Big Ben off the hook again.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Moondog

There are lots of things we all "know" that we can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

We make decisions all the times based on this "knowledge". If we only made decisions based on what we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt we'd make a lot more mistakes.

What I "know" is this guy is a scumbag rapist.

Thankfully I don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" to make every judgement for me. Common sense works much better.

And, yes, OJ did it.

Let's hope you don't get accused of something and face 12 jurors like you. If you do, I will send you a toothbrush and some underwear.

[GMScud]

I had to LMAO at this one. PFT and Florio are a constant subject of criticism on this website. I read PFT a few times a week. Not because I like the site, but more because I like to scour for rumors and pick and choose what I think is plausible.

Florio had this preface to his post about Big Ben trade rumors:

It's one thing for the Internet to spawn sports rumors. Many of them come from message boards or slapdicks like me who throw stuff against the wall. Those rumors rarely register a blip.

HA! He flat out acknowledges what a hack he is. "Slapdicks like me..." "Those rumors rarely register a blip." LOL. At least Florio knows who he is.

Already, the Big Ben trade rumors start | ProFootballTalk.com

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I had to LMAO at this one. PFT and Florio are a constant subject of criticism on this website. I read PFT a few times a week. Not because I like the site, but more because I like to scour for rumors and pick and choose what I think is plausible.

Florio had this preface to his post about Big Ben trade rumors:

It's one thing for the Internet to spawn sports rumors. Many of them come from message boards or slapdicks like me who throw stuff against the wall. Those rumors rarely register a blip.

HA! He flat out acknowledges what a hack he is. "Slapdicks like me..." "Those rumors rarely register a blip." LOL. At least Florio knows who he is.

Already, the Big Ben trade rumors start | ProFootballTalk.com

I literally lol'd last night when I read that

[Moondog]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Let's hope you don't get accused of something and face 12 jurors like you. If you do, I will send you a toothbrush and some underwear.

You're missing the point.



Edit: What I am talking about is that we require different burdens of proof in different situations and contexts. And we all do this, including you, every day.


Looking at legal cases:

In criminal cases the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the very highest burden of proof and it belongs here due to the life-long (or life-ending) consequences of the outcome.

In civil cases (the majority of legal cases people are asked to sit on juries for) the burden of proof is lower. Often simply a Preponderance of the Evidence or Clear and Convincing Evidence.

We do this in our everyday life as well. The more dangerous or risky a possible situation is, likely, the lower our burden of proof becomes before we decide it's a bad idea. For instance, based on Big Ben's history to date, no Child Placement Agency worth their salt is ever going to approve this dunderhead as a licensed foster or adoptive home for teenage girls.

Smoking cigarettes has not ever been found to cause cancer and heart disease beyond a reasonable doubt but I seriously doubt you'd tell your teenage son to smoke because this high burden of proof hasn't been met.

If I was on a jury I'd judge the situation and weigh the evidence based on the burden of proof required for the type of case. But, don't worry, I always get sent home early in any jury selection process because of my profession.

So, is Big Ben guilty of a criminal offense? No. No charge is being brought. Read up on sexual assault cases or talk to local DAs and they can tell you why these are very challenging cases, especially in this media age of C.S.I. fandom, to try.

Is Big Ben a rapist if applying common sense and the evidence we have heard? To me, yes. If that bothers you, that's your problem.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Moondog

You're missing the point.

And so are you. You don't know what happened. You are assuming that you know what happened. Unless you were in the bathroom, you are making an assumption based on available information.

Do you think Ben did something wrong. Yes.
Do I think that Ben did something wrong in GA. Yes

Do either of us know for a fact that Ben did something wrong. No.

If I had to bet my mortgage on a crime being commited vs. not being commited I would bet that he did something. Do I think Ben is a scumbag? Yes, but that is also based off of a pretty heavy media campaign placing him in an unfavorable light.

The Duke lacrosse case looked pretty cut and dry too.

There is a lot of grey area here which is complicated by the fact that alcohol was involved.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Moondog

You're missing the point.



Edit: What I am talking about is that we require different burdens of proof in different situations and contexts. And we all do this, including you, every day.


Looking at legal cases:

In criminal cases the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the very highest burden of proof and it belongs here due to the life-long (or life-ending) consequences of the outcome.

In civil cases (the majority of legal cases people are asked to sit on juries for) the burden of proof is lower. Often simply a Preponderance of the Evidence or Clear and Convincing Evidence.

We do this in our everyday life as well. The more dangerous or risky a possible situation is, likely, the lower our burden of proof becomes before we decide it's a bad idea. For instance, based on Big Ben's history to date, no Child Placement Agency worth their salt is ever going to approve this dunderhead as a licensed foster or adoptive home for teenage girls.

Smoking cigarettes has not ever been found to cause cancer and heart disease beyond a reasonable doubt but I seriously doubt you'd tell your teenage son to smoke because this high burden of proof hasn't been met.

If I was on a jury I'd judge the situation and weigh the evidence based on the burden of proof required for the type of case. But, don't worry, I always get sent home early in any jury selection process because of my profession.

So, is Big Ben guilty of a criminal offense? No. No charge is being brought. Read up on sexual assault cases or talk to local DAs and they can tell you why these are very challenging cases, especially in this media age of C.S.I. fandom, to try.

Is Big Ben a rapist if applying common sense and the evidence we have heard? To me, yes. If that bothers you, that's your problem.

Ok. So instead of an internet forum where you can say whatever you want about anybody, if you were on a TV interview and someone said, "What do you think about Big Ben?". You would answer, "He is a scumbag rapist". That would seem like an easy defamation case to me.

