OT - Prosecutors in Jameis Winston case: Press Conference @ 2pm EST
Not a discussion on presumption of innocence or guilt - just found it interesting that the Prosecutors office in Florida is having a Press Conference to discuss their findings and plans in regards to the Jameis Winston rape case.
Many believe the announcement of a Press Conference signals that the prosector will choose NOT to file rape charges...although I also see that Sexual Battery is on the table as well.
What do you think? From what you've read, do you think Winston gets charged with anything? Especially in light of the debacle of a police investigation by the Tallahassee P.D.?
EDIT: Winston not to be charged. Great work Prosecutors on giving ESPN the scoop BEFORE your press conference. Might as well cancel.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:16 PM ^
It's probably a good thing if "consent" means more than simply the absence of "no."
December 5th, 2013 at 2:18 PM ^
The rule of thumb is "no" by default unless a clear and reasonable "yes" occurs.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:21 PM ^
"Hold on, Baby...lemme record your agreement before we get started..."
/edited
December 5th, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^
That sort of statement is often used to shoot down the notion of consent being more than not saying "no." But there are of course ways a person can indicate a desire to have sex that don't involve a mechanical recitation of the statement "I would like to have intercourse with you now."
December 5th, 2013 at 2:37 PM ^
and I agree with you. Even if SOME alcohol consumption is a factor, most of the discussion is centering around people blacking out. The majority of college hook-ups are at bars of course, where some imbibing simply results in the lowering of one's inhibitions. There may be some regrets, but it doesn't always mean rape.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:36 PM ^
Dave Chappelle's Love Contract comes to mind
December 5th, 2013 at 2:52 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 2:12 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 2:25 PM ^
is rarely a defense for general intent crimes like rape. If it's a specific intent crime (like larceny or burglary), voluntary intox can be used to argue that "I was way too hammered to form the intent to permenantly deprive you of that property." And even then, it's probably a last-resort argument.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:14 PM ^
Just seems odd that one can (and probably should) be held legally responsible for "consenting" or intending all manner of things when voluntarily intoxicated - driving, burglary, peeing in public - but not sex. No, in that case your voluntary intoxication renders your consent moot and your consenting partner a rapist, mens rea and their own intoxication be damned, but only if you decide after the fact that you would not have consented if sober.
Very, very gray area to make law in.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:35 PM ^
as the reasonable doubt standard for a criminal conviction is very high to protect at all costs against the basic assumptions that come with a person being charged in the first place, the double standard with regard to how sexual assault is considered is necessary to protect women against the historical assumptions and judgments that come along with an unmarried women having sex in the first place and the relative physical strength of a male over a female. The deck is stacked against the woman, the law attempts to level the playing field. You are correct, there is a double standard. The double standard is necessary. It can and does, infrequently, produce unjust results.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:15 PM ^
... necessitates coercision/force. In a general sense, the answer to your question is no. The specifics are in the details. My girlfriend's friend, just last weekend, was told she had sex with a guy when she was blackout drunk. Obviously, if she could consent at all, it was minimal at best. Is that rape? Honestly, it might well be. But how drunk was he? If they were both beyond making informed decisions, what then? Does his level of intoxication even matter?
It's very gray, but typically, you need concrete evidence of coercision, or proof that she actively didn't want to have sex, to successfully press charges.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:56 PM ^
it can get really complicated is if the women finds herself in a situation where it may not be safe, or may not feel safe, to say no. Most times she has put herself in the situation either by her own actions or inactions but that does not mean that she consents to whatever comes her way. Just as somebody can sober up substantially on a car ride back from a party a "yes" can become a "no" and it is still very much a no.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:19 PM ^
I sure hope not, because I could be facing multiple charges in future cold cases. Ditto for many of my friends.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
Guys can ignore simple signs to stop. Likewise, girls can decide after the fact that they did not consent. How are you going to prove either?
It is he said and she said and it is nasty nasty nasty business because a lot of people base it off who they believe and how they feel about the people involved.
Nasty nasty thing to get involved in.....
December 5th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^
are many variations of the scenario you have just describe, and many qualifications and quantifications that must be considered before the question can be answered in any given encounter. You say not to consider "ifs" or qualifiers but you must or you aren't really asking a question. If you are asking "is consensual sex consensual" than you have answered your own question, but if you are asking something more, which I think you are, than consider the following: 1) How drunk was the girl? Was it actually possible for her to say no and enforce it?, 2) Did she say no, just at a particularly inconvenient time for the guy?, 3) Were there any real or perceived substantial ramifications, social or otherwise, if she said "no" and was the guy aware of or responsible for creating those ramifications? There are many different questions within your question.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:20 PM ^
Obviously not. But that's not what happened here, according to her. By her account she clearly indicated that she did not consent.
December 5th, 2013 at 4:39 PM ^
the problem with this hypothetical is the same as the problem with people in this thread judging whether charges should have been filed: you need to know what the relevant evidence is. sometimes sexual assaults leave signs of trauma, other times they don't. there are other relevant markers as well. the evidence in the winston case may or may not support charges, i have no idea. what i do know is that one can't know without having reviewed the evidence.
December 5th, 2013 at 7:44 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 7:43 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 1:56 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 2:00 PM ^
This was step one of the best case scenario remaining.
Florida State rolls.
Ohio narrowly beats Sparty.
Auburn rolls and jumps Ohio.
