he actually said? ("From what were hearing, everything was consensual.")

:

Um, it's quite a bit better actually. His opinion on whether she was raped or not is irrelevant if he didn't witness it so he should have kept his mouth shut. His opinion on it comes from the word of some of his buddies. Saying he can't comment on it is way better than saying from what he heard this woman, who went to the hospital and caused 5 cops to come to his house, wasn't really raped.

So, if the statement that Tommy heard turned out to be false, do you think he could be sued for defamation or something? I just don't see how he could get into trouble for that statement. In what other possible way could that get him into trouble?

Sure, you and I would have handled it differently. But we're not 22 year old college students. Tommy apparently felt he had to say something, and I just don't think what he said is that big of a deal.

He's 22, not 18. You should know by then if accused ad something of this level to lawyer up.The university should be telling the kids the same thing. If you get in trouble, don't talk to the police or press. Call us or your lawyer first even if you think you've done nothing wrong.

You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. (I'm talking about the brief statement Tommy made. Not the crime itself.) What Tommy said wasn't that big of a deal.

Did you have a lawyer at age 22? I didn't. In fact, I still have never engaged a criminal lawyer. Then again, I've never committed any crime. Or at least I've never committed any crime worse than taking too many free baloney bite samples from the local butcher. lol

Off topic, but I'd be shocked if any poster hadn't committed a crime ( even if inadvertently), I know I have done plenty. Speeding, public urination, spitting on a public sidewalk, not coming to be 3 second stop before turning, jaywalking, etc.But anyway, back to the topic. Its not about defamation, it's about looking really, really bad. Stating that the police said "they should be fine" can be interpreted that the police are going to sweep this under the rug, saying that it was consensual is hearsay.

How much time do you think Tommy had before he made his comments? Do you think he had well thought out and prepared statements to give or do you think what he said was more on the fly, being pressured by the press to comment on the situation? I'm betting on the latter.

Doesn't matter. Then a simple "no comment" would suffice. It doesn't take an experienced attorney to do that for you, it's common sense.

And again we're back to the sh#tstorm that would ensue around this situation about Tommy being guilty because of no comment. Tommy looks much more innocent from an outsiders perspective by commenting on the situation, which if he's innocent, I'm sure that's what he wants. When you are innocent you typically have the mentality of "nothing to hide". As already stated in this thread, if Tommy ends up being guilty then he's a moron for his comments.

True.
But Imo, it was still a poor statement to make.

 

[Warrior10]

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.

No, he is implying these players have responsibilities that they should prioritize, like his father. Also, I would guess these players chose their lives, like his father.

And the players aren't making "being young excuses".

 

[Enhance]

There appears to be a rumor going around that one of the players has been arrested. I have it on good authority that, according to Lincoln Police, no one has been arrested and they have no pending arrests in the case as of right now.

Thought I would share in case anyone else hears something.

 

[Mierin]

I don't think we'd need a rumor to tell us one of them was arrested.

 

[Enhance]

I don't think we'd need a rumor to tell us one of them was arrested.

This board has often broken news before media outlets. Figured I'd head it off in case people were curious and checked here.

 

[Sargon]

The first time I had the sweet sweet love with my wife she was heavily under the influence. And still to the day she swears I consented to sexual relations.

Marriage is preferable to a rape conviction so congratulations to you Mr. Redwine

This case is just kinda sad. Hopefully exact justice comes swiftly and with minimal damage to the innocent.