I'm Worried. It's Finally The Bengals Year!!!

[BFritz21]

(09-09-2017, 07:12 PM)Captain Obvious Wrote: They said after exhaustive interviews and inconclusive medical exams, the student's accusations could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He's guilty of being dumb and putting himself into this kind of position, but he wasn't found guilty, so yes, he's a scum bag, but wasn't found guilty of raping her in a court of law. That's the great thing with our judicial system, just because someone accuses you of something, doesn't mean you're automatically guilty of it. 

Because he had his bodyguards block the door while Ben raped her.  A small college girl fearing for her life isn't going to try to fight off a man that's 6'5, 240 pounds out of fear of being hurt worse.

He doesn't deny it happened but he just says it was consensual, which it obviously wasn't but it happened to fast and he got all the girls so drunk and then had his bodyguards block the door that there was obviously a lot of confusion.

(09-09-2017, 07:19 PM)Captain Obvious Wrote: Woah, woah, slow down there Brad, you're all over the map just because you don't like Ben. First you start talking about the girl from Milledgeville, Georgia in the bar room. They didn't prosecute because there was inconclusive medical exams and exhaustive interviews there wasn't enough proof. Then you go on about her suing him in civil court. Well that was the Lake Tahoe woman, not the Georgia woman. Before you tell someone look into the facts, maybe you should make sure you look into your facts as well. I thought you were smarter than that, I guess not.

Sorry, a raping scumbag is a raping scumbag to me, and I get mixed up in the instances that he has raped women.

(09-09-2017, 07:24 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: They most certainly do have a choice.  The NFL has a long history of punishing players without convictions, and their current policy is open-ended enough to allow for a lot of inconsistency when doing so.  In fact, didn't they just expand the Giants' kicker's suspension as a result of their own investigation (separate from any law proceedings)? Oh, they would be more than capable of banning Ben for life if they truly believed he was guilty of rape (that is, if they cared enough about justice to do so).  But the fact that they haven't is an indication that they either deny or are indifferent to Ben's guilt.

Thus, you support a league that does not support your assessment of the situation.

But, since they're not the Steelers (and since their denial of Ben's guilt actually effects you), I totally understand why you have no problem with that.

And by the way, Captain Obvious is correct - there was no civil suit in the Georgia case.  And for that matter no one "won" the case you are referring to.  It was settled out of court.  Every lawyer in the country will tell you that there are other reasons to settle than to avoid a loss in court.  But past experience has taught me that you are not capable of enough intellectual nuance to understand those reasons, so I won't try to explain.

Ben covered his tracks well, so even their own investigation wouldn't have been able to find anything, and they had to suspend him for something, but, since it's the Steelers, he just got a slap on the wrist.

And the reasons for settling out of court generally are because the people suing don't want to have to go through the pain of reliving everything in court, or because they just don't want to have to go through the long process and have to pay more attorneys fees, among other reasons.

Bottom line, you support a man who did the worst thing possible that could happen to a woman, and he's done it more than once.