Darren Sharper (former Saints DB and NFLN analyst) arrested on suspicion of rape.

[amfootball]

so were taking force of the blow into account now? Im taking intent into account not whether or not she actually hurt him, Intent is what matters most, are you saying a woman slapping a man in the back of the head is alright? a woman slapping a man across the face is alright?, a woman throwing things at a man is alright?

Sure because men on average can inflict much more damage to a woman then the other way around. That is why as you say men are taught at a young age never to hit a woman. It is also why people don't generally hit their kids even when their kids are violent towards them because of the physical advantage.

[Nadine]

back on topic

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/01/darren_sharper_rape.html

 

the case remains under investigation and is unrelated to two separate rape charges in LA

[BOTT]

so were taking force of the blow into account now? Im taking intent into account not whether or not she actually hurt him, Intent is what matters most, are you saying a woman slapping a man in the back of the head is alright? a woman slapping a man across the face is alright?, a woman throwing things at a man is alright?

It's not that big of deal when a woman does it. I know I'm supposed to say the politically correct thing, but we all know it's bull. Oh no, a 120lb woman slapped me! Terrifying! The wussification of the American male is truly upon us.....

[Gavin]

Sure because men on average can inflict much more damage to a woman then the other way around. That is why as you say men are taught at a young age never to hit a woman. It is also why people don't generally hit their kids even when their kids are violent towards them because of the physical advantage.

Intent is the only thing that matters at the end of the day not force of the hit, Ill let you in on how I see it, before I do Ill tell you I love women to death (that may sound funny now that I typed it but ya get my draft I think) but a man when attacked by a woman has every right to defend himself by any means that he can just like a woman does, Now is that abuse? I dont think so in the slightest, Women on average are pretty confrontational these days, Part of that is indeed mans fault I will definitly say that but at some point people have to hold a woman accountable for her verbal assault of a man (sometimes excused as mood swing) and getting right up in his face yelling and cussing at him like a sailor, At the end of the day both parties involved are obviously guilty of bad behavior towards the other of course, Im not condemning one or the other, But we are living in a world where women are striving for total equality, I am completely for that BUT it goes both ways in this particular respect as well as the many others

[Gavin]

It's not that big of deal when a woman does it. I know I'm supposed to say the politically correct thing, but we all know it's bull. Oh no, a 120lb woman slapped me! Terrifying! The wussification of the American male is truly upon us.....

This is the exact type of thinking that I am talking about

[amfootball]

Intent is the only thing that matters at the end of the day not force of the hit, Ill let you in on how I see it, before I do Ill tell you I love women to death (that may sound funny now that I typed it but ya get my draft I think) but a man when attacked by a woman has every right to defend himself by any means that he can just like a woman does, Now is that abuse? I dont think so in the slightest, Women on average are pretty confrontational these days, Part of that is indeed mans fault I will definitly say that but at some point people have to hold a woman accountable for her verbal assault of a man (sometimes excused as mood swing) and getting right up in his face yelling and cussing at him like a sailor, At the end of the day both parties involved are obviously guilty of bad behavior towards the other of course, Im not condemning one or the other, But we are living in a world where women are striving for total equality, I am completely for that BUT it goes both ways in this particular respect as well as the many others

I think I get where you are coming from with the bolded statement. You are frustrated by women and their fight for equality and you somehow want to bring that into abuse and say it is somehow even. The only issue is there is no equity. Males are physically bigger and stronger then women. They have the power to dominate and to rape. That has been my only point. If you think women who are verbally abusive deserve to be hit then that is your own issue. But I strongly disagree and I will leave it at that.

[Gavin]

I think I get where you are coming from with the bolded statement. You are frustrated by women and their fight for equality and you somehow want to bring that into abuse and say it is somehow even. The only issue is there is no equity. Males are physically bigger and stronger then women. They have the power to dominate and to rape. That has been my only point. If you think women who are verbally abusive deserve to be hit then that is your own issue. But I strongly disagree and I will leave it at that.

your putting that I did not say in my mouth, not cool

[BOTT]

This is the exact type of thinking that I am talking about

You should have your own daytime talk show

[Gavin]

You should have your own daytime talk show

Nah rather come here, the pay is not good at all but more entertaining, Lets just agree to disagree or something along those lines, I have never had a problem with ya and we need to get this topic back on hand

[Gavin]

I also apologize to the colts forum family for my part in directing this topic way of course

[amfootball]

your putting that I did not say in my mouth, not cool

I apologize also. Let's get back on topic....

[jvan1973]

Hey....

Didn't want you to think I've disappeared or had forgotten about our conversation...

