Adam Anderson

If he is innocent, he should be welcomed back, if he wants to come back.

IMOH, without solid evidence or a confession, they should have allowed him to play until convicted. The whole antiquated "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

I get that sentiment but dear God man. I DO NOT want the negative publicity that we played a rapist if he were convicted.

quote:

---

Is he still in school?

---

I believe he's finishing this year remotely, IIRC. He was allowed to complete the previous semester on campus, and he's doing distance learning from at home in Rome.

quote:

---

I get that sentiment but dear God man. I DO NOT want the negative publicity that we played a rapist if he were convicted.

---

So what you are saying is...if some woman claimed you raped her, and you took a lie detector test and passed it...you would have no problem with being fired from your job and unemployable until you could not return to your profession because of optics and not proof?

He was held out a decent portion of this year, and if true and he does not have his day in court for two years, his NFL career will pretty much be toast having not played for 2 1/2 years.

So he is left out? What if he is innocent? What of the optics of us helping to ruin a kids career when there was not proof or day in court?

I get your point, and i get the other side too. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. But helping to ruin a possibly innocent man's career because of what other people might say?

These kids need to get a video consent before having sex. I have heard of some really vindictive and nutty people.

If he is CONVICTED there is no place for him at UGA. student or otherwise.

CHARGED and then found INNOCENT is a different story.

quote:

---

If he is CONVICTED there is no place for him at UGA. student or otherwise.

---

I agree.

quote:

---

CHARGED and then found INNOCENT is a different story.

---

but he has been charged but not found guilty or innocent. That's the problem. Meanwhile time is ticking.

I am not arguing he should be back. I am arguing that so many people have convicted him in their own minds with no proof. No day in court. Nothing.

I can only put myself in his position and wonder what I would do and how I would feel.

What if he is innocent?

If our laws and court system says we are innocent until proven guilty, then why is he being treated as if he is guilty? I mean, it's not like people have never been convicted wrongly. It's not like some women have never come forward claiming a crime when none had been committed.

I THINK we are on the same page, but I'm not sure.

quote:

---

CHARGED and then found INNOCENT is a different story.

---

Here's the thing though... "found innocent" generally isn't an outcome of a trial (barring witness recanting or outright proof that generally would be hard to produce in this kind of case). You can be found not guilty, but this is not the same thing as innocent.

This is one of those really unfortunate scenarios where no one wins here.

If this was completely fabricated, you've got a kid who had his life turned upside down and there is essentially no consequence for the accuser(s).

If it's completely true as the accused portrays, it's something that will stick with them for a long time.

If it's somewhere in between... you've got both parties feeling like they've been wronged. It's entirely possible that Adam and the accuser engaged in what he believed was consensual behavior while she may or may not have been in a coherent enough state to make that call. In any regard, I do think it's a little outrageous that if 2 drunk individuals engage in an action, that only one of them is held responsible when it's all said and done. At some point there is a level of personal responsibility that needs to be owned as well... on both ends. Both parties had the ability to not be in that position, unfortunately for Adam, he was the one with the most *risk to his future* on the table.

If he's found not guilty, have to think his best bet is to get out of Athens anyway... whether that's a new school for another year or getting to the NFL supplemental draft (assuming this drags on past standard draft entry as an option).

quote:

---

I hear ya...but in America...you are innocent, until PROVEN guilty. So in your scenario, being found not guilty, means you remain innocent. Now, I know you mean that he could have done it and still be found not guilty, but in America, that is innocent.

That being said, I believe UGA did the right thing. Unfortunately, we had a player that was charged with a very serious crime and must be removed from competition until he is cleared of the charges.

---

This is commonly misunderstood. LEGALLY, yes... you are presumed innocent until proven/found guilty (or at least are supposed to be). This is not, however, directly spelled out in the constitution, bill of rights, etc... It's more an amalgamation of various statutes that was then upheld in Taylor v Kentucky with this comment:
"presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law."

Not guilty is not, however, nor will it ever be entirely synonymous with innocent. Not legally culpable... sure. But there are loads of people who have been found "not guilty" who were in fact not innocent.

The court of public opinion gives exactly two shits about "innocent until proven guilty"... it's just a matter of how loud the voices are on either side of a position. And rightly or wrongly, the University must deal with *that* reality just as much as they have to deal with the legal culpability or lack thereof for one of their athletes.

As I said... there are no winners here.

quote:

---

Then he can sue his accuser for ever penny she is worth.

---

And do you think he could ever recover what he has lost?