FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:04:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 21, 2017, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on September 21, 2017, 01:39:23 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 21, 2017, 01:22:54 PM
I think something to consider per the Duke case, the fact they didn't let the investigation have its time to move forward was ultimately its undoing.

No, that case's undoing was the fact that the alleged victim made a totally false allegation and, thus, there never should've been a case in the first place. Nifong could've waited sixteen months, or sixteen years, before he filed charges and it wouldn't have made Crystal Mangum any less of a liar.

That is actually my point. If the investigation had continued even not under the spotlight, I suspect that fact would have still been discovered by investigators. But the rush to do something, be ahead of the story by the DA, and to look good in the "community" ended up taking a much different road. I agree it shouldn't have been a case. If investigators had the chance to review the case without a rush to show something or to announce charges before everything was vetted, I think the outcome would have been the same without the same fanfare.

OK. That didn't really seem clear the way that you worded it the first time.

BTW, I have a bone to pick with something that you wrote in your "Daily Dose" d3football.com blog post:

QuoteWould they even consider doing this to a student that has nothing to do with the team? The answer to that last question I am sure would be no, so how does the moral or ethical line get crossed so easily.

You may think you're sure of that, but you're wrong. My freshman year at North Park, two football linemen did something similar to what happened at Wheaton -- they walked into a student's dorm room, tied his arms and legs using belts, carried him out of the dorm in front of a lot of other students who didn't intervene, and then dumped him in a puddle elsewhere on campus. The victim was not a football player, and had no connection whatsoever to the football team.

(The dean of students had the two football players expelled the next day.)
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

Gregory Sager

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 21, 2017, 05:01:16 PM
Quote from: AndOne on September 21, 2017, 03:15:34 PM
Emma,

I believe there are certain crimes that once reported have to be pursued. If there were no injuries at all or no serious injuries, he probably could have told the police to forget it. I'm not sure if the police, after seeing the degree of injuries could just let it be dropped. Another thing to remember about this case is that the charged offenses are felonies as opposed to misdemeanors. It would not be surprising if misdemeanors could be dropped at the victim's discretion, but that felonies have to be investigated and prosecuted.
But let's say it could be ended at that point and was. The College would then still have been required to report it to police. It's a state law that if a college becomes aware of any violent injuries sustained by a student, that they have to report it. They have/would have had no choice. 
I hope that gives you closure with regard to your question.  :)

That last part is actually a bit of a tricky question. Hazing is NOT required to be reported under federal laws to report crimes.

That's not germane to Mark's point, though. His point wasn't that Wheaton would be required to report a hazing incident to the police; his point was that Wheaton would be forced to report violent injuries sustained by a student (presumably at the hands of another student or students, or a school employee, or by someone else while on school property) to the police.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 21, 2017, 05:01:16 PMThere is actually a bill being considered in the US Senate, I believe, that would change that and require hazing to be reported. However, it is not part of the report colleges have to put together as of right now. Yes, assault has to be reported because ... well ... it is assault. So, here is the question: would classifying this as hazing allow the college (any college) to avoid reporting it?

No. Again, this is isn't akin to the story Smeds told yesterday about being forced to walk back from a creek naked during a fraternity pledge at Wabash. This is about violent injuries sustained by a student at the hands of other students. And what happened to the alleged victim need not have had anything to do with hazing. If the five football players had simply jumped the alleged victim and beaten him up without the elaborations involved in the hazing (the hog-tying and hooding, the car ride, the music and the preposterous Muslim nonsense, etc.), damaging his two shoulders in the process, it would've been the same thing as far as Illinois state law is concerned regarding Wheaton's responsibility to report it to the police.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 21, 2017, 05:01:16 PMThen to follow up: now that police have charged individuals with assault, does that mean the college must now report it?

That's actually a valid question, although it seems to have a close-the-barn-door-after-the-horse-escaped vibe to it if indeed Wheaton hasn't reported it already.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 21, 2017, 05:01:16 PMBasically what I am trying to get at... I am not convinced since this was clearly handled as a hazing incident (per the fact police still used the term hazing) that it would have been part of the college's federal crime report. I am also unsure how to determine that (I am sure someone like Sager or others knows where those are possibly found).

