Started By
Message
re: Press Release from The Teabagger's Attorneys
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:39 pm to Bellabama
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:39 pm to Bellabama
quote:
We have no video evidence of any harm done to the victim of the teabagging. So in that event, I assume none happened.
Please stop attempting to be so clever and read your own damned post. Video of one, no video of the other. You don't get to define what is harm under the law in LA, but the evidence of what occurred is quite clear. That is not the case in the other incident, regardless of how cute you attempt to be.
2
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:41 pm to Indfanfromcol
quote:I wanted you to read what I said previously so I didn't have to repeat myself.
Why would i go back and read what everyone else is saying?
quote:You are wrong. That is why you should read the thread first.
From the sounds of WHAT your saying, the guy wasnt harmed, guessing because he was passed out and you think it was more of a joke since it was guy on guy and the teabagger wasn't gay?
quote:That is the point his attorney is stressing with this press release. If there wasn't so much media attention, this would have been prosecuted as a simple battery and the punishment would be appropriate, but because of the media attention, the DA is giving this case special and undue attention and prosecuting it beyond what is reasonable.
Fwiw, i dont think this guy should have to go to jail at all.
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:41 pm to Bellabama
quote:
So from now on, all crimes that have video evidence are held to a higher standard of penalty than those that aren't? Because someone has video evidence of a crime, there is more reason for him to go to jail?
Did I say that somewhere?
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:42 pm to lsufanz
quote:
lsufanz
Are you really this obtuse IRL?
No, I don't need video evidence of both to compare the two. And let me tell you why:
The age of consent in LA is 17. This girl was 14. 14<<17. It's obvious she was not old enough to consent.
ETA:
FTR, no one was comparing the two cases per se. People were comparing the way the victims of these two cases were treated. If you'd read the entire thread, you would know that though.
This post was edited on 1/27/12 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:43 pm to Bellabama
You are just arguing for the hell of it now.
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:43 pm to lsufanz
quote:Didn't he enter a guilty plea? Is that insufficient for you to believe he had oral sex from a 14 year old?
but the evidence of what occurred is quite clear. That is not the case in the other incident
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:48 pm to AUnite
quote:
The age of consent in LA is 17. This girl was 14. 14<<17. It's obvious she was not old enough to consent.
CONSENT TO WHAT? Again, I'm not excusing whatever Hill did, but you and I do not know what that is to the extent we do with the teabagger, period.
The teabagger broke the law. That doesn't change due to another illegal act by a recruit that now attends LSU. It also doesn't mean that an LSU fan is somehow hypocritical for having the audacity, under these circumstances, to comment on the teabagger. Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:50 pm to lsufanz
quote:
Please stop attempting to be so clever and read your own damned post.
Stop being so fricking stupid.
quote:
You don't get to define what is harm under the law in LA
Neither do you.
quote:
That is not the case in the other incident, regardless of how cute you attempt to be.
Clarity of evidence does not justify an excessive punishment.
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:51 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
So, it is ok to rape someone, male or female, as long as they are not aware of it? Apparently so, in Alabama.
Sisters and cousins are fair game too
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:52 pm to WDE24
It isnt the kids fault for the national attention. The man teabagged him in a public place, the night of the national championship game, in front of a video camera that someone announced would be on youtube.
even without all the other factors and just the guy teabagged him and it was put on youtube, this would still get attention.
Bottom line is though, the guy touched a unconscious kid with his balls. A 30 year old man (he was in his early 30s right?). The punishment is all from his own doings.
Side note, anyone know if the kid is going to sue krystals?
even without all the other factors and just the guy teabagged him and it was put on youtube, this would still get attention.
Bottom line is though, the guy touched a unconscious kid with his balls. A 30 year old man (he was in his early 30s right?). The punishment is all from his own doings.
Side note, anyone know if the kid is going to sue krystals?
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:52 pm to lsufanz
quote:We know it was enough that he would admit guilt.
CONSENT TO WHAT? Again, I'm not excusing whatever Hill did, but you and I do not know what that is to the extent we do with the teabagger, period.
quote:The point is, LSU fans are hypocritical in their support/defense of Mett and Hill (who allegedly did as bad or worse than the teabagger and got slaps on the wrist), but don't seem to comprehend rational people believing the teabagger merely deserves a slap on the wrist as opposed to the more serious punishments he faces if the DA doesn't offer a reasonable plea deal.
The teabagger broke the law. That doesn't change due to another illegal act by a recruit that now attends LSU. It also doesn't mean that an LSU fan is somehow hypocritical for having the audacity, under these circumstances, to comment on the teabagger. Is that really so difficult to comprehend?
