(04-20-2016, 07:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ha!

Like I said, you avoid the answer!  It had nothing to do with a conviction!  It was about all of you supporting a rapist!  

Those facts are undisputed!  His bodyguards forced her back there, which he would have just had to say "meet me back there" if she really wanted it!  Just when I think Steelers fans can't get any lower or any dumber, you go and shock me!

Quote:According to Blash's case summary, "he asked [the alleged victim] if Roethlisberger had raped her and she stated, 'No, I did not know what was going on,' because she was intoxicated so much."


The summary said, "Blash indicated that he asked the victim, 'Did he rape you?', and the victim stated 'no.' Blash asked the victim if they had sex, and she responded by saying, 'Well, I'm not sure.' "

Blash went to Capital City, where he found Roethlisberger and his entourage and told them about the allegation.

"Roethlisberger told Blash that he remembered her and he had told her that she was too drunk to be back there," the summary said.

"Roethlisberger did not allege any sexual intercourse with the female. Roethlisberger remembered her falling and hitting her head. The female's friends got mad because they could not come to the back."

In the summary, Blash acknowledged having made off-color remarks about the alleged victim at the club.

"When asked about a comment similar to 'this f------ b---- is drunk' or 'this b---- is drunk off her ass accusing Ben of assaulting her," Blash said that he did say something like that to the other Milledgeville police officers and indicated that Roethlisberger's bodyguards may have overheard the comment," the report said.

...


According to Officer Jason Lopez, the woman told him that the alleged rape occurred as she was seated on the toilet in the bathroom, that the athlete did not use a condom and she did not know whether he ejaculated.

The alleged victim was taken to Oconee Regional Medical Center, where a sexual assault kit was completed. Officials reported they were not able to obtain enough genetic material to pursue an identification.

(04-20-2016, 05:48 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Then provide me with an answer.

(04-20-2016, 09:09 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: An answer to what?  My position is one of uncertainty.  My answer is 'I don't know what really happened."  I don't need to prove that - uncertainty stands until someone proves one side or the other.   You're the one who claims to be certain, which means the burden of proof is on you, not me.  And, despite what you believe, you have yet to do that.  So far, your 'proof' consists of nothing more than you strongly believing one version of the story, none of which is indisputable.  

So, you're the one that needs to provide an answer here.  For example, what proof do you have to show that the side you've chosen to believe is indisputably true?  (Hint: simply saying its indisputable isn't enough - you have to demonstrate it).  

(04-20-2016, 09:09 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: An answer to what?  My position is one of uncertainty.  My answer is 'I don't know what really happened."  I don't need to prove that - uncertainty stands until someone proves one side or the other.   You're the one who claims to be certain, which means the burden of proof is on you, not me.  And, despite what you believe, you have yet to do that.  So far, your 'proof' consists of nothing more than you strongly believing one version of the story, none of which is indisputable.  And what you call "logic" is nothing more than drawing conclusions from the basis of your predetermined opinion.  

So, you're the one that needs to provide an answer here.  For example, what proof do you have to show that the side you've chosen to believe is indisputably true?  (Hint: simply saying its indisputable isn't enough - you have to demonstrate it).  

(04-20-2016, 09:49 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Please JS...Everyone know that indisputable proof is not necessary within the bounds of a realist.

(04-20-2016, 08:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: The "facts" are very disputed...except in your mind.  So I don't know how you expect anyone to change your mind about a 6 year old story that ended because of lack of evidence.




"Evidence".

(04-22-2016, 02:26 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Show me where his story makes any sense.

What is his story?  I forget?  Why did he have his bodyguards drag her back there (or "lead," as you delusional Steelers fans prefer to call it) if she wanted it so bad?  Why didn't he just say "meet me back there"?

Why was the girl so upset afterwards?  According to you, she was DTF and just had sex with a celebrity that has millions of dollars, but all of the sudden, she isn't?

Logic is good enough for anyone other than delusional Steelers fans.

(04-22-2016, 09:40 AM)Griever Wrote: well she changed her story three times at the urging of her sorority sisters

(04-22-2016, 09:40 AM)Griever Wrote: but hey, he has the same amount of chargest as dalton has playoff wins

(04-22-2016, 10:43 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Show me the link with that and I'll explain it because there would be a logical explanation.


lol.

Once again, delusional Steelers fans don't realize that charges don't mean shit in the scope of reality.  But, hey, keep using that as a way to justify raping a woman 

Even if they did, I already explained why they couldn't bring charges.