I'm communicating with my friend the retired prosecutor about this.... the back and forth talk has taken longer than expected... sorry it's taken so long....

I'll try to respond as soon as I can....

Thanks....

any luck?

[Vance]

Sure

If you came into this thread expecting to find a discussion about this particular case and instead found rampant vilifying of men, what would be your response?

 

I don't know, probably the same responses I've already said?

 

I think what you're trying to say is that this thread is full of rampant vilification of women. Which I have to say, is disingenuous. Bringing up something that women do to men (more often than we'd like to admit) does not mean you hate them or something. It's a valid topic that should be discussed further. Does that automatically mean I sympathize with actual rapists? Of course not. They should be punished to the fullest. But I also believe women who lie about this should be punished fully as well. What's wrong with that?

 

There is no "You're either with us or against us" thing going on here. It's about holding each guilty side responsible for their actions. That sounds like equality to me.

[Nadine]

I don't know, probably the same responses I've already said?

 

I think what you're trying to say is that this thread is full of rampant vilification of women. Which I have to say, is disingenuous. Bringing up something that women do to men (more often than we'd like to admit) does not mean you hate them or something. It's a valid topic that should be discussed further. Does that automatically mean I sympathize with actual rapists? Of course not. They should be punished to the fullest. But I also believe women who lie about this should be punished fully as well. What's wrong with that?

 

There is no "You're either with us or against us" thing going on here. It's about holding each guilty side responsible for their actions. That sounds like equality to me.

I think you'd be offended.  Anyway, that's another subject,this one is about this particular case

[amfootball]

I don't know, probably the same responses I've already said?

 

I think what you're trying to say is that this thread is full of rampant vilification of women. Which I have to say, is disingenuous. Bringing up something that women do to men (more often than we'd like to admit) does not mean you hate them or something. It's a valid topic that should be discussed further. Does that automatically mean I sympathize with actual rapists? Of course not. They should be punished to the fullest. But I also believe women who lie about this should be punished fully as well. What's wrong with that?

 

There is no "You're either with us or against us" thing going on here. It's about holding each guilty side responsible for their actions. That sounds like equality to me.

To the bolded - why? No one disagrees that it happens and that it is just wrong so why the reason to discuss except to try to cast a poor light on women in light of a thread on a man accused on three separate accounts of sexual assault.

[jvan1973]

To the bolded - why? No one disagrees that it happens and that it is just wrong so why the reason to discuss except to try to cast a poor light on women in light of a thread on a man accused on three separate accounts of sexual assault.

read the entire thread. Most of this started with a poster who believed people can't be arrested on the word of another

[NewColtsFan]

any luck?

 

Yes.....

 

Here is his answer....   again, he's a former prosecutor and a former public defender....    I've made almost no edits, only to remove any reference he may have made to me directly that might confuse the read for anyone here...

 

By the way, I'm not expecting anyone here to necessarily like it, or agree with it.   I'm posting to give you the perspective of someone whose living was handling cases just like this....

 

 

The people with whom you are discussing have missed the main point. HE PLED GUILTY, to a multi-year prison sentence.  Put yourself in his shoes for a second - would you plead away your life, without a trial, against a weak case?  Knowing you were innocent?

No, you would not, nor would anyone I know or have ever heard of.

Plus the fact the jury isn't going to be all-White.  It's almost certain to be rainbow, and then some.  At the end of the day, this isn't 1935 Missisppi, it's present day California, and the thought that he was intimidated by racial stereotypes is flat out ridiculous.

Plus the lawyer. I'm a former public defender. Hell would freeze over before I'd plead a kid with a defensible case into a sentence like that. Even if the jury ultimately goes wrong,  if I can get the victim up on the stand, I maybe able to show enough flakiness in her or her story to lead to a really good pitch for clemency at the sentencing hearing. So there's a lot to gain at trial, even if the odds of being convicted are high. You can set up your sentencing pitch.

And while we're on the subject, the number of cops and prosecutors who are all gung ho to convict innocent adolescents is zero. Mark Fuhrman himself, the dread racist perjurer, actually spent the year before doing a lot of work on his own time to clear a Black bank robber he thought had been wrongfully convicted. (Did you know that?) We're talking real human beings here, not stick figures. Justice interests all of us.

But with all this, Banks came into court, waived all his rights to trial, threw his cards down, and went to prison. That is THE critical fact in the case, the one that trumps everything else, and the one the reporters (of course) write around.

So what changed over the years? I gave you the long view in other posts. The short view is simply that the girl (and maybe the community behind her) thought that enough justice had been done. Banks had done enough time. Give the kid a break and a second chance. I think they're right about that. It's unfortunate that the only way to do it is to run around yelping about injustice way back when.

Because the bottom line is that it was Banks who got himself convicted back then. The likelihood is that that choice reflected a pretty strong case against him - one that no one is particularly interested in resurrecting.

(P.S. And I didn't even mention that million dollar check the school district wrote. You think those guys were intimidated by a solo witness? I doubt it).

[jvan1973]

Yes.....

Here is his answer.... again, he's a former prosecutor and a former public defender.... I've made almost no edits, only to remove any reference he may have made to me directly that might confuse the read for anyone here...

By the way, I'm not expecting anyone here to necessarily like it, or agree with it. I'm posting to give you the perspective of someone whose living was handling cases just like this....

The people with whom you are discussing have missed the main point. HE PLED GUILTY, to a multi-year prison sentence. Put yourself in his shoes for a second - would you plead away your life, without a trial, against a weak case? Knowing you were innocent?

No, you would not, nor would anyone I know or have ever heard of.

Plus the fact the jury isn't going to be all-White. It's almost certain to be rainbow, and then some. At the end of the day, this isn't 1935 Missisppi, it's present day California, and the thought that he was intimidated by racial stereotypes is flat out ridiculous.

Plus the lawyer. I'm a former public defender. Hell would freeze over before I'd plead a kid with a defensible case into a sentence like that. Even if the jury ultimately goes wrong, if I can get the victim up on the stand, I maybe able to show enough flakiness in her or her story to lead to a really good pitch for clemency at the sentencing hearing. So there's a lot to gain at trial, even if the odds of being convicted are high. You can set up your sentencing pitch.

And while we're on the subject, the number of cops and prosecutors who are all gung ho to convict innocent adolescents is zero. Mark Fuhrman himself, the dread racist perjurer, actually spent the year before doing a lot of work on his own time to clear a Black bank robber he thought had been wrongfully convicted. (Did you know that?) We're talking real human beings here, not stick figures. Justice interests all of us.

But with all this, Banks came into court, waived all his rights to trial, threw his cards down, and went to prison. That is THE critical fact in the case, the one that trumps everything else, and the one the reporters (of course) write around.

So what changed over the years? I gave you the long view in other posts. The short view is simply that the girl (and maybe the community behind her) thought that enough justice had been done. Banks had done enough time. Give the kid a break and a second chance. I think they're right about that. It's unfortunate that the only way to do it is to run around yelping about injustice way back when.

Because the bottom line is that it was Banks who got himself convicted back then. The likelihood is that that choice reflected a pretty strong case against him - one that no one is particularly interested in resurrecting.

(P.S. And I didn't even mention that million dollar check the school district wrote. You think those guys were intimidated by a solo witness? I doubt it).

So you still think a person can't be arrested on a persons word because his lazy attorney talked him into taking a plea agreement? I'm not sure what gated community you live in. But where most of the rest of us live, innocent people are arrested everyday solely on the word of another

Also, if you think those in law enforcement never push an agenda, i would have you listen to the "confession" of the kid in west Memphis arkansas.

[amfootball]

read the entire thread. Most of this started with a poster who believed people can't be arrested on the word of another

I know. It digressed severely from there.

[NewColtsFan]

So you still think a person can't be arrested on a persons word because his lazy attorney talked him into taking a plea agreement? I'm not sure what gated community you live in. But where most of the rest of us live, innocent people are arrested everyday solely on the word of another

Also, if you think those in law enforcement never push an agenda, i would have you listen to the "confession" of the kid in west Memphis arkansas.

 

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

 

Arrested is one thing....   staying in jail,  going to trial,  getting convicted is another...

 

And again,  all is basically saying is what I was saying.....    there's always more to it than just the word of one individual.

 

Some other type of corroborating evidence......

 

Look....   you can choose to accept or reject what the man is saying....

 

I'm only sharing with you what the world looks like from someone who used to prosecute and who also used to be a public defender.    So, he's been on both sides of the law...

 

I think that's worth something....

[jvan1973]

Men are not arrested simply because some woman said that she was assaulted by some guy.

There's much, much more involved in the process.

Doesn't mean he's guilty, but it means there's a reasonable level of suspicion that a crime MAY have been committed.

this is the original post i responded to

[NewColtsFan]

this is the original post i responded to

 

I know.

[jvan1973]

I know.

then why say this?

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

 

Arrested is one thing....   staying in jail,  going to trial,  getting convicted is another

[Vance]

I think you'd be offended.  Anyway, that's another subject,this one is about this particular case

 

Yes, assume my feelings and deflect. Better luck next time.

