OT: Ben Roethlisberger Accused of Sexual Assault in Lawsuit
It appears Big Ben Roethlisberger is accused of sexual assault in a lawsuit. I'm really not sure what to think about this situation, probably just another person looking to get paid on a lie.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_roethlisberger_l…
kobe part deux
Exactly what I was thinking.
Kobe faced criminal charges and had to stand trial. This is a civil lawsuit.
these things turn up somewhat often, and most of the time nothing comes from it. My guess is he didn't do anything that serious and it's not that big of a deal.
Wasn't this the same guy that crashed his motorcycle a couple years back, though?
Unless Crashed his motorcycle is some euphemism for sexual assault I dont see how that comment is relevant.
I think he just means he's done some stupid stuff in the past. Or made mistakes. At least thats what I got from the comment.
I realize that. I was just being a smart ass.
Just trying to point out this guys reputation for not being the smartest guy.
wouldn't put it past him, since he hails from Ohio
Someone coming the opposite direction turned in front of him because they didn't see him. If I remember right it was a older lady.
I'm a bike rider so that story stuck with me because you ALWAYS have to be aware of stuff like that when riding.
Found link.
he was at least wearing a helmet this time...
+1 my friend, +1.
Where in AZ are you?
I live in the wonderful city of Chandler.
is answered in the complaint. Apparently, he was able to avoid an accident by pulling the key out of the ignition.
No criminal charges. Sounds fishy.
Sounds like a story I remember coming out of State a few years ago, can't remember the specifics though. Evidently, a girl called the police and the story went something like this:
"I've just been raped. Send the police."
"Are you safe now?"
"Yeah, I'm safe."
"The attacker left?"
"There was no attacker. It was my ex. He's asleep now."
"Your ex raped you and is sleeping there now?"
"Yeah."
"Are you injured? Does he still have any weapons?"
"Weapons?"
"What he threatened you with."
"He didn't threaten me."
"But you're okay? Are you tied up?"
"What? No. He's not into that."
"How did he rape you without threatening you, hurting you, or restraining you?"
"Oh, that bastard came over here drunk, said he wanted to nap, so I let him sleep with me on my bed. Part way through the night, he starts touching me. I said no, but he started whining and complaining, so eventually I just let him. But I didn't really WANT to, so it's rape."
I don't recall what actually became of the case, but it's probably something like that.
Feminists say that's rape.
and I see that as exploitation. If you really didn't want to get "raped" then you would probably try to find a better way to get out of it than just saying no.
So does the law.
I'm pretty sure that changing your girlfriend's mind by simply cajoling her into having sex with you isn't a crime. If so, then probably 99% of boys commit "rape" in high school. At the very least, I doubt that a jury would ever convict somebody on this.
Actually, the law HAS convicted people on this.
I don't think they should, because if you're lying naked with someone, and say "No", and they say "Please?" and then you say "Ok", it just doesn't seem like a felony to me.
But they have.
Feminism on steroids.
What you described isn't cajoling. It would most likely be brought up as coercion.
Oh and, since 99% of boys don't have sex in high school (less than 50% do...) you're wrong again. You seem to be batting a perfect .000
The story is weird, as it involves a drunk ex boyfriend she lets sleep in her bed, but the situation it's attempting to convey is more like your girlfriend saying "Not tonight" and you whining until she agrees. Which isn't rape.
In your earlier post you indicated that the law considers Blazefire's scenario rape. You now say that changing a significant other's mind into having sex isn't cajoling, but is most likely coercion. Do you have any case law, statute or other legal authority to support these assertions?
Given that this is a UM blog and Blazefire's scenario alluded to MSU, Michigan law would be preferable. I'd be interested in reading it, because, from my perspective, you're the one batting triple zeros. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I'd like to see you lay out the prosecution's case. Here, I'll get you started.
9 defendants?
Sounds like someone called Bovice and ran a train on that bitch.
best comment ever manwiththemoves
+1000000000
Didn't he ride a motorcycle drunk a few years ago?
that's what I was talking about in my other comment. He crashed it too. Not sure if he hit another car or anything. I want to say that he just dumped it on the road, but I don't really remember.
such strong opinions even though they have no idea about the facts. The fact that people have made spurious claims against different celebrities in the past is irrelevant. What if he or others actually did assault or rape this woman? Would you still be joking about "running a train on that bitch?"
I'm no feminist but the misogyny on this site is a little disturbing sometimes. Go ahead, downrate now.
We're not anti-woman. We're anti stupid. If it's sexual harassment or assault against 9 people, then she was probably a hired stripper for a party, and when she left, she said to herself, "Those guys said some nasty things, and they were rich. I'm feeling harassed, I think."
If it turns out to be otherwise, and those who allegedly assaulted her indeed were the morons, we will revise our opinion.
Innocent until proven guilty, friend.
You just named off a hypothetical scenario based on zero evidence and drew conclusions from it. The difference is that I don't have an opinion because I know nothing about the facts. It could be false and it could be legit. If a person has a definite opinion from that article (whether they think the assault certainly did or didn't happen), they have some preconceived notions about these sorts of cases one way or the other.
By the way, "innocent until proven guilty" =/= "assumed to be a liar filing frivolous claims to bilk rich guys until there's a guilty verdict." Also, that's not even the standard in a civil case - the plaintiff just has to prove that it was more likely than not that she was assaulted or whatever.
But thanks for playing.
Wait... so you're suggesting one should NEVER speculate on anything until all the evidence has come out and a judgment has been rendered?
Somebody better tell all the JUDGES that they're being stupid.
You can make a PERFECTLY rational estimation of what happened based on past experience. You simply need to be open to change based on new information coming to light, and not render a verdict till all has been said and done.
