Figueroa's Instagram Post

[CspotOandG]

Man, f*ck this dude. Hope he blows out both knees at whatever chump program he ends up at. F*ckin rapist b*tch. Hoe-a$$ N*ga...

 

[TheUuuuu]

everyone here is arguing over legal technicalities but leaving out the fact that the girl wasn't old enough to buy cigarettes at the time of this happening.

Since the last person I asked failed to articulate it, let's see if you can. What legal "technicalities" are we arguing about?

We get it Mr. Dershowitz. You are saying they received PTI for a violent *** crime, which is very unusual, since violent crimes aren't even eligible for PTI. So you are rationalizing that they must be innocent. The legal "technicalities" Dont change the fact that keeping them on the team creates an ugly story and a guaranteed Title XI lawsuit.

They bought drinks and tag teamed an unconscious 17 year old student, with knowledge she took Xanax, Molly or whatever. Maybe she "wanted" it, but who are you to know for sure?

they allegedly admitted to police that they "raped" her, and at that point they were dismissed. Nothing the school could have done differently, and hopefully they learned the life lesson that you don't talk to police without an attorney.

The charges aren't dismmised until PTI is completed, so those charges are still hanging over them. the school can't just let them back without a serious ****le XI lawsuit happening.

Isn't Figs from Virginia?

Don't you have to plead guilty to recieve PTI if you live out the state of Florida for the probationary period?

Maybe next time you and your boy Matlock are down at the courthouse, one of you could get some files, I'm curious to see what they were actually charged with.

Where did they admit that tey raped her?

That's actually on record.

 

[dk72]

everyone here is arguing over legal technicalities but leaving out the fact that the girl wasn't old enough to buy cigarettes at the time of this happening.

She was 17 or 18. You guys act like she was 10 and the guys she was banging were 30. The age difference between the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrators was only a couple years.

so you're saying that as long as there's only a small difference in age, there's nothing wrong with giving someone that's under the age of consent alcohol or drugs and having *** with them while they're under the influence. that's not even legal with someone that's 21 years old.

christ this board has gone to ****. you ******* idiots will stoop to any level to discredit the school, even when they do what any other reasonable university would do. sexual assault and title ix are being policed so hard across the country that there is no other choice anymore.

That's because people like Franchise don't give a crap about other people or the school. He wants to have a football program that is free to do whatever it wants, however it wants, with players that are given a free pass for anything they do, and....the program MUST be run how he (in his delusional view that he has a clue about anything at all, much less running a football program) sees fit. He's fine with girls getting raped, as long as players don't get caught and in trouble.

 

[Canes_U_Pride]

Smh at some of you. 8 pgs devoted to an admitted rapist who drugged up a girl and forced himself on her. I want nothing to do with the filth that this kid is. Anyone thinking he should be on campus obviously doesnt have kids and shouldnt have much to say on matters like this.

 

[felix]

In your world do people coddle rapists? UM gave him exactly what he needed, the boot. The guy is a pig and put himself in his current situation, nobody else.

Absolute disgrace? The school completely ****ed him over.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

Even IF they had consensual *** with her in the past, it would still be illegal

You're wrong...if it was consensual, it would've been legal, per Florida law.

But this time she was drunk and couldn't legally consent anyway.
So my point is that the *** with her when she was wasted is still illegal no matter how many times they had *** with her in the past consensually. Especially since they knew she was underage and they provided the alcohol to get her drunk.

dk72...are you saying these guys got in trouble for having a drunken threesome? If so, I disagree...they were both charged with sexual assault, & I think one of em' was charged with having a fake ID...they weren't charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I don't think they could've charged em' with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, because the plaintiff & defendants were ALL underage. IMO, it came down to whether they slipped a drug in her drink, that incapacitated her to the point of a "corpse"...and honestly, the arrest affidavit doesn't make that clear.

PS: If I misinterpreted your quote, my apologies beforehand.

 

[dookie blaylock]

Even IF they had consensual *** with her in the past, it would still be illegal

You're wrong...if it was consensual, it would've been legal, per Florida law.

