tOfficial "Jameis Winston" Superthread

[nolehusker]

It eliminates a lot of your so called conspiracy theories that most of you apologists keep trying to come up with.

First, way to deflect. This wasn't just about this case. According to you, people not know each other should be part of a reason to go to trial, but stats show that the overwhelming majority of r*pe victims know their rapist. The Offenders | RAINN | r*pe, Abuse and ince$t National Network. That goes against the reasoning you said to go to trial. But still, whether they knew or don't know each other should have no bearing on whether this should go to trial.

Second, what conspiracy theories? I only gave an opinion on what happened and if anything it actually helps my opinion.

Third, how in the hell am I an apologist? Your anti-american for thinking that people should go to trial with out sufficient evidence to bring them up on charges.

 

[FSUmanager]

The trial is the chance to prove guilt on the one she accused

You have to be able to prove the elements of the crime. This is not that difficult to understand. The SAO could not meet the criteria for FL law which is "Reasonable Likelihood of Conviction" which is a higher version of probable cause. Without supporting facts to meet that there can be NO TRIAL. That is the FL law. If you do not like that either move to FL, become a politician to change it, or stop stating the same thing over and over. Those are your options.

 

[FSUmanager]

Gee, he has to be innocent then.

Did I state that? Man you are really something trying to find anything that could possibly insult someone. I was posting a fact. Her attorney said in her presser that his two witnesses were lying so why not go after them too? Answer the question for once and not try to deflect.

 

[nolehusker]

Gee, he has to be innocent then.

You keep confusing evidence against with proving he's innocent. Again, red herring. He had 2 witnesses that backed up his story. That's still evidence whether you believe them or not. It doesn't mean he's innocent. It just means it's harder to prove a crime was committed.

 

[nolehusker]

Did I state that? Man you are really something trying to find anything that could possibly insult someone. I was posting a fact. Her attorney said in her presser that his two witnesses were lying so why not go after them too? Answer the question for once and not try to deflect.

I think it's time we give up on this ignorant dude. He obviously doesn't understand the law and is unwilling to actually think. Either that or he was doing a great job at trolling.

 

[The Authority]

First, way to deflect. This wasn't just about this case. According to you, people not know each other should be part of a reason to go to trial, but stats show that the overwhelming majority of r*pe victims know their rapist. The Offenders | RAINN | r*pe, Abuse and ince$t National Network. That goes against the reasoning you said to go to trial. But still, whether they knew or don't know each other should have no bearing on whether this should go to trial.

Second, what conspiracy theories? I only gave an opinion on what happened and if anything it actually helps my opinion.

Third, how in the hell am I an apologist? Your anti-american for thinking that people should go to trial with out sufficient evidence to bring them up on charges.

My point the entire time is that its hard to come up with effecient evidence for all rapes. She accused him the night of, they found his DNA and that is why it should go to trial.

You act like people get accused of r*pe every day and they are 90% false reports.

 

[The Authority]

You have to be able to prove the elements of the crime. This is not that difficult to understand. The SAO could not meet the criteria for FL law which is "Reasonable Likelihood of Conviction" which is a higher version of probable cause. Without supporting facts to meet that there can be NO TRIAL. That is the FL law. If you do not like that either move to FL, become a politician to change it, or stop stating the same thing over and over. Those are your options.

and that is where the Bull shit lies.

 

[The Authority]

Did I state that? Man you are really something trying to find anything that could possibly insult someone. I was posting a fact. Her attorney said in her presser that his two witnesses were lying so why not go after them too? Answer the question for once and not try to deflect.

you are eluding to it.

 

[The Authority]

You keep confusing evidence against with proving he's innocent. Again, red herring. He had 2 witnesses that backed up his story. That's still evidence whether you believe them or not. It doesn't mean he's innocent. It just means it's harder to prove a crime was committed.

Were any of these witnesses under Oath?

Yet another reason for a trial.

 

[nolehusker]

My point the entire time is that its hard to come up with effecient evidence for all rapes. She accused him the night of, they found his DNA and that is why it should go to trial.

You act like people get accused of r*pe every day and they are 90% false reports.

No, I'm acting like a reasonable person and think r*pe should be held to the standard of every other crime. You on the other hand keep thinking things are so simple and that piece of evidence means he should go to trial without actually questioning things. It's also really hard to prove if someone stole something unless you catch them red handed. According to you, just having their DNA and an accusation means they should be brought up on charges. It doesn't work that way because people have to look at everything in the situation.

No one is saying it's not hard to prove, but you have to do it. Just because it's hard to prove doesn't mean that she be justification for going to trial.

 

[The Authority]

I think it's time we give up on this ignorant dude. He obviously doesn't understand the law and is unwilling to actually think. Either that or he was doing a great job at trolling.

I feel there is enough evidence to have a trial since they have had trials with less evidence.

I understand the law just fine.

 

[The Authority]

No, I'm acting like a reasonable person and think r*pe should be held to the standard of every other crime. You on the other hand keep thinking things are so simple and that piece of evidence means he should go to trial without actually questioning things. It's also really hard to prove if someone stole something unless you catch them red handed. According to you, just having their DNA and an accusation means they should be brought up on charges. It doesn't work that way because people have to look at everything in the situation.