[Vance]

To the bolded - why? No one disagrees that it happens and that it is just wrong so why the reason to discuss except to try to cast a poor light on women in light of a thread on a man accused on three separate accounts of sexual assault.

 

Opinions noted. 

[Poster X]

Yes, sadly he is but he may not get off like Ben did.

I feel Rothlisberger only got off because the women he went after were equally shady. One reportedly made comments about how cool it would be to have little Bens running around. She was looking for a paycheck after the fact... I was irate when they let him come back into the league early for good behavior. That man should have been suspended for a minimum of one full season. None the less, he will retire from football with as many rapes as championships.

[esmort]

Yes.....

 

Here is his answer....   again, he's a former prosecutor and a former public defender....    I've made almost no edits, only to remove any reference he may have made to me directly that might confuse the read for anyone here...

 

By the way, I'm not expecting anyone here to necessarily like it, or agree with it.   I'm posting to give you the perspective of someone whose living was handling cases just like this....

 

 

The people with whom you are discussing have missed the main point. HE PLED GUILTY, to a multi-year prison sentence.  Put yourself in his shoes for a second - would you plead away your life, without a trial, against a weak case?  Knowing you were innocent?

No, you would not, nor would anyone I know or have ever heard of.

Plus the fact the jury isn't going to be all-White.  It's almost certain to be rainbow, and then some.  At the end of the day, this isn't 1935 Missisppi, it's present day California, and the thought that he was intimidated by racial stereotypes is flat out ridiculous.

Plus the lawyer. I'm a former public defender. Hell would freeze over before I'd plead a kid with a defensible case into a sentence like that. Even if the jury ultimately goes wrong,  if I can get the victim up on the stand, I maybe able to show enough flakiness in her or her story to lead to a really good pitch for clemency at the sentencing hearing. So there's a lot to gain at trial, even if the odds of being convicted are high. You can set up your sentencing pitch.

And while we're on the subject, the number of cops and prosecutors who are all gung ho to convict innocent adolescents is zero. Mark Fuhrman himself, the dread racist perjurer, actually spent the year before doing a lot of work on his own time to clear a Black bank robber he thought had been wrongfully convicted. (Did you know that?) We're talking real human beings here, not stick figures. Justice interests all of us.

But with all this, Banks came into court, waived all his rights to trial, threw his cards down, and went to prison. That is THE critical fact in the case, the one that trumps everything else, and the one the reporters (of course) write around.

So what changed over the years? I gave you the long view in other posts. The short view is simply that the girl (and maybe the community behind her) thought that enough justice had been done. Banks had done enough time. Give the kid a break and a second chance. I think they're right about that. It's unfortunate that the only way to do it is to run around yelping about injustice way back when.

Because the bottom line is that it was Banks who got himself convicted back then. The likelihood is that that choice reflected a pretty strong case against him - one that no one is particularly interested in resurrecting.

(P.S. And I didn't even mention that million dollar check the school district wrote. You think those guys were intimidated by a solo witness? I doubt it).

 

I just skimmed the article so I may have missed something:  But, it looks like he pleaded "no contest" (which is not admitting guilt) and expected a sentence of 18 months; which likely would have been less with behavior incentives.  I would guess most people especially those without knowledge of the law or access to more expensive legal services would choose 18 months + no record as sex offender over 41 yrs to life, especially on the advice of their attorney.

 

This is a common legal tactic ... especially if the prosecutor went off half cocked only to discover the case was not quite as "air tight" as originally thought.  Prosecutor offers up a "sweet heart" deal that a non-highly paid defense attorney or public defender will jump on, and the defendant thinking he is cooked even if he's innocent is willing to serve a relatively short sentence rather than even take the risk life in prison .... still counts as a win for the prosecutor.

 

Also their are many gung ho prosecutors and LEOs that presume guilt not innocence ... which is the opposite of how it is supposed to be, because they are judged on their arrest/conviction rates.

[Nadine]

Yes, assume my feelings and deflect. Better luck next time.

 

My apologies if you feel that I in any way suggested that anyone was not innocent until proven guilty. 

The point I was trying to make is that derailing a thread with a focus on how easy it is for women to 'get away' with false rape charges gives the impression that this one issue is the single largest problem in our legal system

 

There are many problems that have resulted in many victims....... a laser focus on this in the context of one discussion about one man and the charges he faces does give the impression of impartiality.

 

And yes, outrage on behalf of innocent men and the women who victimize them.