But this time she was drunk and couldn't legally consent anyway.
So my point is that the *** with her when she was wasted is still illegal no matter how many times they had *** with her in the past consensually. Especially since they knew she was underage and they provided the alcohol to get her drunk.

dk72...are you saying these guys got in trouble for having a drunken threesome? If so, I disagree...they were both charged with sexual assault, & I think one of em' was charged with having a fake ID...they weren't charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I don't think they could've charged em' with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, because the plaintiff & defendants were ALL underage. IMO, it came down to whether they slipped a drug in her drink, that incapacitated her to the point of a "corpse"...and honestly, the arrest affidavit doesn't make that clear.

PS: If I misinterpreted your quote, my apologies beforehand.

except in this case she's not only a minor for underage drinking, she's under the legal age of consent in florida and not a legal adult. the police report clearly states that she was "physically helpless to resist" then follows up with admission that they performed *** acts on her without her consent.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

everyone here is arguing over legal technicalities but leaving out the fact that the girl wasn't old enough to buy cigarettes at the time of this happening.

Since the last person I asked failed to articulate it, let's see if you can. What legal "technicalities" are we arguing about?

We get it Mr. Dershowitz. You are saying they received PTI for a violent *** crime, which is very unusual, since violent crimes aren't even eligible for PTI. So you are rationalizing that they must be innocent. The legal "technicalities" Dont change the fact that keeping them on the team creates an ugly story and a guaranteed Title XI lawsuit.

They bought drinks and tag teamed an unconscious 17 year old student, with knowledge she took Xanax, Molly or whatever. Maybe she "wanted" it, but who are you to know for sure?

they allegedly admitted to police that they "raped" her, and at that point they were dismissed. Nothing the school could have done differently, and hopefully they learned the life lesson that you don't talk to police without an attorney.

The charges aren't dismmised until PTI is completed, so those charges are still hanging over them. the school can't just let them back without a serious ****le XI lawsuit happening.

Isn't Figs from Virginia?

Don't you have to plead guilty to recieve PTI if you live out the state of Florida for the probationary period?

Maybe next time you and your boy Matlock are down at the courthouse, one of you could get some files, I'm curious to see what they were actually charged with.

No you don't. He would do Virginia's version of PTI, minus entering in a guilty plea (or any plea period). Since he took the deal in Florida and not VA, and Florida does not require an admission of guilt, he would not have to plead in VA. Florida is the one essentially doing a conditional nolle pross, so what VA requires is irrelevant.

Even IF they had consensual *** with her in the past, it would still be illegal

You're wrong...if it was consensual, it would've been legal, per Florida law.

But this time she was drunk and couldn't legally consent anyway.
So my point is that the *** with her when she was wasted is still illegal no matter how many times they had *** with her in the past consensually. Especially since they knew she was underage and they provided the alcohol to get her drunk.

dk72...are you saying these guys got in trouble for having a drunken threesome? If so, I disagree...they were both charged with sexual assault, & I think one of em' was charged with having a fake ID...they weren't charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I don't think they could've charged em' with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, because the plaintiff & defendants were ALL underage. IMO, it came down to whether they slipped a drug in her drink, that incapacitated her to the point of a "corpse"...and honestly, the arrest affidavit doesn't make that clear.

PS: If I misinterpreted your quote, my apologies beforehand.

except in this case she's not only a minor for underage drinking, she's under the legal age of consent in florida and not a legal adult. the police report clearly states that she was "physically helpless to resist" then follows up with admission that they performed *** acts on her without her consent.

Not sure why you or anyone keeps hammering on "what the police report says." Police reports are not admissible evidence in court. You see, there is this federal rule of evidence, that all states (including Florida) have adopted...it prevents the admission of what is called "hearsay." Perhaps you've heard of it.

 

[Klamalama]

I've been a juror on a few criminal cases. One was a high profile murder case where we were sequestered from the first day of the trial. Anyway, I've learned to wait for evidence and facts, not conjecture. I've also learned that confessions can be coerced. I don't know the facts of the case, and I don't think anyone posting here does. The speculation is on the level of gossip.

 

[Cane2]

http://pwrfwd.net/2013/12/02/updated-a-list-of-college-football-rape-cases/

What is the real issue here?

Is this an issue two UM players not taking advantage of an impaired woman who happens to be a female minor and an incoming freshman?

Or is the real issue one where UM Admin did NOT coddle and NOR protect two UM players that very well could have gotten away with an incident where there were a lot of other people involved with procuring drugs & alcohol for a minor girl?

Is this an issue where UM Admin after conferring with the minor girl and her parents of what had transpired, along with recognizing UM’s own culture of procuring date drugs & alcohol for minors, “counseled” two players to come clean and admit as much as possible, and everything will take care of itself and they will all b e fine.

In view of some prior sexual relationship with at least one of the players, and the fact that the girl could not have given consent to the players nor a refusal to have *** in light of her impaired state, there’s no question a contested case would have a hard time in securing an indictment, let alone a conviction. Indeed, only 3% of rape cases end in conviction and jail time. http://pwrfwd.net/2013/12/02/updated-a-list-of-college-football-rape-cases/

If you have at least a daughter, sister, and close female cousin in the high teens and older that attend or attended college, it may be interesting for you to know that 1 in four will be raped if she hasn't been already. Unfortunately, if you’ve had 2 daughters and 2 sisters going or having gone through college, one of them will be raped, if not already. Yet, the culprit of your relative violation will walk away 97% of the time without your relative getting the appropriate justice.

Just imagine what would happen if Hillary Clinton becomes President, then the miniscule 3 % justice rate will go way up or we will facing situations with Man down, female vigilante style, or as in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhy-RXkNo0

Hundo_

What is dude burning the UM flag? What's Fig's real issue? Because UM did not cover up his violation of that minor girl considering that had UM tried to look the other way and covered it up, dude could have easily gotten away with it, and after the storm would blow over, dude could have been seeking for a reinstatement. **** any NCAA Title IX violation. This would be just as all other dudes in college and in society who get away with such violation of our sisters and daughters day in and day out.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

except in this case she's not only a minor for underage drinking, she's under the legal age of consent in florida and not a legal adult.

They weren't charged with statutory rape...like I said earlier, if it was consensual, it would've been legal per Florida law:

Florida

A. Statutory Rape—Criminal Offenses

A child under 16 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity, regardless of the age of the defendant. A child who is at least 16 years of age and less than 18 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity if the defendant is 24 years of age or older.

 

[dookie blaylock]

You're wrong...if it was consensual, it would've been legal, per Florida law.

But this time she was drunk and couldn't legally consent anyway.
So my point is that the *** with her when she was wasted is still illegal no matter how many times they had *** with her in the past consensually. Especially since they knew she was underage and they provided the alcohol to get her drunk.

dk72...are you saying these guys got in trouble for having a drunken threesome? If so, I disagree...they were both charged with sexual assault, & I think one of em' was charged with having a fake ID...they weren't charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I don't think they could've charged em' with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, because the plaintiff & defendants were ALL underage. IMO, it came down to whether they slipped a drug in her drink, that incapacitated her to the point of a "corpse"...and honestly, the arrest affidavit doesn't make that clear.

PS: If I misinterpreted your quote, my apologies beforehand.

except in this case she's not only a minor for underage drinking, she's under the legal age of consent in florida and not a legal adult. the police report clearly states that she was "physically helpless to resist" then follows up with admission that they performed *** acts on her without her consent.

Not sure why you or anyone keeps hammering on "what the police report says." Police reports are not admissible evidence in court. You see, there is this federal rule of evidence, that all states (including Florida) have adopted...it prevents the admission of what is called "hearsay." Perhaps you've heard of it.

i didn't make it clear in that post, but i'm only commenting on how the police reports are related to their dismissals from school, not the criminal case. the police report is absolutely a resource in the university's justification for kicking them out.

also, the last part of the police report gives their statements after being given their miranda rights (perhaps you're heard of them), so their actual confessions in the station are fully admissible in court. doesn't take a lawyer to know that.

it's pretty ****ed that you're going through some great lengths to defend two scumbags who got a kid drunk and had *** with her.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

If you have at least a daughter, sister, and close female cousin in the high teens and older that attend or attended college, it may be interesting for you to know that 1 in four will be raped if she hasn't been already. Unfortunately, if you’ve had 2 daughters and 2 sisters going or having gone through college, one of them will be raped, if not already. Yet, the culprit of your relative violation will walk away 97% of the time without your relative getting the appropriate justice.

Goes both ways. I have 2 sons, and I don't want them being falsely accused just because a female has "buyers remorse".

 

[dookie blaylock]

except in this case she's not only a minor for underage drinking, she's under the legal age of consent in florida and not a legal adult.

They weren't charged with statutory rape...like I said earlier, if it was consensual, it would've been legal per Florida law:

Florida

A. Statutory Rape—Criminal Offenses

A child under 16 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity, regardless of the age of the defendant. A child who is at least 16 years of age and less than 18 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity if the defendant is 24 years of age or older.

you conveniently leave out the fact that alcohol was involved, which makes her entirely unable to consent at all, which is covered under state law.

