- Joined
- Dec 9, 2018
- Messages
- 3,623
- Reaction score
- 8,007
My god, you should be ashamed of yourself.Enjoy your dubs or ban
Sensitive on a god dam MMA forum.
My god, you should be ashamed of yourself.Enjoy your dubs or ban
I think so, but it's okay if you disagree.Does it, though?
Exactly, it’s tough to put stock in him, until we see how he reacts to getting hit in when tired. Once we figure out how that goes with him, then we will know his ceiling. Well said.Well, usually these are the type of guys that don't like to be hit.
It is all good in practice until you are being punched in the middle of the octagon.
Why are you so sure you can say this? The prosecutor said that conflicting versions of what went down were given to them. Calling someone a rapist isn’t something you can just call someone liberally.Hes a scumbag rapist
why are you spelling your own name wrong?Enjoy your dubs or ban
To my memory, that isn't quite what was said, but that there was an unfortunate conflicting of the legality of consent in their specific district. For some reason, they had it so that voluntary consumption of alcohol/drugs basically invalidates the idea that inebriation impairs a person's ability to consent, and that was a large reason they didn't have the discretion to press charges, despite that being a pretty set legal premise in many other places, including neighboring districts, and was later rightfully repealed in this district.Why are you so sure you can say this? The prosecutor said that conflicting versions of what went down were given to them. Calling someone a rapist isn’t something you can just call someone liberally.
“Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman told reporters Friday that all criminal cases, including sexual assault crimes, must meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.To my memory, that isn't quite what was said, but that there was an unfortunate conflicting of the legality of consent in their specific district. For some reason, they had it so that voluntary consumption of alcohol/drugs basically invalidates the idea that inebriation impairs a person's ability to consent, and that was a large reason they didn't have the discretion to press charges, despite that being a pretty set legal premise in many other places, including neighboring districts, and was later rightfully repealed in this district.
So from the legal definition, he isn't, because the law just wasn't there. But from what people understand rape is, yeah it's possible to call him that.
To my memory, that isn't quite what was said, but that there was an unfortunate conflicting of the legality of consent in their specific district. For some reason, they had it so that voluntary consumption of alcohol/drugs basically invalidates the idea that inebriation impairs a person's ability to consent, and that was a large reason they didn't have the discretion to press charges, despite that being a pretty set legal premise in many other places, including neighboring districts, and was later rightfully repealed in this district.
So from the legal definition, he isn't, because the law just wasn't there. But from what people understand rape is, yeah it's possible to call him that.
“Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman told reporters Friday that all criminal cases, including sexual assault crimes, must meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
“There are often conflicting versions of what happened and this case is no exception,” he said. “In the interest of justice, there is inadequate evidence to fairly charge and prosecute this case.”
He provided few details, saying his office doesn’t believe in re-victimizing the victim and that, “We appreciate her bravery in reporting this incident to police.”
Freeman also hinted that alcohol may have been involved, saying that under Minnesota’s current laws on intoxication and a victim’s ability to give consent, his office was restricted in how it could bring charges in the case.”
That’s according to espn. [https://www.espn.com/college-sports...ges-2-minnesota-wrestlers-alleged-sex-assault
People got hung up on the alcohol aspect of things, but for some reason leave out the prosecutor saying inconsistencies in the story existed. To just say he’s a rapist is a bit much.
We didLol, we posted the same thing.
With all due respect, it would be much more fair to say you got hung up on the "conflicting versions" bit, since that's what you said instead of "inadequate evidence," which would be a much more fair excuse of charges not moving forward. I mean, the prosecutor notes that it's normal to have conflicting versions. One of the reasons they can't get evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" is because the law in that district has a higher reasonable doubt because of the loophole provided. The article points out that he gave "few details" but did go out of his way to say how his office was restricted by the law in pressing charges and how he'd been pushing to change it for a while. That's pretty specific in terms of what details affect this case's prosecution. Pointing that out is not getting "hung up" at all.“Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman told reporters Friday that all criminal cases, including sexual assault crimes, must meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
“There are often conflicting versions of what happened and this case is no exception,” he said. “In the interest of justice, there is inadequate evidence to fairly charge and prosecute this case.”
He provided few details, saying his office doesn’t believe in re-victimizing the victim and that, “We appreciate her bravery in reporting this incident to police.”
Freeman also hinted that alcohol may have been involved, saying that under Minnesota’s current laws on intoxication and a victim’s ability to give consent, his office was restricted in how it could bring charges in the case.”
That’s according to apnews. https://apnews.com/general-news-1221944d273eb2cdb0d285de3d665b3f?utm_source=chatgpt.com
People got hung up on the alcohol aspect of things, but for some reason leave out the prosecutor saying inconsistencies in the story existed. To just say he’s a rapist is a bit much.
I did say "it's possible," not "it is," but look what happens when a different part of the sentence is boldes.It is a he said/she said. I'm not sure anyone can decide who is telling the truth and who is lying in a case like this. Unfortunately there are cases in existence where women have lied, just out and out lied. It is also unfortunate that some men can't leave women in peace and more often than not are guilty of that which they were accused. I've got no idea what went down, and neither does anyone else, other than those directly involved.
Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman told reporters Friday that all criminal cases, including sexual assault crimes, must meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
"There are often conflicting versions of what happened and this case is no exception," he said. "In the interest of justice, there is inadequate evidence to fairly charge and prosecute this case."
I did say "it's possible," not "it is," but look what happens when a different part of the sentence is boldes.
"There are often conflicting versions of what happened and this case is no exception."
'Conflicting versions' don't make this case any weaker than any other case. It is the standard.
What is not standard is the law they were operating under, which they had to change soon after. After that, it's basically impossible for them to inspect the depth of he/she said