Terrible Football Story on ESPN.com

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

yeah I am sure you rationally thought out the consequences of your actions at 17, while drunk....lol...

 

No, I didn't. I got lucky and didn't do anything TOO stupid...

 

Well, there was the time I got drunk and took double-or-nothing on $300 made from the Bills/Raiders AFC champ game.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Right, because taking the plea and being branded a child molester, for having sex with someone two years your junior while in high school, is such an oh-so-fair option.

 

It's bull sh--, Joe. You know it. They know it -- otherwise, why change the law? And why change the law and not have it apply to the very person the change was initiated for?

 

The idea was that if he TOOK the plea, he WOULD NOT be labelled a molester. Whereas if he didn't he'd go for 10 years and WOULD be so branded.

[hootie1]

Thought before he acted? C'mon- like he's supposed to a) ask how old the girl is b) know the age of consent in his state c) know that a bj is a felony. I ask you- how many high school boys are going to even suspect it's a felony to get a bj from a girl that goes to their own school?

 

I don't buy that it's racist.

 

Is it incompetent government? Yes. Racist government, I don't think so. The kid was stupid for doing something like that. Yeah, it's great getting a hummer. But not when the hummer is going to cost you jail time. 15 gets ya 10, apparently.

 

Perhaps if he'd thought before he acted, it wouldn't have happened.

[hootie1]

You've got it wrong- taking the plea would mean he admits to the crime, and it would have resulted in his being branded as a sex offender. His position, quite resonable I believe. is that for a 17 year old to engage in a consensual sex act with a 15 year old is not a sex offense, and therefore, he should not have to admit to same.

 

The idea was that if he TOOK the plea, he WOULD NOT be labelled a molester. Whereas if he didn't he'd go for 10 years and WOULD be so branded.

[Steven in MD]

It's not clear to me why (if the testimony at the time was that the girl was consentual and initiated) the jury didn't acquit.

 

There is something not said in the ESPN article.

 

Basically - this is a bit of a tearaway kid who smoked dope and drank and shagged girls at the age of 17 (and younger presumably) whom we are being asked to look favourably on because someday he might have had a chance to play pro football, or at the least Division 1 College football?

 

I don't agree that on the balance of the ESPN article he should be doing time, but all I am saying is that something is off with the stance they take. Just because he plays football doesn't mean there is no fire where there is smoke.

Have to agree this is something more to this story....how would the DA know he was getting a hummer? Something else is going on here.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Thought before he acted? C'mon- like he's supposed to a) ask how old the girl is b) know the age of consent in his state c) know that a bj is a felony. I ask you- how many high school boys are going to even suspect it's a felony to get a bj from a girl that goes to their own school?

 

Oh please, you're telling me he didn't know the age of consent and that the girl was a sophomore?

 

If not, then he's an idiot.

[Heels20X6]

Oh please, you're telling me he didn't know the age of consent and that the girl was a sophomore?

 

If not, then he's an idiot.

 

Do you honestly think a 17 year old (considered a MINOR in the state of Georgia) would think that having sex with a 15 year old (another MINOR) would result in a 10 year jail sentence?

 

Come one Joe, everyone on this board knows this is a gross injustice and a Georgian egotistical bass-awkards b!tch of a lawyer trying to make an example of an 'uppity negro'.

 

He got screwed. I guarantee 50% of this board's members would be looking at 10 to 20 years of jail time in Georgia for the dumb sh-- we pulled in high school. Where do you think any of would be if we actually served that time?

[Wraith]

Oh please, you're telling me he didn't know the age of consent and that the girl was a sophomore?

 

If not, then he's an idiot.

 

The only idiot here is you.

 

The facts:

 

1) The law was horribly outdated. If the same two people had intercourse, it would have been a misdemeanor. This case was a felony.

 

2) As a direct result of this case, the state governement realized their own idiocy and changed the law, but failed to apply it retroactively.

 

3) The district attorney offered a plea bargain that included 5 years of jail time and being on the registry as a sex offender.

 

4) A white, female teacher was sentenced to 90 days jail time during the same time frame for having a sexual relationship with a student. That is 1/20th the jail time. 5 PERCENT.

 

5) The district attorney has the power to end this at any time, but hasn't because the defendant should've just "taken his medicine" (...and the 5 years of jail time and permanent branding as a sex offender that goes along with the medicine).

 

The District Attorney is on an ego trip, apparently offended that the defendant dare to not take the offered plea bargain, and almost certainly motivated by race, gender, or class.

[Wraith]

Have to agree this is something more to this story....how would the DA know he was getting a hummer? Something else is going on here.

 

It was on tape.

[Pete]

southern racism is alive in well I see. My God, what century are we in? So much for evoloution

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The only idiot here is you.

 

The facts:

 

1) The law was horribly outdated. If the same two people had intercourse, it would have been a misdemeanor. This case was a felony.

 

2) As a direct result of this case, the state governement realized their own idiocy and changed the law, but failed to apply it retroactively.

 

3) The district attorney offered a plea bargain that included 5 years of jail time and being on the registry as a sex offender.

 

4) A white, female teacher was sentenced to 90 days jail time during the same time frame for having a sexual relationship with a student. That is 1/20th the jail time. 5 PERCENT.

 

5) The district attorney has the power to end this at any time, but hasn't because the defendant should've just "taken his medicine" (...and the 5 years of jail time and permanent branding as a sex offender that goes along with the medicine).

 

The District Attorney is on an ego trip, apparently offended that the defendant dare to not take the offered plea bargain, and almost certainly motivated by race, gender, or class.

 

How about you go !@#$ yourself?

 

Here are THE FACTS:

 

1) The law is outdated. That doesn't make it RACIST, it makes it STUPID and INEFFECTUAL.

 

2) Again, STUPID government, not RACIST government.

 

3) The story said they offered him TWO years, not FIVE.

 

"Being branded a sex offender is not good; but at the same time, if it made the difference between spending 10 years as opposed to two?"

 

4) It wasn't because she was WHITE you !@#$ing moron, it was because she was a !@#$ING WOMAN. If it had been a white MAN who'd done that, he'd be doing HARD time.

 

5) What DA wants to reverse his own case? NONE do, take a look at that bastard in NC who was railroading those Duke players in a case of SUPPOSED racist activity.

 

This is the problem with all you little shepherd boys who love to cry racism at every turn. You call it out so often that when a REAL instance of racism happens, no one knows any better.

 

Once again for the less-capable readers out there. This isn't a case about RACE. It's a case about ridiculously retarded government and a kid who should have known better. You mean to tell me none of you knew while you were in High School that it was ILLEGAL to diddle a 15 year old? Hell, we used to dog guys out that were seniors for hitting on sopohmores with the old "15'll get ya 20" taunt. It ain't rocket surgery. Do I think it's wrong that he got 10 rather than 2?

 

Yeah, absolutely. But it isn't because he's black and the white man's just keepin' him down. That's BULLSHAIT.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Come one Joe, everyone on this board knows this is a gross injustice and a Georgian egotistical bass-awkards b!tch of a lawyer trying to make an example of an 'uppity negro'.

 

I think a lot of people express that OPINION because it's popular, not because it's factually correct. Sometimes life sucks. sh-- happens. And just because sh-- happens to a black kid doesn't make it a vast Klan conspiracy. This could have happened to anybody, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian or otherwise.

 

Government is stooooooopid. I don't know why anyone is shocked at this kind of thing happening.

[hootie1]

It's interesting that you mention the Duke case, because I see it as very similar, despite the different races of the defendents. Both smack of prosecutorial witch hunts, where a big ego DA is overzealous in his desire to punish alleged despoilers of womanhood. The common victims? Men. Notice who got off light? The female teacher.

 

How about you go !@#$ yourself?

 

Here are THE FACTS:

 

1) The law is outdated. That doesn't make it RACIST, it makes it STUPID and INEFFECTUAL.

 

2) Again, STUPID government, not RACIST government.

 

3) The story said they offered him TWO years, not FIVE.

 

"Being branded a sex offender is not good; but at the same time, if it made the difference between spending 10 years as opposed to two?"

 

4) It wasn't because she was WHITE you !@#$ing moron, it was because she was a !@#$ING WOMAN. If it had been a white MAN who'd done that, he'd be doing HARD time.

 

5) What DA wants to reverse his own case? NONE do, take a look at that bastard in NC who was railroading those Duke players in a case of SUPPOSED racist activity.

 

This is the problem with all you little shepherd boys who love to cry racism at every turn. You call it out so often that when a REAL instance of racism happens, no one knows any better.

 

Once again for the less-capable readers out there. This isn't a case about RACE. It's a case about ridiculously retarded government and a kid who should have known better. You mean to tell me none of you knew while you were in High School that it was ILLEGAL to diddle a 15 year old? Hell, we used to dog guys out that were seniors for hitting on sopohmores with the old "15'll get ya 20" taunt. It ain't rocket surgery. Do I think it's wrong that he got 10 rather than 2?

 

Yeah, absolutely. But it isn't because he's black and the white man's just keepin' him down. That's BULLSHAIT.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It's interesting that you mention the Duke case, because I see it as very similar, despite the different races of the defendents. Both smack of prosecutorial witch hunts, where a big ego DA is overzealous in his desire to punish alleged despoilers of womanhood. The common victims? Men. Notice who got off light? The female teacher.

 

thus my statement:

 

"It wasn't because she was WHITE you !@#$ing moron, it was because she was a !@#$ING WOMAN. If it had been a white MAN who'd done that, he'd be doing HARD time."

 

People are always so quick to jump to conclusions, especially where race is concerned, that they often overlook the obvious.

[tennesseeboy]

Actually..its about race. White guys are getting blowjobs in high schools all over Georgia and the number of them in prison for ten years? An inexorable ZERO. If the prosecutor tried to run roughshod over white guys this way he'd be brought before the ethics board and pilloried...kind of like Duke.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Actually..its about race. White guys are getting blowjobs in high schools all over Georgia and the number of them in prison for ten years? An inexorable ZERO. If the prosecutor tried to run roughshod over white guys this way he'd be brought before the ethics board and pilloried...kind of like Duke.

 

Keep telling yourself that. The kid was on tape. That was his first mistake. His second mistake was not taking the plea.

 

Was the jury all white? I don't think so. Prosecutors don't hand down convictions. JURIES do.

 

You'd think a lawyer would understand that little nugget about the law.

[hootie1]

So it sounds like you agree the guy got railroaded, but you disagree with other posters on why, thinking it's gender not race. Fair enough, I think people will accept that as at least a valid possibility. But I think what is bothering folks here is that you seem to think the guy deserved what he got, whereas most of us are ready to forgive him what seems like a relatively small foible of youth- you know- the whole glass house thing....

 

 

"It wasn't because she was WHITE you !@#$ing moron, it was because she was a !@#$ING WOMAN. If it had been a white MAN who'd done that, he'd be doing HARD time."

 

People are always so quick to jump to conclusions, especially where race is concerned, that they often overlook the obvious.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So it sounds like you agree the guy got railroaded, but you disagree with other posters on why, thinking it's gender not race. Fair enough, I think people will accept that as at least a valid possibility. But I think what is bothering folks here is that you seem to think the guy deserved what he got, whereas most of us are ready to forgive him what seems like a relatively small foible of youth- you know- the whole glass house thing....

 

I think that's a lot more likely than the race theory, yes.

 

But I think the main problem here is just incompetent government, from the lawmakers to the attorney to the judge and even to the jury. If it was THAT obvious that this wasn't a big deal, then they jury should have acquitted him. They didn't.

 

So now this guy is Nelson Mandela?

 

My biggest issue is that people are making this out to be some sort of governmental racist lynching.

[tennesseeboy]

Keep telling yourself that. The kid was on tape. That was his first mistake. His second mistake was not taking the plea.

 

Was the jury all white? I don't think so. Prosecutors don't hand down convictions. JURIES do.

 

You'd think a lawyer would understand that little nugget about the law.

[/quo

 

I'm not saying the kid didn't get a hummer. I assume white high school kids still get hummers as well...and in some cases they get them from sophomores. Juries are malleable. Been a cop and lawyer long enough to know that. Kind of like Sol Wachler's statement that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In this case he did commit the crime...no question. But he committed a "crime" no prosecutor in Georgia has ever brought against a white kid.

[Wraith]

How about you go !@#$ yourself?

 

Here are THE FACTS:

 

1) The law is outdated. That doesn't make it RACIST, it makes it STUPID and INEFFECTUAL.

 

2) Again, STUPID government, not RACIST government.

 

3) The story said they offered him TWO years, not FIVE.

 

"Being branded a sex offender is not good; but at the same time, if it made the difference between spending 10 years as opposed to two?"

 

4) It wasn't because she was WHITE you !@#$ing moron, it was because she was a !@#$ING WOMAN. If it had been a white MAN who'd done that, he'd be doing HARD time.

 

5) What DA wants to reverse his own case? NONE do, take a look at that bastard in NC who was railroading those Duke players in a case of SUPPOSED racist activity.

 

This is the problem with all you little shepherd boys who love to cry racism at every turn. You call it out so often that when a REAL instance of racism happens, no one knows any better.

 

Once again for the less-capable readers out there. This isn't a case about RACE. It's a case about ridiculously retarded government and a kid who should have known better. You mean to tell me none of you knew while you were in High School that it was ILLEGAL to diddle a 15 year old? Hell, we used to dog guys out that were seniors for hitting on sopohmores with the old "15'll get ya 20" taunt. It ain't rocket surgery. Do I think it's wrong that he got 10 rather than 2?

 

Yeah, absolutely. But it isn't because he's black and the white man's just keepin' him down. That's BULLSHAIT.

 

I'm not surprised that reading comprehension is NOT among your "many" skills.

 

1) Where did I say the LAW is racist, or in anyway motivated by race? My exact words were "horribly outdated."

 

2) Again, where did I say RACIST government? Dumb a**.

 

3) The story said they offered FIVE:

 

"Of course, the plea was the same five years he'd offered before the trial -- not taking into account the rape acquittal. Barker thinks five years is fair for receiving oral sex from a schoolmate."

 

4) Possibly, but where's your proof? Either way, how does that make me a "!@#$ing moron?" My exact words were:

 

"The District Attorney is on an ego trip, apparently offended that the defendant dare to not take the offered plea bargain, and almost certainly motivated by race, gender, or class."

 

Do I have to define the word GENDER to you?

 

5) Those with common sense or at least a shred of reason. The DA's argument was:

 

"We can set aside his sentence," Barker says. "Legally, it's still possible for us to set aside his sentence and give him a new sentence to a lesser charge. But it's up to us. He has no control over it."

 

The position of Barker and the district attorney, McDade, who refused to comment, is that Wilson is guilty under the law and there is no room for mercy, though the facts seem to say they simply chose not to give it to Wilson."

 

Guess what, that's not the law anymore. They changed the law. Why did they change it? BECAUSE OF THIS CASE YOU MORON!. So overturn the conviction. Apply some reason.