AB accused for 3 instances of sexual assualt & rape against 1 woman. Lawsuit filed against him

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

You can disagree, but you are still wrong.  Presumption does not mean proven.  You are making a case about the word proven, not presumption.

 

I think we're splitting hairs... The presumption of innocence exists in the absence of evidence of guilt. Until there is a concrete reason to believe someone may be guilty, they are presumed innocent.  The innocent until proven guilty exists in the absence of a preponderance of evidence proving guilt.

[GoBills808]

6 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

I disagree. 

 

Police arrest people whom they have evidence against. 

Grand Jury's indict people whom have a preponderance of evidence against them.

Prosecutors prosecute those whom have been indicted based on the preponderance of evidence. 

 

The tie goes to innocence. Always. This is how our system is built.

 

I am sure there are plenty of situations where the system is abused and in function does not practice this way, but overall the system is built around the frame work of Innocent until proven guilty. 

 

I disagree with the principle behind your last statement as well. In light of human fairness, the benefit of the doubt must be given towards innocence when there is a lack of definitive evidence. 

 I think you can get arrested and indicted strictly on probable cause tbh

[John from Riverside]

16 hours ago, BurpleBull said:

There should be a severe penalty in place for women who lie about this type of thing.

 

I'm inclined to not believe women accusers of rape in this day and time.

Pray it never happens to someone you actually care about then

[whatdrought]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

 I think you can get arrested and indicted strictly on probable cause tbh

 

Do you mean how the system is supposed to work, or how it actually does work? 

 

 

[PlayoffsPlease]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

I think we're splitting hairs... The presumption of innocence exists in the absence of evidence of guilt. Until there is a concrete reason to believe someone may be guilty, they are presumed innocent.  The innocent until proven guilty exists in the absence of a preponderance of evidence proving guilt.

 

Prosecutors opening always include some version of "this person is guilty".  Jurors don;t have to believe them. If the prosecutor is knowingly lying he is a criminal and an evil human being.  The prosecutor presumes guilt. 

[ndirish1978]

21 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

I wouldn't dismiss it either. I read his and her versions and they both sound plausible. I'd be more inclined to believe the woman if more women came forward and I'd be more inclined to believe AB if he wasn't a total scumbag. As it stands I just don't know.

 

Read the lawsuit, she passed a polygraph test and his text message confirms the ***** story, which is just weird. Between the polygraph and a former NY ADA in charge of prosecuting sex crime cases recommending she pursue legal action the case isn't completely weak. For those wondering why a criminal action wasn't filed, those are difficult to prove absent immediate reporting and physical evidence. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by ndirish1978

[whatdrought]

Just now, PlayoffsPlease said:

 

Prosecutors opening always include some version of "this person is guilty".  Jurors don;t have to believe them. If the prosecutor is knowingly lying he is a criminal and an evil human being.  The prosecutor presumes guilt. 

 

Based on collected evidence... He isn't presuming guilt outside of evidence. Thus, the presumption of innocence exists for every single person no matter the accusation until evidence is presented showing guilt. 

 

How does this work for AB? - We as the spectators have to stand outside of our personal disdain for him as the human, and pressume he is innocent until evidence has been presented that indicates his guilt. 

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Do you mean how the system is supposed to work, or how it actually does work? 

 

 

How it actually does work

[whatdrought]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

How it actually does work

 

That I am sure does happen. Unfortunately. Part of the reason it's so important we champion innocent until proven guilty in cases like this. 

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, Mrbojanglezs said:

 

Wait a second... CNN told me trump was racist 

 

Nah all the lawsuits and misconduct over his life span before getting into politics told you that, CNN just reminded you of them 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

That I am sure does happen. Unfortunately. Part of the reason it's so important we champion innocent until proven guilty in cases like this. 

Legally you can be arrested for probable cause. Legally you can be indicted for probable cause. A preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof needed to make a ruling during a civil proceeding. 

[MAJBobby]

Ever notice in cases like this the more that the accused runs a PR campaign (attorneys releasing statements and Agents going on the Circuit) proclaiming innocence that there is something there. 

 

Always seems the ones that know there there isn’t anything there make one statement and then shut up. 

 

Threats of Counter suits and such are all plots from power players to shut up the accuser. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by MAJBobby

[PlayoffsPlease]

5 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Based on collected evidence... He isn't presuming guilt outside of evidence. Thus, the presumption of innocence exists for every single person no matter the accusation until evidence is presented showing guilt. 

 

How does this work for AB? - We as the spectators have to stand outside of our personal disdain for him as the human, and pressume he is innocent until evidence has been presented that indicates his guilt. 

An ethical prosecutor would not bring charges against someone he presumed to be innocent.  Evidence maybe what created his presumption. But prior to a conviction, it is simply the prosecutors presumption that the person his guilty.  I don't know why you are offended by the idea that the legal presumption of innocence is only a requirement of the juror and judge. 

[whatdrought]

6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Legally you can be arrested for probable cause. Legally you can be indicted for probable cause. A preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof needed to make a ruling during a civil proceeding. 

 

Hm.. I'd like to see the laws you're referring to. 

 

My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that probable cause only applies to the act of determining if a crime has been committed and who committed it/ obtaining evidence to that end. 

 

For instance- A driver smelling like alcohol may be probably cause to toss the car and force a breath test, but finding no alcohol present and the driver passing the test would mean that they can't be arrested for drunk driving. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

An ethical prosecutor would not bring charges against someone he presumed to be innocent.  Evidence maybe what created his presumption. But prior to a conviction, it is simply the prosecutors presumption that the person his guilty.  I don't know why you are offended by the idea that the legal presumption of innocence is only a requirement of the juror and judge. 

 

Maybe I've misrepresented my point. What I am saying is that everyone is presumed innocent in the absence of evidence. Police cannot arrest someone without evidence, the GJ cannot indict, the prosecutor cannot prosecute. The existence of evidence is what changes that. 

 

We're also drawing a distinction between the system at large, and the individual actors within the system. Obviously police and other members of the justice system may have their own ideas on who did what, but unless they have a minimum amount of evidence required, they can't act on that and that person is presumed innocent by the system. 

 

I'm not offended- I simply disagree. If it was not so, you would have police arresting people with no evidence whatsoever. There are probably a lot of police officers who know a lot of criminals and can't do jack about it because they have no evidence, and in absence of evidence, that person is presumed innocent in the eyes of the system and thus is treated as innocent by the police and the GJ.

Edited September 11, 2019 by whatdrought

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Except...anyone can call 911 for anything, so how does a mere phone call to police justify action without investigation?

I'd like to see due process, but let's be uniform about it, that's my point. 

 

On the other hand if "protecting the brand" and PR are important, let's also be uniform about it. 
 

 

Haha penetration I see what you did there haha

With respect to a domestic violence call the police do respond and talk individually to the parties involved. If, as an example, the woman has her eyes blackened and her face bruised the police will make an arrest. The way most domestic violence laws are written the police are required to make an arrest based on the probability that an assault occurred. The theory behind the law is that it is critical to get the parties separated even if not all the facts have been determined. My point here is that a domestic call will trigger in some form an investigation by the responding officers even if it is a preliminary investigation. 

 

In response to the due process issue I'm not suggesting that this civil complaint has to run its course before the league should take action because if it remains in the civil legal system it can take years to run its course. My point is that the league should gather as much information on this case that would allow it to make a reasonable/fair judgment. My position is that I'm willing to wait a little longer than many before taking an action against the player.  

 

Regarding the "penetration" comment to Plezmd1 I did not intend on making any sexual innuendo. The person who I responded to is a notorious hard head. It is very difficult to penetrate that block of granite when he gets one of his odd notions deeply embedded within his thought patterns. 

 

 

[starrymessenger]

38 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

As he should be....WTF is he supposed to say?

 

True, but if this thing completely unravels he should answer some questions regarding his judgement and exactly what he was thinking. Not that he will of course. 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, Bills2ref said:

There doesn’t seem to be anything close to enough evidence to garner a criminal conviction in this case. Unless some corroborating witness come forward. 

 

There is enough.  Her testimony alone would be legally sufficient to support conviction of a crime/crimes.  Whether Brown should be charged, and whether a jury should convict on that testimony, are different questions.  But there is enough to convict  — it’s called “legally sufficient evidence” — even in the absence of a corroborating witness. 

 

**This point, of course, assumes that her version of events is credible and that she can testify credibly as to those events. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by SectionC3

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Hm.. I'd like to see the laws you're referring to. 

 

My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that probable cause only applies to the act of determining if a crime has been committed and who committed it/ obtaining evidence to that end. 

 

For instance- A driver smelling like alcohol may be probably cause to toss the car and force a breath test, but finding no alcohol present and the driver passing the test would mean that they can't be arrested for drunk driving. 

Correct, there's law that says simply smelling like alcohol isn't enough to establish probable cause. An officer would typically need erratic driving, slurred speech, or other factors to make a legal arrest (fyi you can't be compelled to do the breath test)

 

Remember that prosecutors have a relatively low bar to clear regarding obtaining an indictment and generally will have sufficient evidence to obtain one that (generally, but also legally) need not come even close to a preponderance of the evidence. 

[bills6969]

I love how he’s already a distraction to New England.  Too funny

[whatdrought]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Correct, there's law that says simply smelling like alcohol isn't enough to establish probable cause. An officer would typically need erratic driving, slurred speech, or other factors to make a legal arrest (fyi you can't be compelled to do the breath test)

 

Remember that prosecutors have a relatively low bar to clear regarding obtaining an indictment and generally will have sufficient evidence to obtain one that (generally, but also legally) need not come even close to a preponderance of the evidence. 

 

Right, but that bar is still based on evidence, not on probable cause. I think it's probably a line that gets blurred far too often and violates peoples rights, but non-the-less, the system is built to protect the individuals rights and their expectation to be treated as innocent- I know that reality looks much different though. 

 

 

Where the system really breaks down is interpretation. And precedent swings back and forth with different court opinions causing lines to constantly be moved and bad actors to thrive. Luckily, I think most (at least in my experience) law enforcement professionals care about justice and fairness and are willing to do things the right way. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by whatdrought