OT: USC starting kicker dismissed from team for assault the victim says never happened.
So in the realm of nightmarish, 1984 like scenarios, USC's starting kicker was just dismissed from the team, because the university says he sexually assaulted his GF. This despite the fact that said GF claims the assault "never happened."
"Matt Boermeester says he didn't do anything wrong. His girlfriend agrees. But yet, the USC kicker has been booted off the football team after a Title IX investigation into a potential domestic violence incident, an investigation framed as "horrible and unjust" by the alleged victim."
"In her statement, Katz said she was told by the investigators that she was in an abusive relationship with Boermeester and was “told that I must be afraid of Matt.”
“I was stereotyped and was told I must be a “battered” woman, and that made me feel demeaned and absurdly profiled,” Katz said in a statement. “I understand that domestic violence is a terrible problem, but in no way does that apply to Matt and me.”
August 1st, 2017 at 11:13 AM ^
Popcorn is needed
August 1st, 2017 at 11:16 AM ^
Please tell me the girlfriend's first name is Kitty.
August 1st, 2017 at 11:57 AM ^
...oh I just can't do it.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:01 PM ^
She's changing it to Karen.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:07 PM ^
Points for a well-placed Cake reference.
August 1st, 2017 at 11:22 AM ^
99% likely there is missing data here. But then again, most people are always 100% steadfast in their positions on topics for which they have less than 50% of the accurate data.
We're a weird species.
August 1st, 2017 at 11:48 AM ^
August 1st, 2017 at 12:00 PM ^
I don't know the details of the Title IX law but I agree that law enforcement needs to be the primary investigative body in any alleged crime on campus. Colleges are too easily swayed by prevailing opinion (whatever it is at the time) to be impartial. Once the police do their investigation, then the college can apply any Title IX punishment.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:04 PM ^
btw TitleIX and lynching, except the hanging part.
Yikes.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:30 PM ^
Criminal investigations are being conducted and tried outside the normal legal system
Umm... while there are certainly issues with Title IX investigations... they absolutely are not criminal investigations. People getting booted out of school for Title IX investigations are no more being criminally convicted than someone tossed out of college for plagiarism or Honor Code violations.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:44 PM ^
August 1st, 2017 at 12:57 PM ^
You can expect whatever you'd like - but when it comes to a private university, they can pretty much boot you out for anything they'd like.
Your argument loses ground when this is also the procedure at Public institutions, who receive federal and state money. I think the public can demand transparent, accountable actions regarding disipline of this nature. This most certainly isn't that.
Investigations of criminal activity with profound consequences need to happen in the criminal justice system, and only there.
I don't think that we need to criminalize student non-criminal misconduct just so that we can get law enforcement involved.
I also dn't think it useful to make investigations of non-criminal student misconduct publicly transarent. It clearly should be transparent to the principals, and we don't know the extent to which that was true in this case.
Made me think of the great Brian Fantana when he said "They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time."
August 1st, 2017 at 11:22 AM ^
.jpg)
Criminally underrated movie
August 1st, 2017 at 11:23 AM ^
Not sure if I misinterpereted the story but I didn't see anything about the potential assault being sexual in nature. My understanding is they were "roughhousing" and a neighbor called the police.
August 1st, 2017 at 11:27 AM ^
Yeah, this is no biggie. Who hasn't agressively wrestled with their significant other on the front lawn in a way that made their neighbors call the cops??? I just did yesterday!
My total guess: the school is doing what they think is in her best interest, and there probably was some level of domestic violence (large or small) going on here. But how on earth can they do this without her as a complaining witness? She may be battered and in denial, but they can't make that "guess" and take away a kid's scholarship and future without her testimony?!?! That seems way too far to me...
August 1st, 2017 at 11:30 AM ^
I just re-read the story misspoke about the cops. Neighbor witnessed roughhousing, told a roommate, who told a coach and coach reports it to Title IX.
Also USC issued a statement last night in response to the story that they stand by their decision based on all of the evidence and witness testimony.
to this story then what is being reported. I seriously doubt this kid was kicked off the team for rough housing with his girlfriend. There is probably a lot more there and many times victims of domestic violence are not willing to testify against the person doing the abuse.
I don't think USC would take this action without some decent evidence, without it they would be opening themselves up to a huge lawsuit they would lose and I doubt they are wanting that.
August 1st, 2017 at 11:32 AM ^
August 1st, 2017 at 11:45 AM ^
August 1st, 2017 at 12:03 PM ^
Well the problem is - that is exactly what a battered woman would say. And there certainly IS a chance that she is covering for him. That said, I'm not sure how they can try to impose this on a couple that are adamantly against the fact that it happened. It's a total overreach.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:07 PM ^
August 1st, 2017 at 12:15 PM ^
exactly. When you ignore the other evidence the school is considering, the other witnesses, and any additional info that their investigation turned up, then sure, this is a slippery slope.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:24 PM ^
In fact, if I remember correctly that's more or less what happened. I'm not sure she denied the physical encounter, but she clearly was willing to move past it. Didn't they get married shortly thereafter?
This is an incredibly challenging issue. I can certainly see why we have to be careful not to punish someone when the victim refuses to believe there was a transgression. Then again, the school isn't just worried about protecting the current girlfriend--they are worried about future liability and other students (as well as the institution's image).
As with many of these discussions, I worry that we fail to recognize the nuance. (Welcome to the internet, I guess.)
August 1st, 2017 at 12:16 PM ^
This is not just a he said/she said. According to USC, there were "multiple witnesses."
So I don't know what happened, but I'm not going to say it was a "total overreach" unless it's shown these witnesses were lying or are not credible.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:17 PM ^
there was a thread a while back where people were legitimately discussing whether the burden of proof in sexual assault and domestic violence should be reversed. There were some posters saying that a defendant in that situation should be "guilty until proven innocent" and that "even if some innocent people go to prison" it would be worth it. These people were serious. And they were getting up-votes. Scary.
I hear this from a lot of women (and a few men). "Rape is such a heinous crime and so difficult to prove, and we don't want to discourage victims from coming forward, so we can't put the burden of proof on them." They couch it in emotional language and avoid any specific legal suggestions, and then attack anyone who disagrees. It's rather fucked up.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:33 PM ^
reminds me of this scene. OK then.
"Re-peat O-ffender!"
August 1st, 2017 at 12:37 PM ^
"evenyoubrutus," that is exactly what someone beating their wife would say. I am going to have to call this in.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:04 PM ^
August 1st, 2017 at 12:55 PM ^
was partially at fault why wasn't she kicked out of school too?
I may actually read the article and become more informed...
August 1st, 2017 at 12:33 PM ^
Don't put yourself in a situation that can be misconstrued as assualt. It really isn't all that difficult.
August 1st, 2017 at 12:40 PM ^
What is worrisome, is that the only evidence they seem to have is one witness with the "victim" saying it never happened. It is easy to never be in a situation and have someone frame you.
Abuse is a serious issue, but shouldn't we have better evidence before booting a kid from a scholarship out of college?