Ohio fans staring at two undefeated seasons and no NCG, and Sparty is denied the Rose Bowl.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^
Holy crap. I never thought about this scenario. This would be the best.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:16 PM ^
Glad we have our priorities straight. Phew!
December 5th, 2013 at 2:08 PM ^
This is pretty much my ideal scenario. A 17-13 shitshow "Holy Buckeye" B1G championship game, Auburn rolling, FSU rolling, and Sparty fans are buying more billboards to bitch about not getting a Rose Bowl bid.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^
This isn't step one in ANY BEST CASE SCENARIO.
Just sayin'
December 5th, 2013 at 2:58 PM ^
Wouldn't the best-case scenario involve OSU losing in Pasadena? Why would we want them undefeated?
December 5th, 2013 at 4:05 PM ^
If all that goes down, I would love to be a fly on the wall at Jim Delaney's house when the new BCS standings come out.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:07 PM ^
It just sucks that Winston has been drug through the mud throughout this whole thing.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:14 PM ^
Thats the life of a star though.
Its very much in your interests to play everything by-the-book when your a media starlet. Hell, look at Johnny Football earlier this year. Nothing he was doing was atypical from a college-student standpoint but when your expected to know better than it becomes a story.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:22 PM ^
the local police did not investigate anything, even though the woman's rape kit was positive. The police and prosecutors did not even interview Winston. Imagine how many people are accused of rape, yet the police do not even question them, but drop the case (hint: nobody).
He may be innocent, but he's damn lucky.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/joelanderson/everything-thats-happened-so-far-in-the-sexual-assault-inves
December 5th, 2013 at 2:23 PM ^
Buzzfeed and TMZ as sources? Was Ace Williams not available?
December 5th, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^
Everything I hear "TMZ reports..." I think of South Park's "Sexy Action News Team."
December 5th, 2013 at 2:40 PM ^
that local police never questioned Winston before dropping charges, does it?
December 5th, 2013 at 2:44 PM ^
I'll take all of the other actual evidence that was provided that shows this wasn't rape.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:49 PM ^
The evidence doesn't necessarily show this wasn't rape. Only a jury can decide that. The prosecution feels the evidence that they do have isn't strong enough to hold up in court. I just heard a story on NPR about investigative techniques and confessions, and how recollection and memory can be unreliable - from both the accused and accuser. In a court, if the accuser has lapses, it will hurt the case. But that doesn't mean the crime didn't happen. It's more about the case the prosecution can build based on the evidence and witnesses than it is about the actual crime.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^
Winston shouldn't be viewed as a rapist, but the woman shouldn't be viewed as a false accuser either. As Wendy says, the ability to make a case =/= proof that the allege crime didn't happen.
December 5th, 2013 at 2:58 PM ^
But when the prosecutor believes that the witness isn't credible, then that raises many questions about it being a false accusation. Doesn't help that there were people in the room when it happened wililng to testify that it was consenual and the accuser had 2 DNA samples when she was tested.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^
I'm not saying it was rape, but I don't think you can conclude that it wasn't just because he wasn't charged. Who were the people in the room? Did they have something to gain from protecting him? Who was the woman? Is the prosecutor worried at all that this will have a negative effect on his office because it involves a very prominent football player? Did the police do a thorough job of investigating, given that they didn't initially do anything? What about the rape kit? Lots of questions to be answered that won't be, leaving this pretty open.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^
This is the full police report. Judge for yourself:
http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Full-Winston-Doc.pdf
December 5th, 2013 at 4:59 PM ^
A police report isn't a verdict.
December 5th, 2013 at 5:12 PM ^
Probably much is explained here with an answer to this that didn't get much play on the national media coverage, but was covered down here in FL. Apparently, it came out pretty early on that she was Winston's "in town girlfriend" (his actual girlfriend goes to school somewhere in Texas where she plays basketball) and didn't take too kindly to wanting to be put to the side while his girlfriend was in town. The fact that she knew him, and then proceeded not to be able to identify him, did a great deal to undermine her credibility in terms of prosecuting this case and also bolsters all of the claims of her being a false accuser (and justifiably for both, if true).
December 5th, 2013 at 5:23 PM ^
Just playing devil's advocate, this makes it even more of a complicated case. Rape can occur between people who know each other and are even married to each other. It is non-consensual sex. So, if she didn't want to have sex and made herself clear about that, even if they were regular sexual partners, it is rape. I will burnish this point into my 13 year old son's brain. If she says no, or doesn't want to, you cannot force yourself in any way on her. Plus, I would see this as a reason why she a) wouldn't want to come forward, b) why the police would be dismissive of her, and c) why she would hesitate to press charges at all. Sometimes women think, "I can get through this, I'll just move on." But of course they can't. And while the event might initially cause denial on her part, eventually you just can't delude yourself any longer.
That's just another way of looking at this.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^
The problem is you're trying make a he-said-she-said meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's REALLY FREEKING HARD. No one who entered the room after it started could testify as to the actions of the parties when they started having sex. The case is really, REALLY hard to make.
The legal system errs on the side of the defendant. And it does so for good reasons. But don't think for a MINUTE that the lack of charges speaks to anything beyond the ability to get a conviction.
December 5th, 2013 at 7:04 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 2:27 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 2:39 PM ^
Because you have all the evidence to prove his guilt?
December 5th, 2013 at 2:50 PM ^
There are plenty of jackasses out there that have never even been accused of a crime.
December 5th, 2013 at 8:00 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 3:29 PM ^
Thats taking it a little far. The decision not to charge Winston does not mean innocence.