I don't get the impression that the WPD handled this as a hazing incident at all. I think that the WPD handled it as an assault incident. Whether the WPD used the term "hazing" or not is immaterial, because hazing is not a state-law issue as far as I know. If there was an anti-hazing law in Illinois, I'm sure that SA Berlin would've added it to the charges against Pettway, Kregel, Spielman, Cooksey, and TeBos. I'm sure that the WPD deputy chief simply used hazing as a description of the cause of the offense, not as the offense itself.

As for the federal crime report database for colleges and universities, I don't know where that's located. But we seem to have a lot of legal eagles posting here at the moment who might be able to point us in the right direction. ;)
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

AndOne

#34757
Seek and ye shall find.........
US Dept. of Education Report on Campus Safety and Security for 2013, 2014, and 2015. 2015 is the last year for which stats are currently available.
WHEATON COLLEGE

Criminal Offenses - On campus

Criminal Offense   2013   2014   2015
a. Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter   0   0   0
b. Negligent manslaughter   0   0   0
c. Sex offenses - Forcible   2      
d. Rape      1   2
e. Fondling      2   2
f. Sex offenses - Non-forcible   0      
g. Incest      0   0
h. Statutory rape      0   0
i. Robbery   0   0   0
j. Aggravated assault   0   0   0
k. Burglary   2   2   1
l. Motor vehicle theft   1   0   0
m. Arson   0   0   0
Criminal Offenses - On-Campus Student Housing Facilities

Criminal Offense   2013   2014   2015
a. Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter   0   0   0
b. Negligent manslaughter   0   0   0
c. Sex offenses - Forcible   2      
d. Rape      1   1
e. Fondling      1   1
f. Sex offenses - Non-forcible   0      
g. Incest      0   0
h. Statutory rape      0   0
i. Robbery   0   0   0
j. Aggravated assault   0   0   0
k. Burglary   0   0   0
l. Motor vehicle theft   0   0   0
m. Arson   0   0   0
Criminal Offenses - Noncampus

Criminal Offense   2013   2014   2015
a. Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter   0   0   0
b. Negligent manslaughter   0   0   0
c. Sex offenses - Forcible   0      
d. Rape      0   0
e. Fondling      0   0
f. Sex offenses - Non-Forcible   0      
g. Incest      0   0
h. Statutory rape      0   0
i. Robbery   0   0   0
j. Aggravated assault   0   0   0
k. Burglary   0   1   0
l. Motor vehicle theft   0   0   0
m. Arson   0   0   0
Criminal Offenses - Public Property

Criminal Offense   2013   2014   2015
a. Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter   0   0   0
b. Negligent manslaughter   0   0   0
c. Sex offenses - Forcible   0      
d. Rape      0   0
e. Fondling      0   0
f. Sex offenses - Non-forcible   0      
g. Incest      0   0
h. Statutory rape      0   0
i. Robbery   0   0   0
j. Aggravated assault   0   0   0
k. Burglary   0   0   0
l. Motor vehicle theft   0   0   0
m. Arson   0   0   0

I'm not sure these numbers mean much of anything. As a result of Greg Sager's asking, I was just interested to see if there were such numbers and upon finding them figured I would just post them to answer Greg's inquiry.



izzy stradlin

Two deep for Wheaton against Elmhurst:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/elmhurstbluejays.com/documents/2017/9/21/17fbgamenotes.pdf

Kyler Kregel is replaced at center by So. Jake Hibben.   

So. Drew Smith is at right tackle where he already had been starting as of last week.  Ben Pettway had started there the majority of the last 3 years however he had issues with injuries.

Dallas McRae will take over for Noah Spielman at DT alongside Pat O'Connell.       

