tOfficial "Jameis Winston" Superthread

[The Authority]

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.

I think its you who is living in a naive world if you think its not possible that he raped her.

 

[The Authority]

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.

so one guy gets to make that decision. Wow, one person's opinion or agenda or whatever influences he may have gets to decide. I realize thats how it works and its his job, there is no guarantee he was correct or did the right thing, or that it was on the up and up.


I think a grand jury would be a better way to decide guilt or innocents . Especially sense their have been trials with less evidence.

If every r*pe trial had to have a "smoking gun" then there would be a precedent but that hasn't been the case over time.

 

[Runeman]

When did this trial change from a civil suit to a criminal trial? Seems to me in a civil suit, anybody can sue anybody and no one has to prove a thing. If the jury feels the victim is due money, then they award money. No one goes to prison. Probably better for the victim if she gets several million dollars to help put her life back together......providing she was raped. I have no way of knowing one way or another and have no ax to grind here.

 

[HizzleRocker]

so one guy gets to make that decision. Wow, one person's opinion or agenda or whatever influences he may have gets to decide. I realize thats how it works and its his job, there is no guarantee he was correct or did the right thing, or that it was on the up and up.


I think a grand jury would be a better way to decide guilt or innocents . Especially sense their have been trials with less evidence.

If every r*pe trial had to have a "smoking gun" then there would be a precedent but that hasn't been the case over time.

You are really showing your ignorance of the judicial system.

1) A Grand Jury does not decided guilt or innocence. It is purely an accusing body;
2) A Grand Jury does not even hear the Defendant's side of the story. The ONLY thing a grand jury hears is the State's evidence. After hearing 1 side of the story and reading the reports - that and that only - they then decide whether or not the case should be bound over for trial or not. Guilt or Innocence has nothing to do with it.
3) A Grand Jury is ONLY used in Florida for Capital Murder crimes.


** You should really stop now. You are over your head.

 

[The Authority]

You are really showing your ignorance of the judicial system.

1) A Grand Jury does not decided guilt or innocence. It is purely an accusing body;
2) A Grand Jury does not even hear the Defendant's side of the story. The ONLY thing a grand jury hears is the State's evidence. After hearing 1 side of the story and reading the reports - that and that only - they then decide whether or not the case should be bound over for trial or not. Guilt or Innocence has nothing to do with it.
3) A Grand Jury is ONLY used in Florida for Capital Murder crimes.


** You should really stop now. You are over your head.

I meant a jury trial should decide.

 

[Steelboy84]

I understand the law just fine.

I think a grand jury would be a better way to decide guilt or innocents . Especially sense their have been trials with less evidence.

[/QUOTE]


Riiiiight.................. :rollseyes:

This is not going to trial no matter how much you lobby for it. You need to familiarize yourself with rights of the accused.

A not guilty verdict (even if it had gone to trial) still would not satisfy you. You claim he would have gotten off if found not guilty, but that wouldnt be good enough and you'd still disagree with it. You've already decided that he did it no matter what.

You need to call Tallahassee authorities if u want more to be done because whining on here wont change anything. Acting like a "Sportshoopla detective" is not helping you.

 

[smilesid]

Boy, lot's of people don't get it.

First, the Prosecutor has already announced that charges won't be filed. What part of this are people not understanding? So, if the accuser wants to move forward, it will be in a civil action.

Keep in mind, even though OJ walked in the criminal trial, he got run up the flag pole in the succeeding civil suit. The standard of proof is different in a civil case, preponderance of evidence instead of "beyond reasonable doubt." Besides, neither FSU or Winston want a messy civil trial in which lots of seamy evidence gets aired in public. But apparently, the American public MUST have a salacious sex trial going on all the time.

Otherwise, Fox News would be out of business, and they'd have to lay off all of those info babes with the low fitting sweaters. Here's one, there are 50 or so more of them:

Yes, I predict that this one will be a problem. FSU has a tough choice, quietly pay off the accuser or have Megyn Kelly broadcasting live from Tallahassee.

 

[LawDawg]

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.

Sorry if this has been discussed, but I don't have time to read the whole thread.

Fortunately, this is why we have prosecutors. Their job is to evaluate all the evidence that they can obtain from any and all parties, and then determine the likelihood of being able to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt." If the prosecutor doesn't believe they can do that, they have an ethical obligation to not prosecute that case. Now, they may seek lesser charges or some type of plea agreement. But, it would not be in the best interest of justice to bring a case they know they can't win. That doesn't mean that they know they will win the case in order to bring it. But, there job is to make these types of evaluations and then do what is in the best interest of all parties.

The fact that they found his DNA would not in any way prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a r*pe occurred. Obviously, the DNA could be present because they was consensual intercourse.

In the civil trial, the standard is a "preponderance of the evidence" which means if they believe that he did r*pe her with a 50.01% or higher certainty, they can find him liable for damages. Best example of this is OJ Simpson.

 

[LawDawg]

Boy, lot's of people don't get it.

First, the Prosecutor has already announced that charges won't be filed. What part of this are people not understanding? So, if the accuser wants to move forward, it will be in a civil action.

Keep in mind, even though OJ walked in the criminal trial, he got run up the flag pole in the succeeding civil suit. The standard of proof is different in a civil case, preponderance of evidence instead of "beyond reasonable doubt." Besides, neither FSU or Winston want a messy civil trial in which lots of seamy evidence gets aired in public. But apparently, the American public MUST have a salacious sex trial going on all the time.

Otherwise, Fox News would be out of business, and they'd have to lay off all of those info babes with the low fitting sweaters. Here's one, there are 50 or so more of them:

Yes, I predict that this one will be a problem. FSU has a tough choice, quietly pay off the accuser or have Megyn Kelly broadcasting live from Tallahassee.

Why would FSU pay any thing? Actually, they would be prohibited from paying anything on Winston's behalf, and I don't see where they are going to be sued.

This won't go anywhere. This is damage control.

 

[smilesid]

Why would FSU pay any thing? Actually, they would be prohibited from paying anything on Winston's behalf, and I don't see where they are going to be sued.

This won't go anywhere. This is damage control.

Dawg,
You make good points, and we, gasp, actually agree on this one. (That would be Fox News worthy right there).

As you know, in civil suits, many accusers use the shotgun approach, sue anyone and everyone, hoping that charges stick on someone. The idea is to find the deep pockets. If Winston was some poor college student, even if they got a judgement, no big deal, he doesn't have the money to pay. But Winston is a Heisman winner, and will probably have lots of money one day. Besides, the accuser will no doubt name the police, the university, campus security, dormitory supervisors, friends, deans, classmates, local officials, and anyone else that could be potentially involved in a cover up. The crime? By now, it's "he said, she said." But the motivation in a civil suit is to have the cloud of very nasty details hanging over a lot of prominent heads. None of them want Megyn Kelly or Nancy Grace doing a George Zimmerman or OJ style trial for six weeks in which all kinds of filthy stuff gets aired.

Remember, it isn't the actual crime that will cost Winston or FSU. It's the potential cover up. But your analysis might also be true. The point is that the attorneys will look for a pay day out of it. And the media will eat that up.

 

[Sportsguy9695]

Florida State quarterback Jameis Winston says Seminoles coach Jimbo Fisher was on the money when he said that the Heisman winner might play two more years of college football.

Winston told The Associated Press on Thursday that's indeed his plan.

The redshirt freshman said he and Fisher -- who said Wednesday while talking about the Seminoles' recruiting class that the QB will be in Tallahassee two more years -- have a good relationship, "so whatever he says most likely is true."

"Obviously I'm a big baseball person, so that's an accurate statement because I plan on playing baseball next season anyway," said Winston, who is expected to be Florida State's closer this season.

Source: ESPN

 

[outofyourmind]

That is such bullshit.
As soon as the guy can leave for the NFL, he's gone.
and that's after next year.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I don't know how good he is at baseball but if he can make to the pros as a closer that is a hell of a lot more healthy than playing QB in the NFL. I always thought Charlie Ward made the right decision to play basketball and every morning he gets out of bed he probably thinks so too.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

In other news....


Every single player who will play college sports, played college sports, or is thinking about playing college sports promises to stay as well.


If he had said anything else, it would be shocking.


How is this a story??

 

[cane_man]

Hes a pretty great baseball player. That said, yes he surely will turn down a top spot in the draft to prove......BWAHAAAAHAAA, I cant even finish typing that.

 

[nolehusker]

I call bullshit, but I hope it's true.

 

[Steelboy84]

I doubt it. After another year he would have nothing left to prove.

 

[lilchi721]

If he's a high draft pick he's gone.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Shoot if there were a two year out of HS eligibility for the NFL draft he would be a Houston Texas coming up here shortly.

 

[757Hokie83]

I doubt he stays, but if he does, I hope he stays healthy