looks like hes in the clear... Now he can concentrate on scoring
more goals..
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405126_Montero15.html
montero cleared of all charges..
looks like hes in the clear... Now he can concentrate on scoring
more goals..
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405126_Montero15.html
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.
Originally Posted by Pachuco
and nobody forgets ones like yours, its a 2 way street chief
dude dont sweat over a known douche.......
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...
Follow me...... https://twitter.com/#!/aGeRoO76
"Just like JDG. It wasn't a post-and-in shot, but JDG is smart & experienced" - Carts
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
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.
Not his stats, stats on athletes getting charged with rape and the conviction rate is extremely low.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2003-...-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
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.'
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?
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?
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.
ever hear of witness intimidation? legal technicality? there's plenty of ways that guilty people can side-step the law
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.
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...
dont worry, i think his display pic sums up why he is so confused.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...
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.
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.
I would definitely agree with that.
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.
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.
I can't believe I'm getting involved in this thread....but
when the verdict is read.....is it "not guilty" or "innocent"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote