Terrence Shannon, Jr. ordered to stand trial

[BoilerAndy]

LSU also comes to mind as a place where players were kicked off the team or flunked out. How about Purdue's football dback who decided to quit the team last year in midseason before the IU game ? I'd call that being kicked off the team. wouldn't you ? did he go to court to get reinstated because his draft stock might decrease if he didn't play in that game ? No. he just quit. and what about stephens and several others who quit playing for painter midseason ?

Basically, Painter handled the discipline and didn't need some court order to reinstate the player. my entire point is there have been many players who leave their teams midseason for discipline, academic, or other reasons. their schools dealt with the issues. they didn't need a court order to be reinstated. the players accepted their discipline and either quit, transferred or returned after their suspension.

the entire decision by the court that he needed to be reinstated because his potential future earnings may be affected was total bs.

There's medication for this.

 

[DwaynePurvis00]

There's medication for this.

I just…I just need to stop responding 😂 it’s my fault

 

[qazplm]

LSU also comes to mind as a place where players were kicked off the team or flunked out. How about Purdue's football dback who decided to quit the team last year in midseason before the IU game ? I'd call that being kicked off the team. wouldn't you ? did he go to court to get reinstated because his draft stock might decrease if he didn't play in that game ? No. he just quit. and what about stephens and several others who quit playing for painter midseason ?

Basically, Painter handled the discipline and didn't need some court order to reinstate the player. my entire point is there have been many players who leave their teams midseason for discipline, academic, or other reasons. their schools dealt with the issues. they didn't need a court order to be reinstated. the players accepted their discipline and either quit, transferred or returned after their suspension.

the entire decision by the court that he needed to be reinstated because his potential future earnings may be affected was total bs.

For the love of Cthulhu stop spamming the board.

 

[Flot]

PSU used to have a policy that anybody who brought derogatory news or discredited to the university would be placed on suspension until the charges were dropped or the situation was resolved. The person didn’t have to be charged with any crime. I guess today’s judicial and university systems just cave in.

That policy didn’t help adults diddling young men, do there’s that.…..

 

[Booty Maximus]

Thank goodness for Judge Lawless who allowed Terrance to salvage his SR season.

 

[BoilerDeac]

Sadly, women do this too often. They should be prosecuted.

 

[BoilerAndy]

Check Ball State's record of expelling male students when a female student accuses them of rape. They have lost lawsuits over this and it has been proven in court that their "investigators" even change the testimony given to them by the students to ensure that the male student appears guilty.

Every false charge is a case of double injustice. Injustice to the man who is falsely charged and injustice to true rape victims because it makes it harder to get convictions.

 

[purduedavie]

Thank goodness for Judge Lawless who allowed Terrance to salvage his SR season.

View embedded media

That entire story was weird, glad that he got to play as well.

 

[qazplm]

Sadly, women to this too often. They should be prosecuted.

An acquittal doesn't mean she lied. An acquittal means the prosecution didn't meet the highest burden of proof we have in society short of scientific certainty.

I've had acquittals as a prosecutor for women I was certain were telling the truth. Sex assault cases are the hardest to prosecute. ANY discrepancy which wouldn't necessarily be an issue with other witnesses in other trials becomes "she's a liar" in a sex assault case.

We have much more skepticism of these witnesses than say, he stole from me, because these cases often don't have witnesses or DNA.

Doesn't mean the verdict wasn't fair or correct. If the jury didn't think the burden was met, then they should acquit. But an acquittal doesn't mean innocent, it means not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and those are two very different things.

I have no idea if he was guilty. I do know I've tried a lot of cases with no DNA and no witnesses. Won some, lost some. Just boils down to whether the jury is convinced or not.

His testifying was smart. Most defense attorneys are too scared to let their clients testify. I never subscribed to that as a defense attorney. If they were reasonably intelligent, I'd consider it because if they do even moderately well on the stand that's going to be enough to create reasonable doubt.

Regardless, folks need to understand you can lose a case dealing with sex assault allegations even if you have a believable witness. It's the hardest case to prosecute and I've prosecuted, defended, supervised or advised on well over a hundred.

The conviction rate in the military when I left was around 55 percent. Granted, we often took harder cases that often involved both parties drinking.

 

[purduedavie]

An acquittal doesn't mean she lied. An acquittal means the prosecution didn't meet the highest burden of proof we have in society short of scientific certainty.

I've had acquittals as a prosecutor for women I was certain were telling the truth. Sex assault cases are the hardest to prosecute. ANY discrepancy which wouldn't necessarily be an issue with other witnesses in other trials becomes "she's a liar" in a sex assault case.

We have much more skepticism of these witnesses than say, he stole from me, because these cases often don't have witnesses or DNA.

Doesn't mean the verdict wasn't fair or correct. If the jury didn't think the burden was met, then they should acquit. But an acquittal doesn't mean innocent, it means not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and those are two very different things.

I have no idea if he was guilty. I do know I've tried a lot of cases with no DNA and no witnesses. Won some, lost some. Just boils down to whether the jury is convinced or not.

His testifying was smart. Most defense attorneys are too scared to let their clients testify. I never subscribed to that as a defense attorney. If they were reasonably intelligent, I'd consider it because if they do even moderately well on the stand that's going to be enough to create reasonable doubt.

Regardless, folks need to understand you can lose a case dealing with sex assault allegations even if you have a believable witness. It's the hardest case to prosecute and I've prosecuted, defended, supervised or advised on well over a hundred.

The conviction rate in the military when I left was around 55 percent. Granted, we often took harder cases that often involved both parties drinking.