(04-22-2016, 11:22 AM)Griever Wrote: yeah you cant bring charges for consensual sex (if any occurred)

plus, if she was raped, i doubt she would have her lawyer right a letter to the DA to drop it

any DA worth his salt would have loved to pin a rape on a big time athlete

(04-22-2016, 11:36 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: To be totally fair, what you say is not 100% convincing either.  It is not uncommon for a rape victim to pull back if they feel they're not being believed.  And the DA thing - well, that may be true, especially since he's not from Steeler country.  But if the DA is a big sports fan, he might be more likely to take an athlete's side.  There remains a possibility that you could be wrong.  Unlike Brad, you have actually demonstrated an ability to think things through objectively, so I think you will agree with this. 

The point is that you can make reasonable rebuttals to either argument, which means that one of the major remaining criteria for picking a side is team loyalty.  And that's fine and to be expected, but I think that anyone who claims either absolute guilt or absolute innocence is an unthinking homer.  

(04-22-2016, 11:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Was it the DA who had the press conference where he listed all things they though Ben had done and bemoaned the fact that they really, REALLY wanted to prosecute but didn't have enough evidence OR a witness?  Because he's the one who has perpetuated this story for so long by going over and over all the accusations and then spending about ten seconds saying the evidence wasn't enough while insisting he wanted to go forward but couldn't.

(04-22-2016, 12:20 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: A compelling argument, to be sure.  But it doesn't remove all doubt, just like Brad's doesn't.  That's all I'm saying.  Lack of evidence might undermine a charge of guilt, but it doesn't prove innocence.  

(04-22-2016, 11:36 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: To be totally fair, what you say is not 100% convincing either.  It is not uncommon for a rape victim to pull back if they feel they're not being believed.  And the DA thing - well, that may be true, especially since he's not from Steeler country.  But if the DA is a big sports fan, he might be more likely to take an athlete's side.  There remains a possibility that you could be wrong.  Unlike Brad, you have actually demonstrated an ability to think things through objectively, so I think you will agree with this. 

The point is that you can make reasonable rebuttals to either argument, which means that one of the major remaining criteria for picking a side is team loyalty.  And that's fine and to be expected, but I think that anyone who claims either absolute guilt or absolute innocence is an unthinking homer.  

(04-22-2016, 12:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Granted.  Just wanted to point out a lot of the "he covered it up" comes from that presser.

Just like I had very good info on what went down  (it was more consensual than many want to admit)from someone I trust and who had zero reason to lie to me.  Nothing that would ever be admissible in court but something I believe based on the source.  

But I'll go back to my point when it first happened:  ANYONE have sex with strangers in a bar is a dbag in my opinion.  Consensual or not.  But that is just my opinion.

(04-22-2016, 12:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Granted.  Just wanted to point out a lot of the "he covered it up" comes from that presser.

Just like I had very good info on what went down  (it was more consensual than many want to admit)from someone I trust and who had zero reason to lie to me.  Nothing that would ever be admissible in court but something I believe based on the source.  

But I'll go back to my point when it first happened:  ANYONE have sex with strangers in a bar is a dbag in my opinion.  Consensual or not.  But that is just my opinion.

(04-22-2016, 01:22 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Guys, you are debating with someone who defends Pac Man Jones punching a woman in the face by saying that she had it coming because of Gender Equality. Enough said. 

Clearly this guy isn't playing with a full deck and incapable of rational thought. Any debate with him is futile as it's impossible to debate someone who is so obviously intellectually disadvantaged and is akin to arguing with your dog, cat, or local horse grazing in the field that you pass everyday on your way to work. 

(04-22-2016, 01:22 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Guys, you are debating with someone who defends Pac Man Jones punching a woman in the face by saying that she had it coming because of Gender Equality. Enough said. 

Clearly this guy isn't playing with a full deck and incapable of rational thought. Any debate with him is futile as it's impossible to debate someone who is so obviously intellectually disadvantaged and is akin to arguing with your dog, cat, or local horse grazing in the field that you pass everyday on your way to work. 

(04-23-2016, 04:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ha!

My point was that, if a woman assaults a man, why wouldn't she be expected to be treated the same as anyone else?

But you Steelers fans throw shit out of proportion and then give each other circle jerks like you're geniuses, so carry on.

Hilarious how you say that I'm intellectually disadvantaged yet you still defend Ben in this argument!

(04-23-2016, 08:01 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: LOL, isn't that the very definition of what I said? Isn't that defending Pac Man Jones because of Gender Equality? You truly are a slow individual, aren't you?  

Not only are you an embarassment to Bengal fans everywhere, you are an embarrassment to every single organism on the planet with more than one firing neuron.