looks like hes in the clear... Now he can concentrate on scoring
more goals..
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405126_Montero15.html
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.
NOT surprising at all. The woman will get away scott-free as well. Despicable.
Follow me...... https://twitter.com/#!/aGeRoO76
"Just like JDG. It wasn't a post-and-in shot, but JDG is smart & experienced" - Carts
laaaaaaad yea I called it LOL based on stats and all. Ah well he only missed one game. It was worse for Kobe.
The whole world should know who she is. Lying... well I'm not going to let my mouth get me in trouble...
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
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 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 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.
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.
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 can't believe I'm getting involved in this thread....but
when the verdict is read.....is it "not guilty" or "innocent"
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
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
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...
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.
I won't carry it on further. I just found your logic flawed. No Problem..we just disagree.
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 ).
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....