The article in the SB Tribune today quoting witnesses who were actually there tells quite a different story. I’m more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Devin Butler than I am to the one officer with the checkered background.

I don’t think that we are actually disagreeing. When you read BK’s statement, he is operating from the premise that we have “facts” as we know them. And, at least insofar as I am aware, we don’t have any other evidence to contradict those “facts” at this time. The only “facts” we have are the charges against Butler. Until those change, either via prosecutorial discretion or evidence to the contrary, du Lac is going to do what it’s going to do. They may opt to do nothing in the interim.

I agree. Well said Mike.

True. But even the University should consider actual facts, not just allegations. I’m not saying that the allegations are false, just that they are not yet proven.

That doesn’t apply to du Lac.

It is. But the actual facts may not correspond with the affidavit. The SBPD always goes for the max charges imaginable. And one of the officers involved has been suspended (and even sued) in the past for having instigated situations. I’m more in the wait and see mode. That old “you’re innocent until proven guilty” thing.

The affidavit is damning.