 

iwumichigander

I am with Q - the touchdown should have counted.  I would tell which touchdown and which player but my brain is tired from slugging through the other subject posts.

ncc_fan

#34760
Quote from: iwumichigander on September 22, 2017, 12:36:39 AM
I am with Q - the touchdown should have counted.  I would tell which touchdown and which player but my brain is tired from slugging through the other subject posts.

And the refs blew the offsides call on the NCC guy who blocked Augie's field goal attempt in the waning seconds of the 2005 de facto CCIW championship game.   ::)

emma17

Quote from: AndOne on September 21, 2017, 03:15:34 PM
Emma,

I believe there are certain crimes that once reported have to be pursued. If there were no injuries at all or no serious injuries, he probably could have told the police to forget it. I'm not sure if the police, after seeing the degree of injuries could just let it be dropped. Another thing to remember about this case is that the charged offenses are felonies as opposed to misdemeanors. It would not be surprising if misdemeanors could be dropped at the victim's discretion, but that felonies have to be investigated and prosecuted.
But let's say it could be ended at that point and was. The College would then still have been required to report it to police. It's a state law that if a college becomes aware of any violent injuries sustained by a student, that they have to report it. They have/would have had no choice. 
I hope that gives you closure with regard to your question.  :)

So hold on. You're earlier post stated a "certain reason" with a #2 reason as a sort of backup. Are you now saying your "certain reason" is no longer certain and now relying on your #2 backup reason to support your point?
Regardless of which certainty you feel applies, I'll ask the same question. If there wasn't a formal complaint by the victim, can the DA press forward with criminal charges?
Even if Wheaton College was required to report the event to the police- and did, is that enough for the DA to press forward if the victim himself wasn't going to participate/cooperate with criminal charges?
I ask this because I wonder if the victim and family didn't enter into an agreement with Wheaton College last year for this matter to be put to bed, only to now have a change of heart for some reason.

Kovo

Quote from: ncc_fan on September 22, 2017, 12:57:46 AM
Quote from: iwumichigander on September 22, 2017, 12:36:39 AM
I am with Q - the touchdown should have counted.  I would tell which touchdown and which player but my brain is tired from slugging through the other subject posts.

And the refs blew the offsides call on the NCC guy who blocked Augie's field goal attempt in the waning seconds of the 2005 de facto CCIW championship game.

Admittedly, I wasn't there and couldn't watch the game but my understanding is that is was the single worst officiated game in the history of the CCIW.  Forever known as the "Swindle at Lindberg". 

And look what has happened to Augie since that game--------

wally_wabash

Quote from: emma17 on September 22, 2017, 02:58:24 AM
I ask this because I wonder if the victim and family didn't enter into an agreement with Wheaton College last year for this matter to be put to bed, only to now have a change of heart for some reason.

I don't get why you think that this hypothetical agreement happened so matter-of-factly.  Wheaton entering into some kind of backroom handshake deal to keep the whole thing quiet makes all of it infinitely worse, doesn't it?  Why would they (Wheaton) want to do that?  There is no upside to that play. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Gregory Sager

Saturday's games
Wheaton @ Elmhurst, 1 pm
North Central @ Millikin, 1 pm
Carroll @ UW-LaCrosse, 3 pm
Carthage @ Augustana, 6 pm
North Park @ Illinois Wesleyan, 6 pm

Massey sez:
Wheaton 35, Elmhurst 7 (WC 97%, EC 3%)
North Central 42, Millikin 14 (NCC 97%, MU 3%)
UW-LaCrosse 41, Carroll 17 (UWL 94%, CU 6%)
Carthage 28, Augustana 14 (CC 85%, AC 15%)
Illinois Wesleyan 33, North Park 7 (IWU 96%, NPU 4%)

Ken's computer doesn't think it's going to be a very interesting Saturday of football.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

emma17

Quote from: wally_wabash on September 22, 2017, 09:04:18 AM
Quote from: emma17 on September 22, 2017, 02:58:24 AM
I ask this because I wonder if the victim and family didn't enter into an agreement with Wheaton College last year for this matter to be put to bed, only to now have a change of heart for some reason.