(5)(a) A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older but younger than 18 years of age, without that person’s consent, and in the process does not use physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

so it's still illegal because she can't give consent if she's drunk.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

(5)(a) A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older but younger than 18 years of age, without that person’s consent, and in the process does not use physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

so it's still illegal because she can't give consent if she's drunk.

Not trying to argue with you db305, but where does it say anything about alcohol in that law.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

I'm just gonna sit back and watch the learned db305 attempt to explain why he cited that statute to support his proposition. This should be entertaining.

 

[dookie blaylock]

(5)(a) A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older but younger than 18 years of age, without that person’s consent, and in the process does not use physical force and violence likely to cause serious personal injury commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.

so it's still illegal because she can't give consent if she's drunk.

Not trying to argue with you db305, but where does it say anything about alcohol in that law.

consent cannot legally be given if someone is intoxicated. she was drunk so she cannot legally give consent.

794.011 Sexual battery.—
(1) As used in this chapter:
(a) “Consent” means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. “Consent” shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.
(c) “Mentally incapacitated” means temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling a person’s own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered without his or her consent or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent.

like i said before, i'm not a lawyer, but it's pretty straightforward. if she cannot give consent due to an intoxicating substance, the age range for having consensual *** with someone under 18 cannot apply.

 

[Dan E. Dangerously]

Reading 8 pages of people trying to tell lawyers what the law means is pretty interesting.

 

[dookie blaylock]

I'm just gonna sit back and watch the learned db305 attempt to explain why he cited that statute to support his proposition. This should be entertaining.

please, feel free to refute anything that i've said. from my very rudimentary knowledge of the law, it boils down to this:

1. figs and blue were 20 at the time of the incident and the girl was 17, so they were ok under florida law to have consensual *** with her because of the provision built in allowing adults to have *** with minors within a specified range.

2. they admitted to the police that they got her drunk and had *** with her. this admission was after they were read their miranda rights, so those statements made are fully admissible in court.

3. because she was drunk, she could no longer give consent in the eyes of the law, which scraps the underage provision that would have covered them.

if i'm wrong about any of that then i'd really like to know what i'm misinterpreting because it seems very straightforward and more than enough justification for them to be dismissed from school.

 

[Fightinibis]

It must have been a great confession for the State to offer PTI on a rape charge, especially considering the particular prosecutor's reputation.

The girl didn't want to testify.


The reason for the deal: the victim, also a campus athlete, did not want to undergo the “devastating” experience of testifying, prosecutor Laura Adams told a judge Wednesday

UM football players JaWand Blue, Alexander Figueroa charged with sexual battery

“The victim in this case, although never wavering from her insistence that the defendants sexually assaulted her against her will, did not believe it would be in her best interest to have to undergo the type of questioning [and] cross-examination that would essentially amount to an attack on her character should the case go to trial,” Adams wrote in a final memo on the case. “She very much wanted to put this matter behind her, and focu

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article3583495.html#storylink=cpy

But what about this rock solid "confession" and everyone who witnessed it? Why didn't they offer them a plea that required them to admit guilt as an alternative? PTI for rape charges is pretty extreme, pointing to the fact that not only did the AV not want to testify (which is likely bull****), but that the case was complete **** in every other aspect.

I believe in the original police report they admitted to tag teaming an unconscious 17 year old girl. They also admitted to buying her several drinks, and admitted they had knowledge that she had taken drugs. What can the school do at that point?

What exactly would you had done if you ran the athletic department/university?

Reinstating them after the fact could bring media scrutiny. The fact they got PTI doesn't mean they were innocent.

Most schools automatically suspend players charged with felonies. Given the hysteria in the media and the White House over sexual assaults on campus. 60+ schools are under title XI investigations, and with the hysteria around FSU at the time, the university had no options.

UF suspended Harris without him even being charged, mostly because they saw the ****storm FSU was under.

Exactly.

We can hate Golden all we want, but this one was out of his hands. There was no way UM was going to allow him to dictate what happened here after the police report and all of the similar BS going on at other universities. We can probably thank Rapist Winston and the pathetic handling of his case by Trailerhassee PD and F$U for the snap decision by UM in this one.

UM