And umm... only the person being accused of a CRIME can be innocent or guilty. The lady, yeah, not accused of a crime. Therefore cannot be innocent or guilty. So... your point was what?
Your first paragraph is a strawman. I never said anything close to that. Inferences can and must be (carefully) drawn after actual evidence is gathered. Let's consider what we know about this case that allows such inferences to be drawn:
1. Ben was accused of sexual assault from an incident a year ago.
2. There are 9 defendants.
3. ...
Your "past experience" argument is laughable. Only the past experiences of the people involved matter. I know nothing of Ben's sexual proclivities nor do I know a thing about the unnamed plaintiff. Again, the experiences of other sexual cases involving celebrities is irrelevant. You might want to read up on the federal rules of evidence.
Your last point makes no sense and I think you misunderstood mine. I'm saying your innocent until proven guilty comment doesn't apply here because it is a civil case. And even if it did, the assumption of Ben's innocence (which is proper) does not also mean we assume the girl is lying right off the bat. It just means she has to prove up her case.
Let me do this in reverse order:
Yes, I reread what you said, and I did misunderstand. I follow you now and though you are correct as far as the courts and lawsuits for money go, I wouldn't even BEGIN to reference a civil suit. First off, they're frivolous because they allow testimony and evidence that shouldn't be allowed in a courtroom. Second of all, we can't debate what they mean, because being found "guilty" in a civil suit simply means, "Maybe there's something to this."
If I can't apply past experience from other people and places to this event, then why is ANY court case ever argued based on precedent? If the court can look at how past cases were decided to determine how to decide or proceed on a current case, then surely anyone can look at how similar cases from the past PROGRESSED to make projections about how a case featuring similar circumstances will progress. Will it be 100% accurate? No. But we're not looking for that.
Finally (your first), just look to my previous paragraph. I can, you can, and we all DO draw on past OUTSIDE experiences for some foundation for understanding current experiences. It's the same reason you roll up your windows at a car wash. "At the other car was, the water would've come in. I can guess that will happen here."
Are you sure it will? No. But it fits with your past experience.
deep understanding of our legal system so I'll try to respond to a few points quickly and end this.
1. There are intricate rules for the allowance of evidence in civil cases and much effort is taken to not allow irrelevant or potentially prejudicial information. In fact, a defendant's OWN criminal history is often off-limits because it has no bearing on whatever the CURRENT facts are...we do not allow evidence of propensity to commit a crime based on past incidences of similar criminal activity (yes even for civil cases).
2. Being held liable (not "guilty") in a civil case is not "lol maybe ur bad." It is a definitive finding by the jury (or judge if a bench trial) that the plaintiff's claims are accurate and the defendant committed the tort or whatever. People lose money, respect, etc. from these lawsuits - it's not some advisory opinion.
3. Your understanding of precedent is completely wrong. The LAW is based on past precedent. The judge or jury then applies this evolved common law to the FACTS of the present case. You will never ever find an opinion that reads something like "it is also relevant that the past 5 celebrity sexual abuse lawsuits have been frivolous and that bears on our decision today." The court of appeals would LOLREVERSE that decision in about 2 seconds.
4. Your final point is utterly incomprehensible and is not analogous to what we've been discussing at all. I'll leave it up to you to figure it out.
Sorry, went on longer than I expected.
I absolutely love how you destroyed Blazefire.
Rather than respond in four Paragraphs?
You are losing.
Not that it matters, but just out of intense curiosity... losing? Message boards are a contest now? I thought they were for discussion. I could care less if I "lose".
In general, you are correct that message boards are not a contest. But when you engage in debate on a message board (as you did here) and you get your ass handed to you (as happened to you here), then you lose the debate (as you did here).
I went to high school with Ben and know him fairly well. That said, he is notorious for loving women (how can you blame him), dating Natalie Gulbis and destroying his Hiyabusa (and face). Like Blazefire posted, I'm sure something happened, but I really doubt that by definition, he raped this chick.
It's a shame, after Kobe and Steriods its hard not to immediately think there may be truth to stories like this or to be very hesitant about believe said athlete. It's sad the sports world has become like this.
And after Duke lacrosse it's hard to immediately believe an accuser. Part of me says, that golddigging bitch in the Duke case made life a lot harder for actually raped women just because of her own stupid greed, and part of me says, it's nice to have that reminder that, hey, innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is still on the accuser, and a guy isn't automatically a rapist and a thug just because a woman says he is.
I'm not saying she's lying, but between no criminal complaint filed, the fact that there's a supposed 9 person coverup involved, that her parents gave someone a key to her place, that the Harrah's people went to her house and erased some sort of evidence on her computer... I don't know, it's just a lot of moving parts.
based on the information available, the claims sound pretty outlandish...
I find it interesting that ESPN is not allowing this story to be reported by any of its affiliates.
Detroit radio recalled a similar scenario today when ESPN didn't report that Brett Farve supposedly helped the Lions game plan for the Packers last season. On that occasion they cited conflicting reports and that they believed that accusation to be false. There is no reason cited that this story isn't being released.
Why? Is it because it's not a criminal complaint? ESPN too worried about rubbing elbows with athletes?
although the lack of a police report is very fishy. Doesn't sound like she even sought medical help immediately afterward in order to establish physical evidence of a sexual assault, either. I would think she's got a really tough task in persuading the legal system she's got a legit case.
Let's wait until we learn something. Keep in mind that civil and criminal are different and until you read the complaint there is no point talking about the plaintiff. We do not tolerate stupidity of that level. I can think of other sites for you.
the other defendants are resort employees. probably not allegedly involved in the assault. not mentioned in the article.