montero cleared of all charges..

[Dale_Rojo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[TheDude]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/local/40516...ecutors15.html

[Pachuco]

Seattle news suggests that the club lied about why he stayed back when the team played in T.O.:



http://www.seattlepi.com/local/40516...ecutors15.html

Now Seattle should be prosectuted for being liers

[ExiledRed]

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]

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]

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]

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.