Big Ben off the hook again.

[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?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Moondog there is no jury in a civil case.

[Monkeydad]

We've moved past the details of this specific case and are discussing his overall track record of bad judgment and conduct. At least, I am.

He's a horrible representative for his team and league. The Rooneys are furious at him and I'd expect them to suspend him if the league doesn't. He's far from a professional and is becoming a detriment to his team and possibly locker room.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Buster

We've moved past the details of this specific case and are discussing his overall track record of bad judgment and conduct. At least, I am.

He's a horrible representative for his team and league. The Rooneys are furious at him and I'd expect them to suspend him if the league doesn't. He's far from a professional and is becoming a detriment to his team and possibly locker room.

I agree. He put himself in a bad situation (possibly on multiple occasions), he put his team in a bad situation and he has put the league in a bad situation.

He should have been more careful after the incident out west and he had an encounter with a relatively young girl and obviously made her feel uncomfortable enough where she felt she should alert authorities.

Bottom line is he is a huge effing idiot and hopefully he will be traded (outside of the NFC East) so the Steelers run comes to a halt.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

A couple thoughts: I'm a bit surprised we haven't heard anything regarding the meeting Rothlesberger had with Goodell yesterday. I don't know how to interpret that. Secondly, even if no charges were filed against Rothlesberger for sexual assault, i'm having a hard time understanding why he wasn't atleast charged with providing alcohol to underage girls. its my understanding that Rothlesbergers attourney's have conceded that that did actually take place. One would think Rothlesberger should face some disciplinary action from the league for that, since its the only crime he's admitted to.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

A couple thoughts: I'm a bit surprised we haven't heard anything regarding the meeting Rothlesberger had with Goodell yesterday. I don't know how to interpret that. Secondly, even if no charges were filed against Rothlesberger for sexual assault, i'm having a hard time understanding why he wasn't atleast charged with providing alcohol to underage girls. its my understanding that Rothlesbergers attourney's have conceded that that did actually take place. One would think Rothlesberger should face some disciplinary action from the league for that, since its the only crime he's admitted to.

I am suprised that some type of punishment has not been announced yet.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

I am suprised that some type of punishment has not been announced yet.

perhaps the only punishment is that he's been placed in the substance abuse program, and therefore its confidential. Big Ben is back with the team working out now and will participate in the Steelers upcoming camp. i think those are signs that no substantial punishment is coming, which is very disappointing. i'm glad he's not our QB. if so, i'd stop rooting for the team until he was no longer with the team.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

perhaps the only punishment is that he's been placed in the substance abuse program, and therefore its confidential. Big Ben is back with the team working out now and will participate in the Steelers upcoming camp. i think those are signs that no substantial punishment is coming, which is very disappointing. i'm glad he's not our QB. if so, i'd stop rooting for the team until he was no longer with the team.

Good catch. Also, Ben said that the meeting was "productive". I am reading tea leaves but that would seem to follow what you suggested.

If Goodell only hands a substance abuse punishment down, he is going to get killed in the media.

Whitlock will be all over him.

[warpaint]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

A couple thoughts: I'm a bit surprised we haven't heard anything regarding the meeting Rothlesberger had with Goodell yesterday. I don't know how to interpret that. Secondly, even if no charges were filed against Rothlesberger for sexual assault, i'm having a hard time understanding why he wasn't atleast charged with providing alcohol to underage girls. its my understanding that Rothlesbergers attourney's have conceded that that did actually take place. One would think Rothlesberger should face some disciplinary action from the league for that, since its the only crime he's admitted to.

Thats a good point. Ben really did get lucky he admitts to a crime and then it falls on def ears.

[tryfuhl]

Goodell is probably going to take a bit to think it over.

[tryfuhl]

Yeah, I'm not going to fault the guy for buying shots alone, should be the doorman and bartender's job to make sure someone is old enough to drink before 1) letting them in and/or 2) letting them consume

[warpaint]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Yeah, I'm not going to fault the guy for buying shots alone, should be the doorman and bartender's job to make sure someone is old enough to drink before 1) letting them in and/or 2) letting them consume

Noway its the person buying the alcohol. If the minor is in a dark corner. There is really know way to stop it. Its just like when minors are at a party if they get in a wreck and kill themselves the law go straight to the people providing the drinks, not the store that sold the drink unless they sold it to the victoms.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by warpaint

Noway its the person buying the alcohol. If the minor is in a dark corner. There is really know way to stop it. Its just like when minors are at a party if they get in a wreck and kill themselves the law go straight to the people providing the drinks, not the store that sold the drink unless they sold it to the victoms.

When you bartend and sell multiple drinks it's up to you to make sure that the drinks are going to people who are allowed to consume them by law. If it was a 21+ club it's the establishment's responsibility to determine who is allowed in and out. Now if it was an 18+ and Ben was sneaking shots over knowing that the girl wasn't 21, he's to blame. You'll find that a lot of places won't just hand out large rounds because of this.