Sorry your quarterback is a rapist scumbag who can’t even complete a pass, Mince.
Disney Princesses are happy Ben didn’t win: http://www.derfmagazine.com/news/sports/roethlisberger-disney-princesses
*A collective sigh of relief swept through Disney World Sunday night as a Green Bay Super Bowl victory ensured that the Disney princesses would not be subjected to a visit from Ben Roethlisberger.
Princesses gathered to watch the game in the media room at Cinderella’s castle, replacing their usual tiaras with Green Bay Packer foam cheeseheads. As Aaron Rogers took a knee and the final seconds ticked off the clock of Super Bowl XLV, the princesses celebrated with cheers and hi-fives. Birds and forest creatures joined in the festivities, singing songs about the joy of not being sexually assaulted.*
I don’t have a quarterback. However, I do favor the Chicago Bears and detest the Steelers and Ben Roethlisberger.
What else you got?
Sorry the quarterback you hoped would enact revenge against the Packers on behalf of your beloved Bears is a rapist scumbag who can’t even complete a pass, Mince. Oh, and I’m sorry Cutler is a wimp.
I may be an ass because the statement “like a lot of men” wasn’t germane to my argument, but you’re wallowing in a deeper ignorance if you don’t think a lot of men take advantage of intoxicated females. Mind you I didn’t say “all”, or “most”, or any similar qualifier, which you seem to take “a lot” to mean.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
But maybe you ought to fix the real courts before you jump all over the occasional goof by the court of public opinion.
[/QUOTE]
We’re just chatting on a message board here, right? Fix our court system is number 1,808 on my to-do list.
Ok, now we’re on the same page.
I mean, let’s be honest: who here among us *hasn’t *seen some hot young co-ed, plied her with alcohol, and then used our bodyguards to keep her friends from helping her while we cornered her in a secluded area when she tried to escape, used our job-subsidized physical abilities to restrain her, and then shoved our erect penis into her vagina over and over again despite her protestations and struggles? Really, you almost have to make the effort *not *to have it happen.
Ok, we’re on different pages again. I’m not defending his actions on that night or his character. There was only one obvious point to this thread, which has nothing to do with Ben Roethlisberger’s actions on that night or his character. And no, I’ve never taken advantage of a female, but I do realize there is a bigger world out there filled with people who do things I don’t do.
I just have no idea why the number of men who’re scumbag rapists has any relevance to anything other than, “Gee, how many men do you think there are who are scumbag rapists?” Because the only alternative is that you’re somehow attempting to make the behavior seem normal or socially acceptable. And I’m *sure *you wouldn’t be trying to do that with rape.
Out of interest, would you call out people in the same way for calling O.J. Simpson a murderer? I mean I see there is a difference - O.J. was actually acquitted of the crime.
Then you’re a double ass for using a term that apparently has no meaning. How about you find a fucking cite or shut the fuck up? Because to me ‘a lot’ means ‘a lot’ not ‘a few’ or whatever you expect it to mean.
A cite for all the men who take advantage of intoxicated women in bars? No thanks, I don’t have that much time. I recommend you spend a few nights in a bar and observe the activities. That’s my cite. Most of these activities don’t get officially reported. Regardless of how many degrees of an ass I am, a lot of men at least attempt to take advantage of intoxicated females. If you don’t already know this, there is no cite I can provide which will convince you. I’m not going to argue semantics when the activity I describe is readily observable.
And yes, by "a lot’ I meant “a lot.” But, of course, this is deflecting from the purpose of this thread.
Acquittal doesn’t mean absolved of the crime. There were many social dynamics that were a part of his acquittal that I cannot explain if it isn’t already apparent. If you think O.J. was acquitted because it was apparent to the jurors that he wasn’t guilty, then I question your understanding of legal jurisprudence. If he was obviously not guilty in the criminal trial, why was he found liable during the civil trial? Yes, I know the standards of proof are relaxed in a civil trial, but he was found liable. How could he be found liable, so, if he was acquitted of the crime?
It was kidchameleon who seized upon my passing quotation “like a lot of men” and made it a focal issue. It has no relevance to the thread, but, I guess, seeing nothing else to argue against, he decided to sustain some kind of argument which is still ambiguous. It’s my fault, of course. I know that if people, trying merely to be contrary, cannot argue against your premise, will nitpick such statements, or misspellings, and try to obfuscate against the central premise. Whether or not “a lot” of men try to take advantage of intoxicated females is a meaningless argument, relative to the premise of my thread. I think he’s wrong, but that has all hell to do with the premise of this thread.
Tried to escape? Restrain?
Where are you getting these “facts?” From the testimony of the woman who even the initial investigating officer stated was “unclear as to what happened due to the complainants recollection being foggy from her intoxication level.”?
Yes, that’s true, but I have no problem accepting the “court of public opinion” has a slightly lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And OJ did suffer the ignominy of an adverse civil verdict against him for the deaths, so no, based on that, I wouldn’t rise too far to quibble about that one.
Nope. The justice system is how our society determines whether a person is innocent or guilty of a crime. Therefore, with one exception, anyone who passes judgment before the justice system has run its coyrse is an idiot who is improperly usurping the justice system’s role for himself.
The exception is for events you personally witness that are not likely to be misinterpreted. For example, if you personally see Bill Clinton shoot a guy in the head, iyou can think BC is at least guilty of manslaughter without me getting on your case about it.
See, when I personally see Bill Clinton “shoot” someone in the head, it’s almost always aggravated sexual assault, not manslaughter.
And you are criticizing my understanding of jurisprudence? In one way you answered this question yourself.
But I think you’re missing the point a tad here. OJ was charged and aqcuitted. No one calls anyone out for calling him a murderer. Because we accept that the judicial system isn’t perfect, and many people think he murdered Nicole and Ron. Personally I think it much more likely than not that he did, which would make me a yes vote on the civil jury, but at the time of the criminal trial it is possible I might have not found guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But I digress, and I wasn’t there.
Anyway, a combination of factors, including the available evidence, the repeated nature of the complaints, and the actions of the NFL itself lead a lot of people to believe that despite the failure to prosecute Big Ben, he committed a crime in that bar bathroom. It’s not because he plays for the Steelers either - I have always had a soft spot for the Steelers (apart from last weekend) as probably my two most serious relationships since getting divorced have been with Steelers girls. I hear the same thing from Steelers fans themselves.
And “rapist” as a label is a broad term. I don’t even know if there is a specific crime in whatever state the bathroom shenanigans took place called rape. There isn’t in a lot of states, categorizing what people think of as rape as differing degrees of sexual assault. Alternatively, in other states forced oral sex isn’t rape, but a different offense. If a person makes a girl blow him, for example, I don’t think, outside of a court of law, calling that person a rapist is worthy of getting all het up about.
People think something illegal an untoward went on in that restroom. Just as people think OJ murdered Nicole and Ron Goldman. That the legal system came to a different result in both cases isn’t in dispute, nor really that relevant, to be honest.
I was addressing Bricker, who as an attorney at law is an officer of the court.