It seems as if the judge that ruled against the felonious act of the "victim" to be excluded from the ears of the jury was invoking what we all agree should not be relevant.... such as introducing the sexual history of a rape victim at the trial of her rapist. Such "evidence" can be prejudicial.
But, IMO, the exclusion of the very relevant act did not fit the same mold.
I wish the men had reported the incident.
As far as Sutton being forced to resign, I can't agree out of hand. In the Duke case, the DA had evidence the charges were false, but chose to proceed. In this case, the men had chosen to not report the shooting, which was against policy. However, IMO, that would have merited a slap on the wrist or a reprimand at most.