Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mid dismissed for sexual misconduct
CapitalGazette ^ | Earl kelly

Posted on 03/07/2006 6:40:05 AM PST by CoRev

A Naval Academy crew team member was dismissed from the school Friday for having what his attorney describes as consensual sex with a female midshipman, but the female was not punished for her part in the matter.

(Excerpt) Read more at hometownannapolis.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: unnecessaryexcerpt; usna
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: Vaquero

LOL


41 posted on 03/07/2006 8:46:51 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost

ping


42 posted on 03/07/2006 8:47:41 AM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
So what was the charge the MALE mid was accused of???

And your comment: "This guy sounds like he got himself into trouble." strikes me as the typical victim advocacy comments we see in most sexual misconduct posts today. There is a growing history of "ruining careers" of males but doing nothing to females by Rempt. But that is justified because, oh I forgot, folks like you believe that the Honor Code, Legal System, and administrative actions are there to PROTECT women. Whether they deserve it or not.
43 posted on 03/07/2006 8:54:04 AM PST by CoRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CoRev; xsmommy

I read about this in an alumni list I subscribe to . . . something's not right, here. I was under the impression that relationships between male and female mids were perfectly acceptable, so long as (1) they didn't "celebrate" that relationship within the confines of Mother B, or anywhere else on the Yard, and (2) the relationship didn't involve a plebe and an upper classman. The way I read this story, this couple did the consentual dirty deed off the premises. What gives? Why boot the guy over that?



44 posted on 03/07/2006 9:08:36 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CoRev
But that is justified because, oh I forgot, folks like you believe that the Honor Code, Legal System, and administrative actions are there to PROTECT women. Whether they deserve it or not.

Hm. Well, I guess as a newbie you need to be given a little time to learn adult manners. One gentle reminder: Any time one sees the phrase "folks like you believe," it is a sure sign that something stupid is coming up next. And sure enough....

When you've been around a while longer, you'll no doubt learn to distrust articles like this one. In this case, note that you're accepting the word of the defense lawyer, and that the defense lawyer is arguing against something other than what the guy's actually been charged with.

45 posted on 03/07/2006 9:13:22 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CoRev
So what was the charge the MALE mid was accused of???

Read the article, and read the post to which you responded.

46 posted on 03/07/2006 9:14:09 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
What gives? Why boot the guy over that?

You said it yourself: according to the article, the guy did "'celebrate' that relationship within the confines of Mother B, or anywhere else on the Yard."

So did the girl, apparently, and if so she should be dealt with accordingly.

47 posted on 03/07/2006 9:16:03 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

LOL... funny


48 posted on 03/07/2006 9:33:21 AM PST by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
The way I read this story, this couple did the consentual dirty deed off the premises. What gives? Why boot the guy over that?

I think the sex probably has little to do with it. The key is the alcohol and related conduct.

Notice that this attorney said that his client admitted to drinking. I'm not sure what the current penalty for that is, but in my day that was either a 5000 or 6000 level offense if committed on grounds. The attorney also claims that the girl "lied" about her drinking, which means she denied it. Now unless there is affirmative evidence to disprove that, the difference in the two cases may be he used alcohol, and she didn't.

With the drinking age at 21 now (unlike back in the day....), for a mid to drink underage is a conduct violation. And I suppose there's even a chance that he used a bogus I.D. or something to get it, which would be an honor offense.

In any case, I think the real issue here is likely to be the alcohol consumption and his apparantly rowdy behavior rather than their playing hide the salami. The defense attorney just spins it as being about sex because he's trying to claim that they engaged in the same conduct, i.e., sex, and so he deemphasizes the alcohol, and claims she "lied" about it. Apparantly, the evidence of her lying wasn't good enough.

49 posted on 03/07/2006 9:36:18 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: D.P.Roberts

Yeah, enlightened one. It's the woman's fault for 'distracting' and 'tempting' the poor lil' man. This is the same logic used in Iran.


50 posted on 03/07/2006 9:38:59 AM PST by Bill Nigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
You said it yourself: according to the article, the guy did "'celebrate' that relationship within the confines of Mother B, or anywhere else on the Yard."

So did the girl, apparently, and if so she should be dealt with accordingly.

I meant "celebrate" in the biblical sense, my friend, as in they celebrated each other's naughty bits in the way that lovers tend to do since time immemorial. I didn't get the notion that they did this from this article. If they didn't "shag" in Mother B or elsewhere in the Yard, it seems to me they did nothing wrong.

51 posted on 03/07/2006 9:50:09 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

I stand corrected. I admit I started the sarcasm.