I don't get why you think that this hypothetical agreement happened so matter-of-factly.  Wheaton entering into some kind of backroom handshake deal to keep the whole thing quiet makes all of it infinitely worse, doesn't it?  Why would they (Wheaton) want to do that?  There is no upside to that play.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but I'll answer.
1. The reason I think there is a good chance an agreement of some sort was reached last year is because the length of time that has passed beteeen the event and the charges being brought. I feel it's a more likely explanation than the idea that DuPage was just too busy to devote full resources immediately.
2. Companies and individuals all across this planet, probably since man first walked it, have looked for a cooperative resolution of matters (i.e. agreement) to avoid court involvement (several on this board can quote the scripture that applies). What you refer to in a negative way as a "backroom handshake deal" is actually how the overwhelming majority of disputes are handled. I realize this applies more often to civil cases, but rest assured agreements are made all of the time that involve assurances of privacy about events that one party or the other want to keep out of the public.

WooClone15

Quote from: emma17 on September 22, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on September 22, 2017, 09:04:18 AM
Quote from: emma17 on September 22, 2017, 02:58:24 AM
I ask this because I wonder if the victim and family didn't enter into an agreement with Wheaton College last year for this matter to be put to bed, only to now have a change of heart for some reason.

I don't get why you think that this hypothetical agreement happened so matter-of-factly.  Wheaton entering into some kind of backroom handshake deal to keep the whole thing quiet makes all of it infinitely worse, doesn't it?  Why would they (Wheaton) want to do that?  There is no upside to that play.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but I'll answer.
1. The reason I think there is a good chance an agreement of some sort was reached last year is because the length of time that has passed beteeen the event and the charges being brought. I feel it's a more likely explanation than the idea that DuPage was just too busy to devote full resources immediately.
2. Companies and individuals all across this planet, probably since man first walked it, have looked for a cooperative resolution of matters (i.e. agreement) to avoid court involvement (several on this board can quote the scripture that applies). What you refer to in a negative way as a "backroom handshake deal" is actually how the overwhelming majority of disputes are handled. I realize this applies more often to civil cases, but rest assured agreements are made all of the time that involve assurances of privacy about events that one party or the other want to keep out of the public.
I disagree; it's possible, but I think it's less likely. I worked at a prosecutor's office this summer (in a much smaller county than DuPage), and there was still a lot of prioritizing more immediate concerns over those which could wait. And this case could definitely wait. First, like others have mentioned, it would take a while to get all the evidence. In addition, there really isn't a strong incentive to move this one through quickly. The athletes weren't really threats to anyone else, so the public really isn't in any danger. The kid left the next day and is far away so he isn't in danger. The students haven't been arrested, which means you don't have to get a complaint out quickly to protect their rights. They're students, so they really aren't going anywhere, and even if they did, it's a felony, so you'd be able to extradite them back to Illinois. All of these factors would contribute to not making this a priority.

In addition to that, even if the kid did wait to report it, I'd say its just as likely that he didn't report it out of a sense of embarrassment than out of a backroom deal. I could see not wanting to tell the police what happened to you because you found it humiliating (in a similar vein as to why sometimes sexual assault victims don't want to come forward.) And why would Wheaton or the parents offer a backroom deal? If you do, and the kid ends up going to the police, that's going to look really bad in Court for the defendants and the school. Is it possible that there was a backroom deal? Of course, but at this point I don't think you can say that it's more likely.

Kovo

Quote from: Gregory Sager on September 22, 2017, 10:47:10 AM
Saturday's games
Wheaton @ Elmhurst, 1 pm
North Central @ Millikin, 1 pm
Carroll @ UW-LaCrosse, 3 pm
Carthage @ Augustana, 6 pm
North Park @ Illinois Wesleyan, 6 pm

Massey sez:
Wheaton 35, Elmhurst 7 (WC 97%, EC 3%)
North Central 42, Millikin 14 (NCC 97%, MU 3%)
UW-LaCrosse 41, Carroll 17 (UWL 94%, CU 6%)
Carthage 28, Augustana 14 (CC 85%, AC 15%)
Illinois Wesleyan 33, North Park 7 (IWU 96%, NPU 4%)

Ken's computer doesn't think it's going to be a very interesting Saturday of football.

