Started By
Message
re: UF QB Treon Harris investigated for sexual assault, UF Statement in OP
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:20 pm to gatorsimz
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:20 pm to gatorsimz
quote:
Poor dude never hooked up either and the one time he did the girl was insane.
Moth and flame is not uncommon.
In the overall discussion it is hard to separate each side and usually the response is based on the background of the 3rd party.
School was removal of liability (both athletes and on school property)
Players friend want to side with player
Fans want to side with player
Parents want to side with woman
Women's groups want to side with woman
Her friends want to side with her
If this thing ends in a draw there will be no "winners" but you know the school will want to push to make sure they have no liability if at all possible.
1
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:20 pm to Jobu93
You got it mayne.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:21 pm to UL-SabanRival
quote:
Convicted rapists are punished 100% of the time. Falsely accused men are sometimes punished. False accusers are rarely punished. I don't call that a level playing field.
And you left out rapists who are correctly accused and not convicted.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:21 pm to roadGator
quote:
Skyler Morningwood
Come on. You're making this shite up.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:21 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Fans want to side with player
Not true at all. Most UF fans here have said that if he's guilty, place him under the jail.
I'm not siding with anyone. We truly don't know jack poop other than he's being investigated. Someone needs jail time though.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:22 pm to UL-SabanRival
quote:
Come on. You're making this shite up
We call him that.
His name is too hard to spell without looking it up.
Moringwheg or some shite. The son of an NFL coordinator or former coordinator.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:22 pm to gatorsimz
I will withhold judgment but at least FLA isn't brushing it under the rug ala FSU.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:22 pm to the808bass
quote:
And you left out rapists who are correctly accused and not convicted.
Who made that decision? Could it be...a jury of their peers didn't think they WERE correctly accused?
You can't say someone was correctly accused when the evidence showed they weren't.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:25 pm to ocelot4ark
What he said.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:26 pm to roadGator
quote:
Moringwheg
Oh right. I remember now. Reminds me of. Family Guy, when Chris attends Morningwood Academy.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:28 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:
You can't say someone was correctly accused when the evidence showed they weren't.
Are you telling me that you think that juries are infallible? I would say guilty people are acquitted on at least a similar rate as innocent people are incarcerated (if not very much higher)...
Do you think OJ was a patsy as well?
This post was edited on 10/6/14 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:31 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:
Who made that decision? Could it be...a jury of their peers didn't think they WERE correctly accused?
You can't say someone was correctly accused when the evidence showed they weren't.
Not guilty does NOT mean innocent. In fact the Scottish system developed an extra verdict because it's well known that not guilty doesn't equate to innocence in the US or UK systems.
The Scots have: Not proven, Not guilty, and Guilty. Not proven is the equivalent of a not guilty verdict in the US while Not guilty is the equivalent of the court finding innocence. Both not guilty and not proven amount to the same as they're both acquittals but their not guilty is a way for jurors to say they believe the accused to be innocent. Our system does not have this.
This post was edited on 10/6/14 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:33 pm to joshnorris14
I'm sure it's been said many times but future Auburn QB.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:34 pm to Prof
Well, the Scots are fricking idiots then. I'm glad our system doesn't have it. It appears to be their fun way of hanging a guilty sign around someone's neck with NO PROOF to support it. So basically, no jail time but society gets to shun them for the thing no one proved they did.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:35 pm to Prof
quote:
Not guilty does NOT mean innocent.
Nor does it mean guilty. In fact, there's overwhelming evidence of innocence. Jury trial. If a jury trial doesn't conclude in a way that you like, then I hope you're lobbying that we make massive changes to our criminal justice system.
What more do you people want? "Oh, I was found innocent, but I'm serving these 12 years voluntarily because I'm a really nice guy."
Sorry that justice sometimes fricks things up, but none of that excuses willfully imprisoning someone without evidence.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:38 pm to Loathor
quote:
Are you telling me that you think that juries are infallible?
It doesn't matter if I think they're infallible. Their decision is the decision. Unless you want to revamp our criminal justice system, I don't see what good it does to even bring this kind of isolated incident into the discussion.
Slippery slope and all of that. "We should wait for all of the evidence before casting judgment." "But sometimes rapists get off anyway!"
And?
Murderers get off. Robbers get off. Criminals of all sorts get off all of the time for whatever reason. That doesn't mean we correct that injustice by operating under preponderance of evidence standards just to get around the need for clear and convincing evidence.
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:39 pm to UL-SabanRival
quote:
Well, the Scots are fricking idiots then. I'm glad our system doesn't have it. It appears to be their fun way of hanging a guilty sign around someone's neck with NO PROOF to support it. So basically, no jail time but society gets to shun them for the thing no one proved they did.
It's also for those times when it couldn't be proved that they didn't do it. You are really ok with a system that lets someone get away with a crime due to a technicality, or better legal maneuvering, and just letting them skate off into the sunset without any looking back (or forward...)?
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:42 pm to UL-SabanRival
quote:
Well, the Scots are fricking idiots then. I'm glad our system doesn't have it. It appears to be their fun way of hanging a guilty sign around someone's neck with NO PROOF to support it. So basically, no jail time but society gets to shun them for the thing no one proved they did.
Not at all. They rarely use the verdict of not guilty as it's just a way of stating they believe the accused is innocent whereas their not proven verdict means that the prosecutor did not prove their case. They have a way of expressing innocence whereas we don't. We can only say the prosecution failed to prove guilt in terms of what all of it means legally. When an American jury says Not Guilty it is the legal equivalent of saying the evidence isn't there -- there is reasonable doubt -- but it does not actively say the person is innocent.
The presumption of innocence in the US means that you're not convicted before trial or assumed guilty (in some nations you can be presumed guilty and must actively prove your innocence whereas here the prosecution must make the case that you're guilty).
This post was edited on 10/6/14 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:45 pm to ocelot4ark
So anybody know any details? I've read some pages but haven't seen anything..
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:46 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:
It doesn't matter if I think they're infallible. Their decision is the decision. Unless you want to revamp our criminal justice system, I don't see what good it does to even bring this kind of isolated incident into the discussion.
Slippery slope and all of that. "We should wait for all of the evidence before casting judgment." "But sometimes rapists get off anyway!"
And?
Murderers get off. Robbers get off. Criminals of all sorts get off all of the time for whatever reason. That doesn't mean we correct that injustice by operating under preponderance of evidence standards just to get around the need for clear and convincing evidence.
So throwing out isolated incidents of false rape accusations as evidence that we should withhold our personal judgement is perfectly acceptable, but pointing out that we have an inherently flawed judicial system is just grasping at straws and should be dismissed as superfluous? You want us to let a legal proceeding that has been shown to be shady, at best, play out before we punish someone by just thinking they may be guilty? Seems legit...
Page 19 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News