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:53 pm to WDE24
Didn't he enter a guilty plea?
Yes, he did.
Is that insufficient for you to believe he had oral sex from a 14 year old?
It is sufficient for me to believe that he broke the law and engaged in activity that he should not have with the 14 year old. What he did, exactly, I don't know and am not attempting to excuse his actions.
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:53 pm to lsufanz
quote:
Again, I'm not excusing whatever Hill did, but you and I do not know what that is to the extent we do with the teabagger, period.
Sounds like you are. But is a contradicting word, so while you say you aren't excusing him, it sounds like you think he is less punishable because there isn't visual evidence, regardless of what he actually did to the person, or what physical or emotional harm was done to a 14 year old having oral sex with an 18 year old.
This post was edited on 1/27/12 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:56 pm to WDE24
quote:
The point is, LSU fans are hypocritical in their support/defense of Mett and Hill (who allegedly did as bad or worse than the teabagger and got slaps on the wrist), but don't seem to comprehend rational people believing the teabagger merely deserves a slap on the wrist as opposed to the more serious punishments he faces if the DA doesn't offer a reasonable plea deal.
I get this and can agree on this point. I've not said nor would I agree with the position that the teabagger should recieve a harsher sentence than these two, so I would not be of the same opinion of fans who may have said such.
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:57 pm to Indfanfromcol
quote:No one has blamed him for that.
It isnt the kids fault for the national attention.
quote:If this had happened without the cfb connection, no one would have ever cared. A underaged kid, so passed out drunk on bourbon street in a krystals gets mocked by those passing by and then teabagged, would have gotten little if no attention.
even without all the other factors and just the guy teabagged him and it was put on youtube, this would still get attention.
Even if it had, the prosecution would have likely only charged the perp with battery and offered a reasonable sentence.
quote:Not really. The prosecutors have an obligation not to overcharge simply for political or other gain.
The punishment is all from his own doings.
FWIW-I wouldn't be against the sexual battery charge if there wasn't the minimum 25 year sentence simply because the kid was passed out. If the prosecution takes that off the table and gives him a reasonable plea deal even under a sexual battery charge, I would advise the teabagger to take it.
This post was edited on 1/27/12 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:57 pm to lsufanz
quote:
Yes, he did.
Is that insufficient for you to believe he had oral sex from a 14 year old?
It is sufficient for me to believe that he broke the law and engaged in activity that he should not have with the 14 year old. What he did, exactly, I don't know and am not attempting to excuse his actions.
I don't understand why you give grey interpretation for someone who plead guilty to oral sex with an 18 year old. He acknowledged it happened. That is illegal.
Video acknowledges that an incident happened. Why isn't the teabagger allowed the same fundamental rights as those who commit other sexual batteries that aren't caught on tape?
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:58 pm to lsufanz
quote:
CONSENT TO WHAT?
Holy. fricking. shite.
For starters, let's define what age of consent is:
The age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts.
Now that we have that out of the way, let's tackle the rest of your idiotic post.
quote:
you and I do not know what that is to the extent we do with the teabagger, period.
Actually, yes we do. He was arrested and charged with oral sexual battery of a 14-year-old girl. See above about the age of consent if you're confused.
He pleaded guilty to carnal knowledge of a juvenile. If he wasn't guilty of oral sexual battery of a minor, WHY WOULD HE ACCEPT A PLEA DEAL?
quote:
That doesn't change due to another illegal act by a recruit that now attends LSU.
I never said it did. You didn't bother to read the entire thread and see what context this case was brought up in.
Posted on 1/27/12 at 3:58 pm to WDE24
quote:
Not really. The prosecutors have an obligation not to overcharge simply for political or other gain.
Seems like anyone who took Civics in the 8th grade knows this.
Posted on 1/27/12 at 4:02 pm to WDE24
People are forgetting that a prosecutor doesn't take an oath to garner convictions...they swear to ensure that justice is done. Sometimes that means throwing the book at people, and sometimes it means using some reason and working stuff out. Yes, it is a political office..and they all want to get reelected...but these guys aren't fools.
Posted on 1/27/12 at 4:02 pm to AUnite
quote:
He pleaded guilty to carnal knowledge of a juvenile. If he wasn't guilty of oral sexual battery of a minor, WHY WOULD HE ACCEPT A PLEA DEAL?
OH. maybe we are wrong Nite. Maybe he said, "I am going to pull down my pants for a 14 year old girl and show her what she can suck when she turns 18." That's just a misdemeanor!
Page 20 of 22
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News