Perhaps not because it is a computer.  But I suspect that there will be a large number of fans from around the country checking in on a game played at Langhorst Field.

wally_wabash

Quote from: emma17 on September 22, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on September 22, 2017, 09:04:18 AM
Quote from: emma17 on September 22, 2017, 02:58:24 AM
I ask this because I wonder if the victim and family didn't enter into an agreement with Wheaton College last year for this matter to be put to bed, only to now have a change of heart for some reason.

I don't get why you think that this hypothetical agreement happened so matter-of-factly.  Wheaton entering into some kind of backroom handshake deal to keep the whole thing quiet makes all of it infinitely worse, doesn't it?  Why would they (Wheaton) want to do that?  There is no upside to that play.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but I'll answer.
1. The reason I think there is a good chance an agreement of some sort was reached last year is because the length of time that has passed beteeen the event and the charges being brought. I feel it's a more likely explanation than the idea that DuPage was just too busy to devote full resources immediately.
2. Companies and individuals all across this planet, probably since man first walked it, have looked for a cooperative resolution of matters (i.e. agreement) to avoid court involvement (several on this board can quote the scripture that applies). What you refer to in a negative way as a "backroom handshake deal" is actually how the overwhelming majority of disputes are handled. I realize this applies more often to civil cases, but rest assured agreements are made all of the time that involve assurances of privacy about events that one party or the other want to keep out of the public.

Aside from the "let's just let this be our little secret" approach to this incident being ethically distasteful (to say the least), for there to be some kind of nondisclosure agreement without any of it being legally contracted is unbelievably foolish.  I'm not saying there's no way something like what you're describing didn't happen, but I'm finding it incredibly hard to see that Wheaton wouldn't have protected itself better with a legally binding NDA.  Surely the administration there isn't that naive. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

emma17

Quote from: wally_wabash on September 22, 2017, 11:55:52 AM
Quote from: emma17 on September 22, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on September 22, 2017, 09:04:18 AM
Quote from: emma17 on September 22, 2017, 02:58:24 AM
I ask this because I wonder if the victim and family didn't enter into an agreement with Wheaton College last year for this matter to be put to bed, only to now have a change of heart for some reason.

I don't get why you think that this hypothetical agreement happened so matter-of-factly.  Wheaton entering into some kind of backroom handshake deal to keep the whole thing quiet makes all of it infinitely worse, doesn't it?  Why would they (Wheaton) want to do that?  There is no upside to that play.

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but I'll answer.
1. The reason I think there is a good chance an agreement of some sort was reached last year is because the length of time that has passed beteeen the event and the charges being brought. I feel it's a more likely explanation than the idea that DuPage was just too busy to devote full resources immediately.
2. Companies and individuals all across this planet, probably since man first walked it, have looked for a cooperative resolution of matters (i.e. agreement) to avoid court involvement (several on this board can quote the scripture that applies). What you refer to in a negative way as a "backroom handshake deal" is actually how the overwhelming majority of disputes are handled. I realize this applies more often to civil cases, but rest assured agreements are made all of the time that involve assurances of privacy about events that one party or the other want to keep out of the public.

Aside from the "let's just let this be our little secret" approach to this incident being ethically distasteful (to say the least), for there to be some kind of nondisclosure agreement without any of it being legally contracted is unbelievably foolish.  I'm not saying there's no way something like what you're describing didn't happen, but I'm finding it incredibly hard to see that Wheaton wouldn't have protected itself better with a legally binding NDA.  Surely the administration there isn't that naive.

You and I will have to disagree about agreements being ethically distasteful. I see no reason why bringing this issue to criminal court makes it any more ethically tasteful.

Exactly.