 

And that is what is what caused me to be somewhat dumbfounded.

 

If I had jumped into this thread with statistics and stories about all the women who had been treated unfailrly in the legal system..... I would have been guilty of derailing the discussion.

 

What I did was to state that there is room for outrage all around.  And that is what offended you and that is why I presume that you would have been offended had the thread derailed in the other direction.

 

A resonable assumption I think.  Apparently you do not. 

 

I accept that as well as your assesment that I'm deflecting.

[lollygagger8]

[Vance]

My apologies if you feel that I in any way suggested that anyone was not innocent until proven guilty. 

The point I was trying to make is that derailing a thread with a focus on how easy it is for women to 'get away' with false rape charges gives the impression that this one issue is the single largest problem in our legal system

 

There are many problems that have resulted in many victims....... a laser focus on this in the context of one discussion about one man and the charges he faces does give the impression of impartiality.

 

And yes, outrage on behalf of innocent men and the women who victimize them.

 

And that is what is what caused me to be somewhat dumbfounded.

 

If I had jumped into this thread with statistics and stories about all the women who had been treated unfailrly in the legal system..... I would have been guilty of derailing the discussion.

 

What I did was to state that there is room for outrage all around.  And that is what offended you and that is why I presume that you would have been offended had the thread derailed in the other direction.

 

A resonable assumption I think.  Apparently you do not. 

 

I accept that as well as your assesment that I'm deflecting.

 

Look at you go.

[Nadine]

Look at you go.

Alrighty then

[Indygal1218]

Charges have been filed for drugging and raping two women.

 

http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/pdf/02.14.14.Former_NFL_Player_Charged_with_Rape.pdf

[Valpo2004]

No....   you're misreading...

 

What I'm  saying is that they don't arrest on say-so...    anyone can say-so...

 

They arrest because there's also physical evidence and/or eye witness testimony....   and/or the suspect says something that can proven false...

 

I'm saying there's always something more than just one person's word against another.   That person's word alone isn't enough to arrest someone.

 

Was that true for Brian Banks?  They imprisoned him just off her word.

[thedude]

Wrong. You can be arrested on a woman's word that you raped, abused, or assaulted her.

That's not true. There has to be more than that to form probable cause for an arrest. There must some evidence in addition to her accusation.

[Valpo2004]

Charges have been filed for drugging and raping two women.

 

http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/pdf/02.14.14.Former_NFL_Player_Charged_with_Rape.pdf

 

Here is my question after looking at this.  It sounds like the women allowed him to give them the shot.  Why if some guy you don't know or barely know offers to inject you with something would you say "yes"?  (I'm not victim blaming here I'm curious as to why they agreed to the shot in the first place.)

 

Someone who is not a doctor asking to inject you with something is kind of odd.

[Warhawk]

So.......

 

How creepy is that "Pick Magnet" segment he did for NFL Network now?

[Vance]

That's not true. There has to be more than that to form probable cause for an arrest. There must some evidence in addition to her accusation.

 

Yeah, we've been over this already.

[pacolts56]

Charges have been filed for drugging and raping two women.

 

http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/pdf/02.14.14.Former_NFL_Player_Charged_with_Rape.pdf

Jeeez....lawyer up, son.

 

"If convicted, he faces more than 30 years in state prison".

 

There's no such thing as a good prison...but if he gets nailed for 30+ in California he's in for a rough ride. We're not talking NFL locker room rough or "Bountygate" rough either. No, its the real thing.

 

Who knows? If he's getting railroaded on hearsay...which would be surprising, given the number of plaintiffs....then that's about as wrong as it gets.

 

But if he really committed this predatory animal-ism? Then good....it's slammer time.

 

So, what's your preference there...."Mr. Pick Magnet"....Soledad or Pelican Bay?

[Indygal1218]

Here is my question after looking at this. It sounds like the women allowed him to give them the shot. Why if some guy you don't know or barely know offers to inject you with something would you say "yes"? (I'm not victim blaming here I'm curious as to why they agreed to the shot in the first place.)

Someone who is not a doctor asking to inject you with something is kind of odd.

I thought that too. Then I thought maybe he offered a shot of tequila or something. That makes much more sense to me.

[pacolts56]

So.......

 

How creepy is that "Pick Magnet" segment he did for NFL Network now?

Uhhhh, very creepy....and it wasn't the best idea to begin with.

 

Some of these NFL Network segments are taking on a cheesy, AM radio morning zoo appearance. "Dancing with the Starters" has been beaten to liquification...but this "Pick Magnet" nonsense may turn out to be NFLN's mother of all stupid programming ideas.