No one is saying it's not hard to prove, but you have to do it. Just because it's hard to prove doesn't mean that she be justification for going to trial.

and I am saying when you have DNA you have part of the evidence.

If there was no DNA I might agree for no trial.

How many false reports of r*pe with DNA do you think that DA gets in a year?

 

[The Authority]

No one is saying it's not hard to prove, but you have to do it.

Once again.

A perfect reason for a trial. Accuser didn't even get that chance.

 

[nolehusker]

and I am saying when you have DNA you have part of the evidence.

If there was no DNA I might agree for no trial.

How many false reports of r*pe with DNA do you think that DA gets in a year?

Am DNA, by itself, along with an accusation isn't enough to go to trial, whether you think so or not.

False reports have nothing to do with this. It's about due process. You have to treat all crimes with the same standard when it comes to pressing charges. Also, just because they are rarely reported doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And I bet it happens a lot more than you think.

Also, you still have yet to address the other scenarios I have given you. You just seem to "forget" to comment on them.

I feel there is enough evidence to have a trial since they have had trials with less evidence.

I understand the law just fine.

And again, just because it was done in the past doesn't make it right. Those cases shouldn't have happened and a lot can be said about that because a lot of those people are getting their convictions over turned and released because of that. That is one of the main reasons of the innocence project. Look it up.

I'm done with you. You have no fucking clue about the judicial system and obviously fair treatment. You use no logic. You think r*pe is so bad, that people should just be put on trial and have their named dragged through the mud even if their is no evidence to back it up. DNA doesn't prove anything. It just proves they had sex.

 

[TigerBait1971]

 

[The Authority]

Am DNA, by itself, along with an accusation isn't enough to go to trial, whether you think so or not.

There have been trials without DNA so you are wrong.

False reports have nothing to do with this. It's about due process. You have to treat all crimes with the same standard when it comes to pressing charges. Also, just because they are rarely reported doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And I bet it happens a lot more than you think.

Again there have been r*pe trials with no DNA

And again, just because it was done in the past doesn't make it right. Those cases shouldn't have happened and a lot can be said about that because a lot of those people are getting their convictions over turned and released because of that. That is one of the main reasons of the innocence project. Look it up.

It doesn't mean they should avoid trials either.

I'm done with you. You have no fucking clue about the judicial system and obviously fair treatment. You use no logic. You think r*pe is so bad, that people should just be put on trial and have their named dragged through the mud even if their is no evidence to back it up. DNA doesn't prove anything. It just proves they had sex.

I have used nothing but logic. There was evidence. DNA idiot. It doesn't prove he raped her but it does prove something. That is what the trial is for to sort it all out and find out if he is guilty.

You want every rapist to walk if they don't have a smoking gun.

 

[starbigd]

I don't think you really understand the judicial system one iota.

NO lead prosecutor is taking ANY case to trial if he does not think he can win. It's a waste of taxpayer funds. If the SA did not believe there was enough evidence to convict, it is HIS JOB not to prosecute. This is written in plain english in his job description.

So unless YOU have new evidence, in the opinion of the SA, there was not enough to merit a trial.

YOU keep trying to force a trial, because as I've said before, it's obvious to everyone here you believe he's guilty, and will make any argument to support your assumption.

 

[The Authority]

I don't think you really understand the judicial system one iota.

NO lead prosecutor is taking ANY case to trial if he does not think he can win. It's a waste of taxpayer funds. If the SA did not believe there was enough evidence to convict, it is HIS JOB not to prosecute. This is written in plain english in his job description.

And that is where I find a bunch of bull shit.

YOU keep trying to force a trial, because as I've said before, it's obvious to everyone here you believe he's guilty, and will make any argument to support your assumption.

I just believe that he could be guilty and feel that a trial would tell us all one way or the other.

 

[starbigd]

And that is where I find a bunch of bull shit.




I just believe that he could be guilty and feel that a trial would tell us all one way or the other.

And this is how you've proven you don't understand the judicial system.

The SA's job is to decide to prosecute and assign attorneys to the case only if they think they can get a conviction. It's pretty simple, really.

But continue to argue and expose your ignorance, that's up to you.

 

[HizzleRocker]

If he is innocent he would get off. Thats what trials are for.

Is that why literally hundreds of people who spent decades of years in prison for crimes they did not commit are now getting released by Innocence Projects???

You must live in a very naive world my man. That is precisely why prosecutors have a duty to exercise discretion before charging.

You seem to think the standard is any accusation + any amount of supporting evidence should = filing charges. WRONG! Sure some over zealous prosecutors may do that in some places, but that is not what their ethical or moral duties are. They look at all of the evidence in total and decide whether there is enough to make a case on or not. In this case MULTIPLE people looked at it. From the police, to investigators, to multiple state attorneys - they all said the same thing. We can't make this case; We are not going forward. That duty also binds them in one other way: Where defense attorneys can represent someone they think is guilty - Prosecutors CANNOT prosecute someone they think is innocent. They can lose their Bar License for doing so.