So many people r saying it was consensual, what about this?

Donate To GopherHole
Dean S said:
Is this really about the EOAA office? Not in my humble opinion. The people who lash out at that office are the ones with an agenda to discredit. Which, makes you Bob, suspect. Regressives? Another attack for personal gain. Will you not realize how you come across? I am the conservative one here. I appeal to the law to be the arbiter of right and wrong. I do so with my consent. What you fail to realize Bobby, is that you too have consented to the law. You just have not accepted the fact that you did without even uttering a stammering word.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of examples out there that do the job of discrediting these offices. They do a lot of good things but there is also a reason many schools are being sued.
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
I realize that I consented to the law. Trust me, I get the law. I am sitting in a law office RIGHT NOW. I have a blog about the law :).

Why do you think attacks on the EOAA come from someone with an agenda? I completely supported the suspension of these players at the beginning of the season. I completely supported the suspension of Reggie Lynch. If there was evidence of a sexual assault, I would hope they would be immediately be kicked off the team. I hope we would never recruit anyone with any history of sexual assault or harassment. So please, tell me my agenda except to tell the Emperor that he's not wearing clothes.

I have a feeling you aren't that familiar with the EOAA. They are certifiable loons. If you're bored, check out the early posts when these players were suspended. The second that I saw the EOAA was involved, I warned people. . . this is going to be crazy. They are an agenda-driven office of ideologues. I don't know how anyone could come to any other conclusion about them.

So yes, I guess my attack on them is personal? I do call them regressives. They have gone so far that they do NOT promote progressive policies.

Lastly, you do not appeal to the law to the arbiter of right and wrong. The law already decided that there wasn't enough evidence to even file a charge against these students. The accuser was so afraid of the law that she fought for immunity from a potential civil lawsuit (rare as all hell), and she took the 5th on the witness stand.

You do not seem to care about the law or facts.
Click to expand...


No. What the law decided at the County Attorney's office is that there was not enough evidence at this time to prosecute. That does not mean the potential for prosecution does not exist or will not yet occur. It only means that at this time, nothing is going to be filed with the court. But, you knew that as a lawyer, did you not?

As for the accuser taking the 5th on the witness stand, you don't know the reason why she did that. People do all kinds of stupid things under stress. Ever think that might be the case with this woman, Bobby? Reason is not common nor is it a direct route to the usual.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Prosecutors have limited resources? Compared to who?

As far as their "burden" to bring charges, bringing charges is more of an art than a science. However, it is certainly lower than they only bring charges against people they feel like they have evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. In close cases, they often charge, get over the grand jury and then offer plea deals. That is especially common for sexual assaults because not filing charges in a sexual assault case can look really bad.

Sexual assault is NEVER the kind of crime that a Prosecutor would choose not charge if there was evidence.

The OJ example was only an illustration of how people generally believe things because they follow the evidence. The poster I was replying to was implying that the fact everyone believed a certain thing is proof of partisanship. My OJ example was that everyone thinks he is guilty because he obviously killed her. We don't know it (it's POSSIBLE something else happened), but the evidence clearly drives most people to that conclusion. It isn't partisanship, it's obvious. The OJ example was not meant to show a parallel to the procedural aspects of this case, just a case of the evidence driving most people to a single conclusion and not partisanship.
Click to expand...

What is evidence? Any shred of evidence, or a 100% slam dunk evidence? Sexual assault cases are often difficult to prove because of the lack of witnesses.

example:

In May 2012, Tucker Reed sat in the office of Rouman Ebrahim, Los Angeles County deputy district attorney for the sex crimes division, listening to him explain why the man who had confessed to raping her would not face criminal charges.

According to a transcript (emphasis added) of that meeting, Ebrahim said it wasn’t his job to say whether or not he believed Reed, or tell her whether or not she had been raped. He explained that no one who had experienced a sex crime, or who had ever been accused of one, would end up sitting on the jury. So his job was to filter out cases in which 12 jurors, who “have no experience in any kind of sex crimes occurring in their life,” would concur beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape had taken place.

“And that is a mountain that is going to be very hard to climb in front of a jury in trying to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Ebrahim said. “That’s the main problem here.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/college-rape-prosecutors-press-charges_n_5500432.html

And by the way,just because it's from the Huffington Post, doesn't mean it is wrong.

You make a good point that they will charge and try to plea bargain. But rape cases present unique challenges for prosecutors. It is the least reported crime, and it often not charged.
 




Dean S said:
No. What the law decided at the County Attorney's office is that there was not enough evidence at this time to prosecute. That does not mean the potential for prosecution does not exist or will not yet occur. It only means that at this time, nothing is going to be filed with the court. But, you knew that as a lawyer, did you not?

As for the accuser taking the 5th on the witness stand, you don't know the reason why she did that. People do all kinds of stupid things under stress. Ever think that might be the case with this woman, Bobby? Reason is not common nor is it a direct route to the usual.
Click to expand...

I do believe right after she did so, they asked for a break and fairly quickly settled out of court with the result being the ROs were dropped, not narrowed or more clearly defined, but dropped. I think it is OK to infer there was real concern in continuing the proceeding by the accuser's attorney.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom