PDA

View Full Version : montero cleared of all charges..



gtaguy
04-14-2009, 06:42 PM
looks like hes in the clear... Now he can concentrate on scoring
more goals..


http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405126_Montero15.html

Pachuco
04-14-2009, 06:47 PM
Hey Carter, eat that buddy! I don't forget ignorant posts like yours. Some people on these boards should be ashamed based on some of the comments I saw.

ginkster88
04-14-2009, 06:50 PM
NOT surprising at all. The woman will get away scott-free as well. Despicable.

Ageroo
04-14-2009, 06:52 PM
NOT surprising at all. The woman will get away scott-free as well. Despicable.

That may be the worse crime....but that is all I have to say on that...wasn't there so cannot comment on what transpired...:)

Carter
04-14-2009, 07:14 PM
Hey Carter, eat that buddy! I don't forget ignorant posts like yours. Some people on these boards should be ashamed based on some of the comments I saw.


and nobody forgets ones like yours, its a 2 way street chief

Ladies Love Julius James
04-14-2009, 07:15 PM
laaaaaaad yea I called it LOL based on stats and all. Ah well he only missed one game. It was worse for Kobe.

Dirk Diggler
04-14-2009, 07:21 PM
laaaaaaad yea I called it LOL based on stats and all. Ah well he only missed one game. It was worse for Kobe.

lol based on his stats?

But yeah, this entire story smelled of bullshit right from the beginning. Two sexual assaults in close succession on the same person? She better hope that no hardcore Seattle fans find out who she is.

ginkster88
04-14-2009, 07:24 PM
The whole world should know who she is. Lying... well I'm not going to let my mouth get me in trouble...

JonO
04-14-2009, 07:25 PM
NOT surprising at all. The woman will get away scott-free as well. Despicable.

The title of the thread is misleading. He hasn't been charged with anything, not cleared of all charges. There is a significant difference between the two. All that the article states is that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute him. Not really a ringing endorsement to start a witch hunt against the woman, no?

Not saying he did anything, not saying he didn't

ginkster88
04-14-2009, 07:26 PM
He can't be proven guilty, so he's innocent. That's how the law works last time I checked; too bad it's often the other way around in the press.

JonO
04-14-2009, 07:29 PM
He can't be proven guilty, so he's innocent. That's how the law works last time I checked; too bad it's often the other way around in the press.
He can't be proven guilty so he's innocent, which automatically makes the woman "a lying...." in your words.

Don't you see the hypocrisy in this position?

ginkster88
04-14-2009, 07:32 PM
No hypocrisy. He's innocent, therefore she lied. If there were any case here at all he would be tried, for sure. And if he were guilty I would hope that he be prosecuted as strongly as possible.

JonO
04-14-2009, 07:36 PM
No hypocrisy. He's innocent, therefore she lied. If there were any case here at all he would be tried, for sure.
not really sure how to respond to this...

Basically your position is that an accused rapist is innocent until proven guilty and his victim is lying until proven to be telling the truth... :noidea:

Beach_Red
04-14-2009, 07:42 PM
He can't be proven guilty, so he's innocent. That's how the law works last time I checked; too bad it's often the other way around in the press.

No, if you can't be proven guilty you are "not guilty." It's different than innocent, it means that there wasn't enough admissable evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt under the rules of a court.

Is OJ innocent?

ginkster88
04-14-2009, 07:44 PM
No it isn't. Obviously that's a ridiculous position.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that's how the law works. An "accused rapist" is as innocent as a petty thief, and adding that to my statement is merely inflammatory.

In this instance, the prosecution dropped the case. There isn't enough proof to even form a case against him, which in my books, means that he probably didn't do anything wrong.

Therefore, he is innocent, and she is lying.

I never made any final statements about this case until after the prosecution made their decision. I was skeptical about her claim from the beginning, but I never called her a liar until the prosecution did, that is, until the prosecution dropped the case.

ginkster88
04-14-2009, 07:45 PM
Is OJ innocent?

We all know that was a unique case. Don't be ridiculous.

Beach_Red
04-14-2009, 07:47 PM
We all know that was a unique case. Don't be ridiculous.

No, it was just a famous case. Those miscarriages of justice (going both ways) happen everyday.

ginkster88
04-14-2009, 07:56 PM
That case was brought to trial with overwhelming evidence against Simpson. It should have been open and shut. Many many factors combined to compromise that evidence and return the verdict "not guilty."

This case didn't even merit enough to pursue prosecution.

ExiledRed
04-14-2009, 07:59 PM
No it isn't. Obviously that's a ridiculous position.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that's how the law works. An "accused rapist" is as innocent as a petty thief, and adding that to my statement is merely inflammatory.

In this instance, the prosecution dropped the case. There isn't enough proof to even form a case against him, which in my books, means that he probably didn't do anything wrong.

Therefore, he is innocent, and she is lying.

I never made any final statements about this case until after the prosecution made their decision. I was skeptical about her claim from the beginning, but I never called her a liar until the prosecution did, that is, until the prosecution dropped the case.

The prosecution dropped the case because they couldnt prove a sexual assault. They didnt call her a liar.

Sexual assault is the hardest thing to prove, especially when the accused turns around and claims it was consensual. Not being able to prove otherwise doesnt create a truth. I'll bet montero can't prove it was consensual, or didn't happen, either. Fortunately for him the onus is on the prosecution to find proof and in this case they can't.

Montero is in the clear, but who knows what the truth is?

This attitude is the sort of thing that prevents women from reporting attacks on them. They know it's hard to prove, and they don't want to be called 'lying whores' by the media, and the rest of society.

It should never have been reported in the media in the first place, and that applies to all sexual assault cases.

olegunnar
04-14-2009, 08:00 PM
I can't believe I'm getting involved in this thread....but

when the verdict is read.....is it "not guilty" or "innocent"

ginkster88
04-14-2009, 08:01 PM
It should never have been reported in the media in the first place, and that applies to all sexual assault cases.

I would definitely agree with that.

Ladies Love Julius James
04-14-2009, 08:05 PM
lol based on his stats?

But yeah, this entire story smelled of bullshit right from the beginning. Two sexual assaults in close succession on the same person? She better hope that no hardcore Seattle fans find out who she is.


Not his stats, stats on athletes getting charged with rape and the conviction rate is extremely low.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2003-12-21-athletes-sexual-assault_x.htm


Of those 168 allegations, involving 164 athletes, only 22 saw their cases go to trial, and only six cases resulted in convictions. In another 46 cases, a plea agreement was reached. Combined with the six athletes convicted at trial and one who pleaded guilty as charged

Batman
04-14-2009, 08:11 PM
No it isn't. Obviously that's a ridiculous position.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that's how the law works. An "accused rapist" is as innocent as a petty thief, and adding that to my statement is merely inflammatory.

In this instance, the prosecution dropped the case. There isn't enough proof to even form a case against him, which in my books, means that he probably didn't do anything wrong.

Therefore, he is innocent, and she is lying.

I never made any final statements about this case until after the prosecution made their decision. I was skeptical about her claim from the beginning, but I never called her a liar until the prosecution did, that is, until the prosecution dropped the case.

OJ was found not guilty. I guess using your logic, his wife's still alive. ;.)

JonO
04-14-2009, 08:17 PM
Ginkster88 - I think you're missing the point. Assuming he is guilty before being proven guilty is just as bad as assuming she is lying just because there is insufficient evidence to file charges.

Exiled said it best, and now I feel like :deadhorse:

So I will leave it here and hope you get what we are all say. The world really is more than just black and white...

ginkster88
04-14-2009, 08:26 PM
OJ was found not guilty. I guess using your logic, his wife's still alive. ;.)

You can't be serious. The prevailing attitude in this thread is that even though prosecution dropped the case due to insufficient evidence, he just might be guilty; for some of you, it seems that you think he is.

I don't want this to get out of hand, so I'm going to stop posting. PM me if you wish to continue this discussion, or are interested in reading any of the literature I have read that has contributed to my admittedly aggressive position. I don't mean to offend, but this is an issue on which I have strong opinions.

Batman
04-14-2009, 08:31 PM
I won't carry it on further. I just found your logic flawed. No Problem..we just disagree.

ginkster88
04-14-2009, 08:36 PM
Ginkster88 - I think you're missing the point. Assuming he is guilty before being proven guilty is just as bad as assuming she is lying just because there is insufficient evidence to file charges.

I didn't see this before I posted. I'm not missing the point, I know exactly what you are saying, and for a different set of circumstances I would agree with you all; believe it or not, I can see the apparent (in my eyes, anyway) logical fallacy in my position.

Here is why I think there is a difference: an assumption of guilt before proof does not take the evidence into account. An assumption that she lied (in this case) after the evidence has been deemed insufficient does.

Like I said, I don't want this to get out of hand. I have nothing against any of you guys and enjoy a healthy debate, and this is an issue that I have very strong opinions about. I apologize if I have offended anyone (and no, the rules of logic don't count :)).

JonO
04-14-2009, 08:57 PM
Although I said I wouldn't I'm back...

Assuming I shoplift a chocolate from a store (no cctv) and the store owner calls the cops. By the time the cops show up I have eaten the chocolate and disposed of the wrapper. Since there are no witnesses and no evidence, the cops don't charge me. How does this make the shopkeeper a liar?

Nobody is saying that the alleged victim in this case is absolutely telling the truth. It's just disingenuous to assume she is lying.

But now I am really done....

dupont
04-15-2009, 12:15 AM
An "accused rapist" is as innocent as a petty thief

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://www.neogaf.com/forum/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://www.neogaf.com/forum/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Dale_Rojo
04-15-2009, 12:25 AM
Hey Carter, eat that buddy! I don't forget ignorant posts like yours. Some people on these boards should be ashamed based on some of the comments I saw.

dude dont sweat over a known douche ;):D.......

Dale_Rojo
04-15-2009, 12:27 AM
Although I said I wouldn't I'm back...

Assuming I shoplift a chocolate from a store (no cctv) and the store owner calls the cops. By the time the cops show up I have eaten the chocolate and disposed of the wrapper. Since there are no witnesses and no evidence, the cops don't charge me. How does this make the shopkeeper a liar?

Nobody is saying that the alleged victim in this case is absolutely telling the truth. It's just disingenuous to assume she is lying.

But now I am really done....

you just like to hate on south americans ffs....

s2cazz
04-15-2009, 12:32 AM
I didn't see this before I posted. I'm not missing the point, I know exactly what you are saying, and for a different set of circumstances I would agree with you all; believe it or not, I can see the apparent (in my eyes, anyway) logical fallacy in my position.

Here is why I think there is a difference: an assumption of guilt before proof does not take the evidence into account. An assumption that she lied (in this case) after the evidence has been deemed insufficient does.

Like I said, I don't want this to get out of hand. I have nothing against any of you guys and enjoy a healthy debate, and this is an issue that I have very strong opinions about. I apologize if I have offended anyone (and no, the rules of logic don't count :)).
I have to agree with you... Evidence was considered. It was considered to be insufficient to even prosecute...therefore he is innocent like it or not... calling her a liar without proof that she lied is not right though either.

That is where these cases get complicated... Innocent until proven guilty is the only way to prevent these things into becoming Salem witch hunts. If the burden of proof was on the accused women could get away with lying and ruining someones life. For instance... she got drunk... dropped her panties... sobered up and felt like a columbus whore..... every one knew she whored herself out but no one saw what happened behind closed doors so in order to save face she accuses the guy of rape and because he can't prove he's innocent he's a liar... thats not right and that is why the burden of proof is on the acuser and the prosecution...

lots of times it works the other way around but the potential for accusations getting out of hand and turning into witch hunts is far greater with a guilty until proven innocent attitude and this is why its done the way it is...

troy1982
04-15-2009, 02:25 AM
Since the girls and her family went to the media and made this a media story, I would like there identities to be known to the public since charges were now dropped, just like Montero's was spread across the newspapers without any charges.

Calvin
04-15-2009, 02:50 AM
not really sure how to respond to this...

Basically your position is that an accused rapist is innocent until proven guilty and his victim is lying until proven to be telling the truth... :noidea:

dont worry, i think his display pic sums up why he is so confused.

TheDude
04-15-2009, 05:49 AM
He can't be proven guilty, so he's innocent.
ever hear of witness intimidation? legal technicality? there's plenty of ways that guilty people can side-step the law

Oldtimer
04-15-2009, 07:48 AM
I guess Montero is over the "flu" now.

Shows that one shouldn't declare him guilty unless it is proven.

Atheletes get accused all the time. Sometimes it is just someone out for some cash.

Pachuco
04-15-2009, 09:05 AM
Montero is absolutely innocent until he's charged and found guilty. Let's not forget he was never even arrested. The girl, welll she's innocent too, unless she's arrested/charged and found guilty later on.

I won't even comment on whether she lied or not, it's not like any of us would know.

Steve
04-15-2009, 10:07 AM
No hypocrisy. He's innocent, therefore she lied. If there were any case here at all he would be tried, for sure. And if he were guilty I would hope that he be prosecuted as strongly as possible.

No, that's not the way it works. I mean, I understand how you can believe that, with a simple logical exercise:

If A(Montero did not rape her) then B(She lied)
In our system of law, A must be assumed until proven otherwise
Therefore B must also be assumed

But let's take a much worse scenario, and apply it to the same rule of law. 3 men are in a house, man A, B, and C. Man C is brutally murdered. There is no way anyone other than man A or B did it. In our system of law this is what it looks like:

If not A, than B
If not B, than A
Not A must be assumed (innocent until proven otherwise)
Therefore, B
But, at the same time, not B must be assumed
Therefore, A

So, essentially, you can have two people, in an either/or situation, and have to assume both are innocent.

Of course, if Montero wanted to (I'm not sure of the appropriate laws here) he might be able to bring a suit against the girl. If he could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she was lying, he might be able to collect damages for defamation (since the girl went to the press, and Montero could justly argue that her statements have, or will impact his future earnings). Of course, he would need to prove her specific statements to be untruthful, which may be difficult. In that situation, people would be right to label her a lying _____.

But, in the absense of such a suit, both must be considered innocent of wrong doing, as silly as that sounds.

Oldtimer
04-15-2009, 01:36 PM
Seattle news suggests that the club lied about why he stayed back when the team played in T.O.:


On the day of his arrest, police asked that Montero voluntarily surrender his passport as a sign of "good faith" that he wouldn't flee during the investigation, according to a Bellevue police. That prevented him from traveling with the team to Canada for its April 4 game in Toronto. The club repeatedly said the reason he missed the trip was solely due to illness (http://www.seattlepi.com/soccer/404574_montero02.html).

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405164_prosecutors15.html

Pachuco
04-15-2009, 02:00 PM
Seattle news suggests that the club lied about why he stayed back when the team played in T.O.:



http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405164_prosecutors15.html

Now Seattle should be prosectuted for being liers :)

ExiledRed
04-15-2009, 02:20 PM
Since the girls and her family went to the media and made this a media story, I would like there identities to be known to the public since charges were now dropped, just like Montero's was spread across the newspapers without any charges.

If that happened, genuine rape victims would be more afraid to report their ordeals to the police, on the risk that a failed prosecution would automatically make them into the villains.

The better solution is to make it illegal to report the names and identities of people accused of sexual assaults, prior to their conviction.

troy1982
04-15-2009, 05:41 PM
If that happened, genuine rape victims would be more afraid to report their ordeals to the police, on the risk that a failed prosecution would automatically make them into the villains.

The better solution is to make it illegal to report the names and identities of people accused of sexual assaults, prior to their conviction.

I agree,in this case the names weren't public untill the girls family decided to go to the press with it, that's why i wish there names are also release.

jloome
04-16-2009, 06:44 PM
The whole world should know who she is. Lying... well I'm not going to let my mouth get me in trouble...

That's pretty ignorant. You have no idea whether she was lying. In fact, all we know is that he was accused of something but wasn't charged.

That doesn't equate to innocence or guilt on either party, it equates to 'we don't know, so should shut the fuck up with the judgments.'

jloome
04-16-2009, 06:45 PM
If that happened, genuine rape victims would be more afraid to report their ordeals to the police, on the risk that a failed prosecution would automatically make them into the villains.

The better solution is to make it illegal to report the names and identities of people accused of sexual assaults, prior to their conviction.

Which is how the law works in Britain now, and it's working very well.