What do Big Ben and Lawrence Taylor have in common?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Come on man, if this was Dexter Manley and we were at a Giants board, the same thing would be happening. Just gotta roll with the punches.

If this were ES then it would be expected.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Just stop, moron. #1, you're making shit up, you have no idea what happened. #2, you're blaming the victim of an alleged crime, which makes no sense at all.

This.

Amazing how many experts we have here, no need for a trial apparently some have it all figured out.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

This.

Amazing how many experts we have here, no need for a trial apparently some have it all figured out.

True. Some people just need to close their mouths, wait for details, then speculate. CWS people!! CWS!!!!

[SBXVII]

I'm also using what little facts we have right now. Supposedly the girl was listed as a run a way two weeks ago. Which could be proven by the police had they truly made a report. If the family pimped her out then I certainly can't blame the girl now can I.

I just wish people would stop blaming everyone else, or pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. Maybe if society would start taking a little responsibility for their own actions.

[mlmdub130]

Q.What do Big Ben and Lawrence Taylor have in common?

A. both douche-bags

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

Q.What do Big Ben and Lawrence Taylor have in common?

A. both douche-bags

Touche. I never was a fan of either. Especially when LT came out and admitted he was high on cocain on and off the field.

[SBXVII]

Niiiccccccceeeeee.

[SBXVII]

I will say that ignorance is not an excuse. LT is being charged with having sex with a juvenile under the age of 17 which is a class 3 Felony. Unless he can prove she had an ID saying she was older it will be hard for him to win his case.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I will say that ignorance is not an excuse. LT is being charged with having sex with a juvenile under the age of 17 which is a class 3 Felony. Unless he can prove she had an ID saying she was older it will be hard for him to win his case.

The burden of prof is on the state. It's not required of Taylor to prove he didn't know the girls age, the state has to be able to make a case that he did.

The girl obviously was not his neighbor, and I've never known a john to ask a prostitute for her birth certificate or prof of age. If he knowingly had sex with a minor that could be serious, but in this particular case it would have to be established that he actually knew the girls age and continued on his mission in disregard. The case has to be against the pimp.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

The burden of prof is on the state. It's not required of Taylor to prove he didn't know the girls age, the state has to be able to make a case that he did.

The girl obviously was not his neighbor, and I've never known a john to ask a prostitute for her birth certificate or prof of age. If he knowingly had sex with a minor that could be serious, but in this particular case it would have to be established that he actually knew the girls age and continued on his mission in disregard. The case has to be against the pimp.

what are you talking about? both taylor and the girl agree that she told him she was 19. from the states perspective, its completely irrelevant whether taylor knew she was 16 or not. it might earn him some sympathy in the court of public opinion (from other scumbags), but it won't make a bit of difference in whether he's convicted of the crime. if he had sexual contact with her, he's guilty.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

what are you talking about? both taylor and the girl agree that she told him she was 19. from the states perspective, its completely irrelevant whether taylor knew she was 16 or not. it might earn him some sympathy in the court of public opinion (from other scumbags), but it won't make a bit of difference in whether he's convicted of the crime. if he had sexual contact with her, he's guilty.

If this case actually goes to trial I doubt very seriously that line of defense will be pursued. Even his "scumbag" lawyer would defer on that one.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

The burden of prof is on the state. It's not required of Taylor to prove he didn't know the girls age, the state has to be able to make a case that he did.

The girl obviously was not his neighbor, and I've never known a john to ask a prostitute for her birth certificate or prof of age. If he knowingly had sex with a minor that could be serious, but in this particular case it would have to be established that he actually knew the girls age and continued on his mission in disregard. The case has to be against the pimp.

Actually in NY State Law, not knowing is not an affirmative defense. When the DA said that ignorance was not an excuse I thought that was strange, because I always thought it was. I looked online at the NY statutes, and it doesn't list "reasonable belief of the victims ability to consent" (another way to say ignorance that the victim was under age) as a defense. What LT knew or didn't know isn't going to make much difference.
With that said, I would be shocked if they don't agree to a much less serious charge like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or something, assuming LT cooperates and becomes a witness for the state against the pimp,

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Actually in NY State Law, not knowing is not an affirmative defense. When the DA said that ignorance was not an excuse I thought that was strange, because I always thought it was. I looked online at the NY statutes, and it doesn't list "reasonable belief of the victims ability to consent" (another way to say ignorance that the victim was under age) as a defense. What LT knew or didn't know isn't going to make much difference.
With that said, I would be shocked if they don't agree to a much less serious charge like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or something, assuming LT cooperates and becomes a witness for the state against the pimp,

hopefully, LT would agree to be a state witness regardless, but i agree they could be inclined to work something out. then again, I could also see NY using LT's celebrity to make an example out of him. i guess it comes down to what the DA thinks would do the most good - getting a minor-trafficing pimp off the streets or sending a message that would hopefully curb the demand for prostitution to begin with. put another way, does the DA want to attack the supply or curb the demand? i wonder how long until the law&order episode comes out.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

hopefully, LT would agree to be a state witness regardless, but i agree they could be inclined to work something out. then again, I could also see NY using LT's celebrity to make an example out of him. i guess it comes down to what the DA thinks would do the most good - getting a minor-trafficing pimp off the streets or sending a message that would hopefully curb the demand for prostitution to begin with. put another way, does the DA want to attack the supply or curb the demand? i wonder how long until the law&order episode comes out.

yeah, i could see this one going that way. I don't see Stabler going toe to toe with LT, even at 51

Another part is how LT's past convictions will play into sentencing. If NY has any type of 3 strike law, and he does get found guilty of the current charges, and not a lesser one, he could be looking at a longer time than 3-4 years.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Actually in NY State Law, not knowing is not an affirmative defense. When the DA said that ignorance was not an excuse I thought that was strange, because I always thought it was. I looked online at the NY statutes, and it doesn't list "reasonable belief of the victims ability to consent" (another way to say ignorance that the victim was under age) as a defense. What LT knew or didn't know isn't going to make much difference.
With that said, I would be shocked if they don't agree to a much less serious charge like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or something, assuming LT cooperates and becomes a witness for the state against the pimp,

I appreciate you putting me wise with NY state laws regarding this type offense. I'm under the impression the state would have the burden since this was an arranged situation that involved patronizing prostitution, contrary to the normal boy meets girl situation. So much for ignorance of the law not being an excuse.