The standard to charge someone with sexual assault is very low. If I am not mistaken, a female who is intoxicated could charge a male with assault in many juridictions. It wouldn't matter if she initiated the encounter. If she presented herself as a believable victim to the police, they could very well arrest and ultimately convict the other party. Well, what male hasn't gone to a bar and hooked up and slept with a drunk girl? Are we all scumbag rapists?

In some places an 18 year old male who sleeps with his 17 year old girlfriend can and are charged with a sexual offense. Are they scumbag rapists?

This is what I want to know. What exactly did this girl think was going to happen when she went into a private bathroom with an NFL player? Was she planning on discussing the playbook?

[Moondog]

[QUOTE=Pocket$ $traight;688034]Ok. So instead of an internet forum where you can say whatever you want about anybody, if you were on a TV interview and someone said, "What do you think about Big Ben?". You would answer, "He is a scumbag rapist". That would seem like an easy defamation case to me.

The standard to charge someone with sexual assault is very low. If I am not mistaken[QUOTE]

You are.

If I was asked on T.V. ( :yeahright) what I thought of Big Ben and replied "I believe he is a scumbag rapist." I'd be perfectly fine. I wouldn't be stating it while knowing that it was untrue just to damage him. It's not defamation in this case. It's free speech. I can have an opinion about someone without a court ruling telling me it's ok to have it. Thank God.

Over 1 in 10 Americans believe Obama is the anti-christ and have stated so in print, radio and T.V.. That's some pretty serious defamation right there. Right?

As to him not being charged and the supposed low standard to press charges of sexual assault: Where are you pulling this from? Do you know this beyond a reasonable doubt?

In Georgia, the DAs office makes the decision whether to press charges or not. Not the victim or the police.

What the DA needs are all the elements of the crime met to beyond a reasonable doubt and they need to believe that they can actually win because what DA wants to end up with egg on his face by losing a high-profile case against a star athlete? They are politicians after all and they will be only using their overworked and underpaid attorneys to battle the best criminal defense attorneys that Big Ben can afford.

Many DAs share the belief that in sexual assault cases, and especially intrafamilial ones, they actually need evidence that is beyond an unreasonable doubt to even think of going forward.

Any rate, enough about this. I hold an opinion you seem to find distressingly uncompassionate and close-minded. You hold a world view that seems naive and foolish...and one that I miss holding.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Any rate, enough about this. I hold an opinion you seem to find distressingly uncompassionate and close-minded. You hold a world view that seems naive and foolish...and one that I miss holding.[/QUOTE]


Well thanks for your opinion. Take that and add two cents and you will have two cents.

Call him a rapist all you want, I will still say that you are wrong and ignorant.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Well thanks for your opinion. Take that and add two cents and you will have two cents.

Call him a rapist all you want, I will still say that you are wrong and ignorant.

Saying he's absolutely not a rapist is just as ignorant as saying he absolutely is. None of us knows all the facts.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Saying he's absolutely not a rapist is just as ignorant as saying he absolutely is. None of us knows all the facts.

So let's start calling everybody a scumbag rapist, whether it can be proven or not. You will be correct sometimes.

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by Moondog

You are.

If I was asked on T.V. ( :yeahright) what I thought of Big Ben and replied "I believe he is a scumbag rapist." I'd be perfectly fine. I wouldn't be stating it while knowing that it was untrue just to damage him. It's not defamation in this case. It's free speech. I can have an opinion about someone without a court ruling telling me it's ok to have it. Thank God.

Over 1 in 10 Americans believe Obama is the anti-christ and have stated so in print, radio and T.V.. That's some pretty serious defamation right there. Right?

As to him not being charged and the supposed low standard to press charges of sexual assault: Where are you pulling this from? Do you know this beyond a reasonable doubt?

In Georgia, the DAs office makes the decision whether to press charges or not. Not the victim or the police.

What the DA needs are all the elements of the crime met to beyond a reasonable doubt and they need to believe that they can actually win because what DA wants to end up with egg on his face by losing a high-profile case against a star athlete? They are politicians after all and they will be only using their overworked and underpaid attorneys to battle the best criminal defense attorneys that Big Ben can afford.

Many DAs share the belief that in sexual assault cases, and especially intrafamilial ones, they actually need evidence that is beyond an unreasonable doubt to even think of going forward.

Any rate, enough about this. I hold an opinion you seem to find distressingly uncompassionate and close-minded. You hold a world view that seems naive and foolish...and one that I miss holding.

Regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with this, I just have to add that this is the kind of post I appreciate- cogent, well-written and respectful. I hope you stay awhile, Moon.

[Pocket$ $traight]

[quote=itvnetop;688332][quote=Moondog;688198]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Ok. So instead of an internet forum where you can say whatever you want about anybody, if you were on a TV interview and someone said, "What do you think about Big Ben?". You would answer, "He is a scumbag rapist". That would seem like an easy defamation case to me.

The standard to charge someone with sexual assault is very low. If I am not mistaken

Regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with this, I just have to add that this is the kind of post I appreciate- cogent, well-written and respectful. I hope you stay awhile, Moon.

Me too. If there is one thing the world needs is more lawyers, especially slanderous ones who criticize world views right after the casually label people rapists.

I would say the only occupation more admirable is Kate Goslin's; the person has managed to turn child exploitation and neglect into a lucrative occupation.

God bless America (and Obama the anti-christ...lol)

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Moondog there is no jury in a civil case.

[Moondog]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

Moondog there is no jury in a civil case.

If you are going to state something as fact, it helps to fact check it before opening mouth and inserting foot.

I can't post links yet so you'll have to do the work for yourself. It'll take 3 seconds.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Moondog

If you are going to state something as fact, it helps to fact check it before opening mouth and inserting foot.

I can't post links yet so you'll have to do the work for yourself. It'll take 3 seconds.

Correct, in certain civil cases a trial by jury may be requested.