You’re correct that we don’t know, however, I was never in the side that he was for sure guilty and as a result shouldn’t play. The story was weird, a crowded bar he goes up to a women and rapes her? One would think there would be someone with video or someone that would have done something.

 

[qazplm]

You’re correct that we don’t know, however, I was never in the side that he was for sure guilty and as a result shouldn’t play. The story was weird, a crowded bar he goes up to a women and rapes her? One would think there would be someone with video or someone that would have done something.

Of course he wasn't for sure guilty, those cases are pretty rare.

I mean that scenario wouldn't be close to the biggest wtf situation I've ever seen.

Had a guy in a crowded apartment party go after a girl that literally multiple people told him she was about to pass out and was too drunk and you'll get in trouble and he does it anyways and gets seen by everyone literally doing it while she was unconscious in the sole bathroom.

I'm not remotely saying he did anything, I am saying once you add in alcohol, people do all sorts of with were thinking stuff.

 

[Purdue80]

An acquittal doesn't mean she lied. An acquittal means the prosecution didn't meet the highest burden of proof we have in society short of scientific certainty.

I've had acquittals as a prosecutor for women I was certain were telling the truth. Sex assault cases are the hardest to prosecute. ANY discrepancy which wouldn't necessarily be an issue with other witnesses in other trials becomes "she's a liar" in a sex assault case.

We have much more skepticism of these witnesses than say, he stole from me, because these cases often don't have witnesses or DNA.

Doesn't mean the verdict wasn't fair or correct. If the jury didn't think the burden was met, then they should acquit. But an acquittal doesn't mean innocent, it means not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and those are two very different things.

I have no idea if he was guilty. I do know I've tried a lot of cases with no DNA and no witnesses. Won some, lost some. Just boils down to whether the jury is convinced or not.

His testifying was smart. Most defense attorneys are too scared to let their clients testify. I never subscribed to that as a defense attorney. If they were reasonably intelligent, I'd consider it because if they do even moderately well on the stand that's going to be enough to create reasonable doubt.

Regardless, folks need to understand you can lose a case dealing with sex assault allegations even if you have a believable witness. It's the hardest case to prosecute and I've prosecuted, defended, supervised or advised on well over a hundred.

The conviction rate in the military when I left was around 55 percent. Granted, we often took harder cases that often involved both parties drinking.

Thank you for sharing your very informed perspective. It is quite insightful!

 

[Booty Maximus]

An acquittal doesn't mean she lied. An acquittal means the prosecution didn't meet the highest burden of proof we have in society short of scientific certainty.

I don't think she lied, I do think something happened to her and she identified the wrong person. And then the Lawrence PD did an incredibly lazy, sloppy job of investigating what really happened. So both she and TSJ ended up getting damaged by this incompetence.

 

[JRKinn]

I don't think she lied, I do think something happened to her and she identified the wrong person. And then the Lawrence PD did an incredibly lazy, sloppy job of investigating what really happened. So both she and TSJ ended up getting damaged by this incompetence.

I mean the text messages to her friends "I got him" followed by a bunch of $ bills puking emoji leads me to believe that she might have targeted him?

Unless TSJ sues in civil court we will likely never know, but there are a lot of signs of not only the PD being incompetent but a DA that has a track record of taking weak assault cases to court, and the supposed victim has some previous claims (i saw this somewhere, but not sure on this one) that didn't pan out.

 

[qazplm]

I don't think she lied, I do think something happened to her and she identified the wrong person. And then the Lawrence PD did an incredibly lazy, sloppy job of investigating what really happened. So both she and TSJ ended up getting damaged by this incompetence.

Certainly possible. Witnesses are accurate about fifty percent of the time according to studies. Cross racial identification is even lower. This is the rare scenario in a sex assault case where it could definitely be an issue.

Police investigation can also definitely be an issue. Quite a few cases in the military as a prosecutor and defense attorney where I or my attorneys had to do effectively additional investigating to get the whole picture.

 

[qazplm]

I mean the text messages to her friends "I got him" followed by a bunch of $ bills puking emoji leads me to believe that she might have targeted him?

Unless TSJ sues in civil court we will likely never know, but there are a lot of signs of not only the PD being incompetent but a DA that has a track record of taking weak assault cases to court, and the supposed victim has some previous claims (i saw this somewhere, but not sure on this one) that didn't pan out.

Except she didn't text the dollar signs, her friend did.

 

[BoilerAndy]

Except she didn't text the dollar signs, her friend did.

For her to be a part of that "conversation" is bad optics, especially to a jury whose instructions are,"beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

[qazplm]

For her to be a part of that "conversation" is bad optics, especially to a jury whose instructions are,"beyond a reasonable doubt."

Sure it's bad optics. But people often make bad choices in the moment. I'm just saying she never said anything about money. She probably wasn't thinking about the ramifications of what her friend said and how that might play in front of a jury.

Of course, it could also be that she agreed so didn't respond to dispute. We don't know, but obviously it's not a great look.

 

[BoilerAndy]

Sure it's bad optics. But people often make bad choices in the moment. I'm just saying she never said anything about money. She probably wasn't thinking about the ramifications of what her friend said and how that might play in front of a jury.

Of course, it could also be that she agreed so didn't respond to dispute. We don't know, but obviously it's not a great look.

Yep, I'm sure if she'd known these texts would come out in the trial, she would have quickly responded, "This isn't about money. It's about justce." Whether she meant it or not.

 

[barney31]

I wonder why the judge admonished the DA's office for charging on such weak evidence? The assistant DA who filed the charges was fired this past Monday.....