"I've never seen anyone go into this much detail about an incident that didn't lead to charges"

Not in a newspaper anyway. This is a regurgitation of a police report, likely by an inexperienced reporter.
My paper doesn't have a standard policy for reporting details of sexual assaults. My boss, however, has advised us that if an article starts becoming a Penthouse Forum letter, stop, hit the delete button and start over.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (11/28/2012 1:08 pm)

It seemed highly unnecessary to me.  Dixon's suspension is pretty big news, especially in Columbia.  But the story didn't need to be much more than: Dixon was accused of rape in August.  After an investigation, the prosecutor's office has determined that there's insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges.  Dixon remains suspended based on a determination made by the Student Conduct Committee, pending a review of that decision by Chancellor Deaton.

Including the specifics from the police report, which are clearly going to be one-sided, smacks of an ulterior motive.  If the author is the basketball beat writer, it makes you wonder if he's holding a grudge based upon something Dixon did in the past.

forsberg_us wrote:

Have you ever seen someone write a story like this one?

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/nov/27/no-charges-filed-after-dixon-accused-rape/?tigerextra

What exactly is the point of providing this much detail regarding an event that the prosecutor's deemed unworthy of charges? Seems to me like a direct attempt to smear Dixon, but I'm probably not unbiased.  Personally, I've never seen anyone go into this much detail about an incident that didn't lead to charges, but since I know you either currently have or have been on the crime beat, I was curious about your opinion.

IDK about smearing Dixon.  My opinion is that the details, while not needed, favors Dixon.  She willing moving into doggie style and willingly jerked him off.  She also never says anything about threats or any force being used.  I didnt read is extremely close but it is pretty easy to see why the case was dropped.

My wife gets mad at me for thinking poop jokes are funny.  Growing up seems boring.

Really tho, they called this rape?  The girl said she texted him afterward and said she wanted to hangout again and said she was never in fear of being hit.  It is called regret not rape.  I am not trying to be a sexist pig but come on.  Maybe Dixon was out of line.  Maybe it was worst then what this girl is letting on.  That doesnt matter.  What matter is what she is saying.  What she is say isnt rape.  She wasnt into it.  She said no at first and then gave in.  That is pretty much the story everytime I have sex.

APIAD wrote:

My wife gets mad at me for thinking poop jokes are funny.  Growing up seems boring.

Really tho, they called this rape?  The girl said she texted him afterward and said she wanted to hangout again and said she was never in fear of being hit.  It is called regret not rape.  I am not trying to be a sexist pig but come on.  Maybe Dixon was out of line.  Maybe it was worst then what this girl is letting on.  That doesnt matter.  What matter is what she is saying.  What she is say isnt rape.  She wasnt into it.  She said no at first and then gave in.  That is pretty much the story everytime I have sex.

If I understand the law, it's rape because it was not consensual, at least according to her.  Why a victim does the things they do to their attacker can be confusing to those on the sidelines, and that's a well-known phenomenon.  All that aside, I agree with you that at many different times and places in history, this would not be rape: invite a guy to your apartment, climb into your jammies and then into bed, turn the lights off, start fooling around, and then say . . . "but no sex."