But I think you are getting the point.
"So did the girl, apparently, and if so she should be dealt with accordingly."

If you follow the stories in the Capital Gazette and the Baltimore Sun a evidence of double standards for males Vs females is developing.


52 posted on 03/07/2006 9:54:51 AM PST by CoRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
I meant "celebrate" in the biblical sense, my friend..."

LOL! Yeah, I figured that out after I hit the "post" button....

However, I have to think that "celebration," in the sense that I originally thought you'd meant it (i.e., derogatory bragging), would be reasonable grounds for disciplining the people involved.

The guy's charged with yapping about it, and I'd have to say that such behavior isn't good for unit discipline. (The ex-middie's 'unit discipline' notwithstanding..... ;-)

53 posted on 03/07/2006 9:55:22 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
Notice that this attorney said that his client admitted to drinking. I'm not sure what the current penalty for that is, but in my day that was either a 5000 or 6000 level offense if committed on grounds. The attorney also claims that the girl "lied" about her drinking, which means she denied it. Now unless there is affirmative evidence to disprove that, the difference in the two cases may be he used alcohol, and she didn't.

I think you might be onto something, XJar, because otherwise the story doesn't make sense.

In my day, boozing in the Yard or illegally at the stadium would earn you a 5000 or 6000 offense, and if they caught you with a fake I.D., they could toss you for an honor offense as well. I had the unhappy job of sitting on such an honor board myself, and had to vote to kick out an otherwise stellar mid who had a brain cramp and used the world's worst attempt at a fake I.D. at Roerdon's . . . probably less than 400 yards from Gate 1.

54 posted on 03/07/2006 9:55:39 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: CoRev
If you follow the stories in the Capital Gazette and the Baltimore Sun a evidence of double standards for males Vs females is developing.

As if "evidence" of that is particularly difficult to find: just check out the O-course. Or ask someone why qualified men can only service-select pilot down to about rank 600 or so, when a "qualified" woman can service-select it down to 1,100! Those who can't see the evidence are simply those who have a stake in keeping it that way.

And I'm for women at the Academy, by the way.

55 posted on 03/07/2006 10:00:06 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
However, I have to think that "celebration," in the sense that I originally thought you'd meant it (i.e., derogatory bragging), would be reasonable grounds for disciplining the people involved.

Yipes! That's the only reason you try to get the brick---bragging rights!

56 posted on 03/07/2006 10:01:30 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Is it neccessary to "brace up" prior to being "dressed down"? Will they be brought before the Captains Mast as well?


57 posted on 03/07/2006 10:17:55 AM PST by pblax8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Or ask someone why qualified men can only service-select pilot down to about rank 600 or so, when a "qualified" woman can service-select it down to 1,100!

I'm trying to think of the justification for that one....Maybe its that there probably are a few specialties not open to women, such as Spec War and Nuke, that aren't open to men. Maybe fewer slots for those who want to join the Corps? I don't know. I suppose its probably something like that. If that's the reason, there's some logic to it.

What bugged me were things like Ac Boards. Youngster year, I lost a roommate who had a 1.76 for the semester. A female classmate, same company, with both a lower QPR and a lower CQPR, was retained. And she was one of the worst in terms of military performance too. But they just wanted to keep the women more than the guys.

58 posted on 03/07/2006 10:41:43 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: pblax8
It's over. VADM Rempt decided to ruin the males career and tap the hand of the female with counseling. He's gone, she'll be allowed to graduate and LEAD future sailors. What lessons has she and her friends learned about truth, honor?
59 posted on 03/07/2006 10:49:31 AM PST by CoRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
What bugged me were things like Ac Boards. Youngster year, I lost a roommate who had a 1.76 for the semester. A female classmate, same company, with both a lower QPR and a lower CQPR, was retained. And she was one of the worst in terms of military performance too. But they just wanted to keep the women more than the guys.

I know of a woman there who was unsat pretty much the entire semester of every year she was there, except for at the very end, when she managed to pull off a 2.00001 or something like that. They went above and beyond to retain her, whereas they'd let a similarly-talented man sink or swim on his own.

Another woman in my company was on the sick, lame, and lazy squad for the entirety of plebe summer. First it was sinusitis, then it was a blister, then it was sinusitis again---every time she was due to get off the sick, lame, and lazy list, something else would crop up. A miracle! She was retained, of course. It was never even a question.

It's really no secret to those of us who spent some time as a student there: there is a definite bias for retaining women at all costs. And there are women who definitely deserve to be there, too. But it's foolish to pretend there's an equal playing field . . .

60 posted on 03/07/2006 11:20:59 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson