LT I arrested in alleged rape (2 Viewers)

[Koya]

here is what ESPN saysolice said Davis drove the girl, who had been staying with him in the Bronx for a few weeks, to the Holiday Inn Suffern, in Montebello, and told her she had to have sex with Taylor. She said she refused, Taylor sexually assaulted her, then he paid her $300, which she gave to Davis, police said.Davis "struck the young girl with his fist, kicked her and brought her to the Holiday Inn against her will," NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said.On the way back from Suffern, the girl sent text messages to her uncle spelling out what had happened, Browne said. The uncle then went to the NYPD, he said.

OOF. If that is indeed the case, I have nothing positive to say about LT in this instance. That would be rape, through and through - no misunderstandings or slights of legalities and he should get what's coming to him.

 

[greggorymac]

In my opinion, moral or immoral, lawful or unlawful, did LT force this girl to have sex with him? Even though he contracted services to do so. Just for a minute, let's assume she was of age (say 17) and she willingly went there for the promise of being paid $300-$400 or whatever. Assume, he was a relative gentleman and talked with her and then engaged in sex with her.

What's wrong with any of that? Nothing in my opinion. It just smells of pimp daddy realizing it's LT and he's looking for a big payday and all kinds of media coverage. Once again, our society is being lead around by the nose by the media to castigate and condemn celebrities.

I think the pimp has everything to lose and nothing to gain by making this public.

How so? If she receives a cash settlement, you don't think he's going to want his cut later? If he doesn't get his cut, she'll get cut.

 

[Tom Servo]

In my opinion, moral or immoral, lawful or unlawful, did LT force this girl to have sex with him? Even though he contracted services to do so. Just for a minute, let's assume she was of age (say 17) and she willingly went there for the promise of being paid $300-$400 or whatever. Assume, he was a relative gentleman and talked with her and then engaged in sex with her.

What's wrong with any of that? Nothing in my opinion. It just smells of pimp daddy realizing it's LT and he's looking for a big payday and all kinds of media coverage. Once again, our society is being lead around by the nose by the media to castigate and condemn celebrities.

I think the pimp has everything to lose and nothing to gain by making this public.

How so? If she receives a cash settlement, you don't think he's going to want his cut later? If he doesn't get his cut, she'll get cut.

Read back a few posts...she can't ask the law to protect her when she was doing something illegal.

 

[greggorymac]

In my opinion, moral or immoral, lawful or unlawful, did LT force this girl to have sex with him? Even though he contracted services to do so. Just for a minute, let's assume she was of age (say 17) and she willingly went there for the promise of being paid $300-$400 or whatever. Assume, he was a relative gentleman and talked with her and then engaged in sex with her.

What's wrong with any of that? Nothing in my opinion. It just smells of pimp daddy realizing it's LT and he's looking for a big payday and all kinds of media coverage. Once again, our society is being lead around by the nose by the media to castigate and condemn celebrities.

I think the pimp has everything to lose and nothing to gain by making this public.

How so? If she receives a cash settlement, you don't think he's going to want his cut later? If he doesn't get his cut, she'll get cut.

Read back a few posts...she can't ask the law to protect her when she was doing something illegal.

Can't a guy make a word pun?

 

[Tom Servo]

In my opinion, moral or immoral, lawful or unlawful, did LT force this girl to have sex with him? Even though he contracted services to do so. Just for a minute, let's assume she was of age (say 17) and she willingly went there for the promise of being paid $300-$400 or whatever. Assume, he was a relative gentleman and talked with her and then engaged in sex with her.

What's wrong with any of that? Nothing in my opinion. It just smells of pimp daddy realizing it's LT and he's looking for a big payday and all kinds of media coverage. Once again, our society is being lead around by the nose by the media to castigate and condemn celebrities.

I think the pimp has everything to lose and nothing to gain by making this public.

How so? If she receives a cash settlement, you don't think he's going to want his cut later? If he doesn't get his cut, she'll get cut.

Read back a few posts...she can't ask the law to protect her when she was doing something illegal.

Can't a guy make a word pun?

 

[cstu]

Because I still work off of the assumption that she works willingly for the pimp because he helps her make money. I still work off of the assumption that all parties involved in this transaction were better off either emotionally or financially because of it. Otherwise, the deal would not have been made. Usually, that means that you don't call the cops after the transaction occurs.

Just sounds like a money grab to me unless he actually did physically assault and rape her.

Rad, listen. The girl called her uncle after the incident. The uncle most likely reported it. I doubt the 15-year-old girl knows who LT is and would recognize him. The pimp can't get any money directly out of this, only the girl herself would be able to do that. A court is not going to award the girl any money if she sues LT because she herself was engaged in illegal activity. It is called the doctrine of unclean hands; you can't ask a court to enforce the law for you while you were breaking the law. So please explain how this sounds like a money grab.

That's not true if she was forced to have sex with LT.

 

[jackdubl]

Because I still work off of the assumption that she works willingly for the pimp because he helps her make money. I still work off of the assumption that all parties involved in this transaction were better off either emotionally or financially because of it. Otherwise, the deal would not have been made. Usually, that means that you don't call the cops after the transaction occurs.

Just sounds like a money grab to me unless he actually did physically assault and rape her.

Rad, listen. The girl called her uncle after the incident. The uncle most likely reported it. I doubt the 15-year-old girl knows who LT is and would recognize him. The pimp can't get any money directly out of this, only the girl herself would be able to do that. A court is not going to award the girl any money if she sues LT because she herself was engaged in illegal activity. It is called the doctrine of unclean hands; you can't ask a court to enforce the law for you while you were breaking the law. So please explain how this sounds like a money grab.

That's not true if she was forced to have sex with LT.

That is true, except the story from the police so far is that LT had no part in any physical violence or intimidation. They say that the pimp punched her on the way to meet LT because she didn't want to do it, and that she then went ahead. So if the facts are what has been reported so far, she would have cause against the pimp, but not LT. Further, I don't see LT paying any hush money to just make it go away, as it is already public and his name was pretty much mud before this happened.

 

[cstu]

Because I still work off of the assumption that she works willingly for the pimp because he helps her make money. I still work off of the assumption that all parties involved in this transaction were better off either emotionally or financially because of it. Otherwise, the deal would not have been made. Usually, that means that you don't call the cops after the transaction occurs.

Just sounds like a money grab to me unless he actually did physically assault and rape her.

Rad, listen. The girl called her uncle after the incident. The uncle most likely reported it. I doubt the 15-year-old girl knows who LT is and would recognize him. The pimp can't get any money directly out of this, only the girl herself would be able to do that. A court is not going to award the girl any money if she sues LT because she herself was engaged in illegal activity. It is called the doctrine of unclean hands; you can't ask a court to enforce the law for you while you were breaking the law. So please explain how this sounds like a money grab.

That's not true if she was forced to have sex with LT.

That is true, except the story from the police so far is that LT had no part in any physical violence or intimidation. They say that the pimp punched her on the way to meet LT because she didn't want to do it, and that she then went ahead. So if the facts are what has been reported so far, she would have cause against the pimp, but not LT. Further, I don't see LT paying any hush money to just make it go away, as it is already public and his name was pretty much mud before this happened.

Even if LT no part in forcing her to do it, the argument can be made that because she was forced by her pimp against her will and did it out of self-preservation she has "clean hands".

 

[radballs]

Radball, please read post #84. Should address most of your concerns.

Cool, this additional information changes my stance substantially. There was never doubt he was a tool. I was only going off of, given the information that's out there, here's what a defense attorney or others questioning her story may be thinking (including myself originally).I have a 7 year old daughter so this kind of behavior on everyone's part involved in this story makes me sick. Still, I believe that everyone should have a constitutional right to the belief that someone is innocent until proven guilty. A lot more facts have come out since most of my previous posts so that helps clarify the picture.

 

[radballs]

Wait a minute. LT is feeling lonely while at a hotel and contacts the concierge about acquiring some female companionship. She arrives and provides said services. What's the problem here?

Fascinating stuff right here.She was 16, dude.

At the time I stated that (and I don't know if it's been shown yet), we did not know that LT knew she was that young.

 

[radballs]

Example, a high school male senior who's been dating another high school female senior for years (who are both 17), then have sex when the boy turns 18 (but she's still 17) is rape, right? Is it still rape if her 18th birthday occurred first? Are they both legal to have sex when they're both 17? Are they legal when they're both 18? So, if their birthdays are six months apart, they just have to go without sex until the other one catches up? What if both are boys or both are girls? What is lesbian sex? Does it have to include some kind of penetration? A little confused here.

Most state laws require you to be four years older or more for it to be statutory rape, even if one person is under 17 years old. They did that for exactly the types of situations you describe. But not everywhere has made that change yet. New York has, however. See post #7 - it says someone who is 21 or older having sex with someone under 17.

Thanks for the clarification there. So, a 21 year old supermodel piano teacher is a rapist when I get lucky a day before my 17th birthday. Wow.

Sure. They pick a place to draw lines. I'm sure there's room to quibble about where exactly the lines are drawn.And, in your example, you wouldn't report this to the police so nothing would ever happen.

Exactly. And, let's be clear...this girl is a month removed from being 15 years old...and LT is over 50 years old.Pretty slimy/scummy to be defending this.

See response above.

 

[radballs]

another view of this .......... if I'm reading it right, the girl was a runaway and working with a pimp as a prostitute.haven't we all grilled Big Ben over and over than instead of going to college bars to pick up chicks to just get a hooker or an escort service?isn't this what L.T. did? and c'mon, a 16 year old can look 22 in today's work, and nobody checks ID when you pay a few hundred bucks for an hour of funjust a different view - and that doesn't make it right, but IMO it aint rape like Ben did

she says it was, she says she said no and he assualted her

And .............We've heard this before in other cases where the girl was lying. Doesn't seem to be the case with many more details coming out in the last 12 hours.

 

[jackdubl]

Because I still work off of the assumption that she works willingly for the pimp because he helps her make money. I still work off of the assumption that all parties involved in this transaction were better off either emotionally or financially because of it. Otherwise, the deal would not have been made. Usually, that means that you don't call the cops after the transaction occurs.

Just sounds like a money grab to me unless he actually did physically assault and rape her.

Rad, listen. The girl called her uncle after the incident. The uncle most likely reported it. I doubt the 15-year-old girl knows who LT is and would recognize him. The pimp can't get any money directly out of this, only the girl herself would be able to do that. A court is not going to award the girl any money if she sues LT because she herself was engaged in illegal activity. It is called the doctrine of unclean hands; you can't ask a court to enforce the law for you while you were breaking the law. So please explain how this sounds like a money grab.

That's not true if she was forced to have sex with LT.

That is true, except the story from the police so far is that LT had no part in any physical violence or intimidation. They say that the pimp punched her on the way to meet LT because she didn't want to do it, and that she then went ahead. So if the facts are what has been reported so far, she would have cause against the pimp, but not LT. Further, I don't see LT paying any hush money to just make it go away, as it is already public and his name was pretty much mud before this happened.

Even if LT no part in forcing her to do it, the argument can be made that because she was forced by her pimp against her will and did it out of self-preservation she has "clean hands".

Right, she would have clean hands, but then she would be suing LT for sexual assault in a situation where she came to him as a prostitute who was paid for sex. Hard to commit sexual assault against a prostitute when all you do is have sex with her for money. That's kinda the idea. Now if LT knew or should have known she was underage, she may have something or she may not. But, as a prostitute, you can't sue a John for sexual assault if all he did was have sex for money. As far as LT was concerned, it would appear consensual so no civil liability.

 

[B-Deep]

another view of this .......... if I'm reading it right, the girl was a runaway and working with a pimp as a prostitute.haven't we all grilled Big Ben over and over than instead of going to college bars to pick up chicks to just get a hooker or an escort service?isn't this what L.T. did? and c'mon, a 16 year old can look 22 in today's work, and nobody checks ID when you pay a few hundred bucks for an hour of funjust a different view - and that doesn't make it right, but IMO it aint rape like Ben did

she says it was, she says she said no and he assualted her

And .............We've heard this before in other cases where the girl was lying. Doesn't seem to be the case with many more details coming out in the last 12 hours.

yeahIt is always best to assume the 16 year old girl beaten by a pimp is a liar, and the 50 year old guy who paid the pimp to have sex with her is clean as a whistle

 

[pollardsvision]

Odd story. Hard to know what to make of it until more evidence comes to light.

If LT was seeking some companionship and happened to come across a prostitute that looked older than she really was (and had consentual sex), not as big of a deal. It'd be nice if he was looking for someone more his age, but it's a far cry from what he's being charged with. Men wanting to go to bed with females around the age of 20 is nothing new.

If what's being alleged by the young lady is true, it's a horrible, horrible tragedy and LT/Davis should both rot away in a jail cell for the vast majority of the remainder of their lives.

I hope it's not true.

I think prostitution should be legal and, however this case turns out, it sounds like it'll be even more evidence of the merits of legal prostitution.

The MSNBC/ESPN articles said the young lady had been with Davis for 3 weeks and one would assume this isn't the first incident. I'm curious why this incident would be the one that caused her to text her uncle.

Oh, and scumbag or not, LT is LT. I find it a little annoying that it has to be clarified as "LT 1".

 

[B-Deep]

Odd story. Hard to know what to make of it until more evidence comes to light.

If LT was seeking some companionship and happened to come across a prostitute that looked older than she really was (and had consentual sex), not as big of a deal. It'd be nice if he was looking for someone more his age, but it's a far cry from what he's being charged with. Men wanting to go to bed with females around the age of 20 is nothing new.

If what's being alleged by the young lady is true, it's a horrible, horrible tragedy and LT/Davis should both rot away in a jail cell for the vast majority of the remainder of their lives.

I hope it's not true.

I think prostitution should be legal and, however this case turns out, it sounds like it'll be even more evidence of the merits of legal prostitution.

The MSNBC/ESPN articles said the young lady had been with Davis for 3 weeks and one would assume this isn't the first incident. I'm curious why this incident would be the one that caused her to text her uncle.

Oh, and scumbag or not, LT is LT. I find it a little annoying that it has to be clarified as "LT 1".

as I understand it according to the law it is not. If he had sex with her, he is pretty much guilty as she is 16.

 

[karmarooster]

Can one of the legal minds explain this to me:

Disclaimer: it appears that both LT and the pimp did something seriously terrible to this girl, so this question is not really about their situation exactly but more the idea of the law.

I'm wondering about this 3rd-degree rape, I've also heard it called statutory. ie it MUST be rape because a 16 year old is incapable of making an informed decision.

However, if this were a murder case, the DA would push for such a 16 year old to be tried as an adult, not a juvenile. There has been a strong push for that over the last few decades. I guess the logic is that a 16 year old is close enough to being an adult and wouldn't have enough time in juvee to rehabilitate him/herself.

I find these two doctrines at odds. On one hand, the 3rd degree/statutory law suggests that a 16 year old (95% of the time a female) has a brain so filled with mush that she is incapable of making a decision. almost like an infant. On the other hand, in murder cases, the law suggests that the 16 year old (95% of the time a male) is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions and suffer the consequences for the rest of his life.

on top of these screwy ideas, we allow 16 year old (males and females equally) to drive cars. A car is a loaded responsibility. In driving a car, you are essentially given the responsibility not to use it as a deadly weapon thru negligence. I would say that requires an adult mind to understand that if you are careless in driving, even for a few seconds, you can maim or kill any number of pedestrians, other drivers, and your own passengers.

Why does this make no sense?

 

[Kowskull]

Can one of the legal minds explain this to meisclaimer: it appears that both LT and the pimp did something seriously terrible to this girl, so this question is not really about their situation exactly but more the idea of the law.I'm wondering about this 3rd-degree rape, I've also heard it called statutory. ie it MUST be rape because a 16 year old is incapable of making an informed decision.However, if this were a murder case, the DA would push for such a 16 year old to be tried as an adult, not a juvenile. There has been a strong push for that over the last few decades. I guess the logic is that a 16 year old is close enough to being an adult and wouldn't have enough time in juvee to rehabilitate him/herself.I find these two doctrines at odds. On one hand, the 3rd degree/statutory law suggests that a 16 year old (95% of the time a female) has a brain so filled with mush that she is incapable of making a decision. almost like an infant. On the other hand, in murder cases, the law suggests that the 16 year old (95% of the time a male) is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions and suffer the consequences for the rest of his life.on top of these screwy ideas, we allow 16 year old (males and females equally) to drive cars. A car is a loaded responsibility. In driving a car, you are essentially given the responsibility not to use it as a deadly weapon thru negligence. I would say that requires an adult mind to understand that if you are careless in driving, even for a few seconds, you can maim or kill any number of pedestrians, other drivers, and your own passengers. Why does this make no sense?

I have no answers but i do agree with it. My lil girl will be 11 soon and i would have no problem moving driving age to 18 always thought 16 was too young to be behind the wheel.

 

[Don Quixote]

According to docs, she was told to tell LT she was 19. Not that that changes the crime.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/05/07/lawrence-tay...-investigation/

 

[ICDogg]

The law says that ignorance of the girl's age is not a defense. But I have a certain (limited) amount of sympathy for a guy who most likely was under the impression that he was paying a consenting adult for sex. Does anyone deserve to be a felon and forever on sex offender registries when, as far as they knew, they were committing only the trivial offense of hiring a prostitute?

 

[az_prof]

Somewhere in Pittsburgh, Big Ben breathes a little easier today as he drops below the fold.

Pray he doesn't go out to celebrate.

What is ironic and funny is that in all the moral hating that was cast toward Big Ben one refrain was "why doesn't he just hire a call girl instead of hitting on 20 year old chicks in bars..." Frankly, I wouldn't at all be surprised if all of the media coverage of Big Ben played a role in putting the idea into someone's head (Uncle, Pimp prostitute) to turn in LT. Does LT pay off the prostutite and/or pimp not to testify against him? By the way, if the prostitute hits a pay day the pimp will be the one to get the money.

 

[radballs]

another view of this .......... if I'm reading it right, the girl was a runaway and working with a pimp as a prostitute.haven't we all grilled Big Ben over and over than instead of going to college bars to pick up chicks to just get a hooker or an escort service?isn't this what L.T. did? and c'mon, a 16 year old can look 22 in today's work, and nobody checks ID when you pay a few hundred bucks for an hour of funjust a different view - and that doesn't make it right, but IMO it aint rape like Ben did

she says it was, she says she said no and he assualted her

And .............We've heard this before in other cases where the girl was lying. Doesn't seem to be the case with many more details coming out in the last 12 hours.

yeahIt is always best to assume the 16 year old girl beaten by a pimp is a liar, and the 50 year old guy who paid the pimp to have sex with her is clean as a whistle

Again, aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be presumed innocent before guilty or not? Are you rewriting legal code and constitutional rights?

 

[Stealthycat]

again, people said again and again Big Ben should have just went out and got whores instead of prowling college bars forcing himself on drunk college chicks

and when LT did just that (it appears) he's called a rapist

now, the girl was underage, and by the letter of the law that makes is an X crime, but I sense a lot more going on here - and if he wasn't Lawrence Taylor? If I'd paid the $300 buck? Nobody would said a word, everyone happy happy because I don't have money or an NFL spot in the hall of fame

if I had to make a guess, the girl is a hooker, it was all good and good until she found out who he was, told the pimp and they decided a few hundred thousand dollars was on the line and that's it

 

[radballs]

Odd story. Hard to know what to make of it until more evidence comes to light.If LT was seeking some companionship and happened to come across a prostitute that looked older than she really was (and had consentual sex), not as big of a deal. It'd be nice if he was looking for someone more his age, but it's a far cry from what he's being charged with. Men wanting to go to bed with females around the age of 20 is nothing new.If what's being alleged by the young lady is true, it's a horrible, horrible tragedy and LT/Davis should both rot away in a jail cell for the vast majority of the remainder of their lives. I hope it's not true.I think prostitution should be legal and, however this case turns out, it sounds like it'll be even more evidence of the merits of legal prostitution. The MSNBC/ESPN articles said the young lady had been with Davis for 3 weeks and one would assume this isn't the first incident. I'm curious why this incident would be the one that caused her to text her uncle. Oh, and scumbag or not, LT is LT. I find it a little annoying that it has to be clarified as "LT 1".

Agree with all of your points.

 

[radballs]

The law says that ignorance of the girl's age is not a defense. But I have a certain (limited) amount of sympathy for a guy who most likely was under the impression that he was paying a consenting adult for sex. Does anyone deserve to be a felon and forever on sex offender registries when, as far as they knew, they were committing only the trivial offense of hiring a prostitute?

I have the same sympathy even though I find someone paying for sex slightly repugnant. That said, I would much rather have gentlemen pay for sex (with a legitimately aged prostitute) than take out their pent up baby-batter rage in a true rape scenario. My interpretation of a rapist is more inline with what it used to mean 30+ years ago. I still have problems thinking that my son could someday be considered a rapist if he happens to have a girlfriend who is 17 and he just turned 18 and they bump consensual uglies.

 

[Autumn Wind]

My interpretation of a rapist is more inline with what it used to mean 30+ years ago. I still have problems thinking that my son could someday be considered a rapist if he happens to have a girlfriend who is 17 and he just turned 18 and they bump consensual uglies.

In most states, that would not be considered statutory rape.

 

[dgreen]

Again, aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be presumed innocent before guilty or not?

In a court of law? Yes. On a message board? Not necessarily.

 

[radballs]

My interpretation of a rapist is more inline with what it used to mean 30+ years ago. I still have problems thinking that my son could someday be considered a rapist if he happens to have a girlfriend who is 17 and he just turned 18 and they bump consensual uglies.

In most states, that would not be considered statutory rape.

How does California view it because that's where I am?

 

[radballs]

Again, aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be presumed innocent before guilty or not?

In a court of law? Yes. On a message board? Not necessarily.

More than a message board and the court of public opinion has already weighed in. How is LT going to receive a fair trial? That's the problem.

 

[dgreen]

Again, aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be presumed innocent before guilty or not?

In a court of law? Yes. On a message board? Not necessarily.

More than a message board and the court of public opinion has already weighed in. How is LT going to receive a fair trial? That's the problem.

He'll receive a fair trial by being tried in a court of law and not by being tried in the court of public opinion.

 

[Autumn Wind]

My interpretation of a rapist is more inline with what it used to mean 30+ years ago. I still have problems thinking that my son could someday be considered a rapist if he happens to have a girlfriend who is 17 and he just turned 18 and they bump consensual uglies.

In most states, that would not be considered statutory rape.

How does California view it because that's where I am?

http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm

 

[B-Deep]

According to docs, she was told to tell LT she was 19. Not that that changes the crime.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/05/07/lawrence-tay...-investigation/

she also said she told LT no and he raped her

 

[B-Deep]

another view of this .......... if I'm reading it right, the girl was a runaway and working with a pimp as a prostitute.haven't we all grilled Big Ben over and over than instead of going to college bars to pick up chicks to just get a hooker or an escort service?isn't this what L.T. did? and c'mon, a 16 year old can look 22 in today's work, and nobody checks ID when you pay a few hundred bucks for an hour of funjust a different view - and that doesn't make it right, but IMO it aint rape like Ben did

she says it was, she says she said no and he assualted her

And .............We've heard this before in other cases where the girl was lying. Doesn't seem to be the case with many more details coming out in the last 12 hours.

yeahIt is always best to assume the 16 year old girl beaten by a pimp is a liar, and the 50 year old guy who paid the pimp to have sex with her is clean as a whistle

Again, aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be presumed innocent before guilty or not? Are you rewriting legal code and constitutional rights?

in a court of law they are presumed innocent, i am not a court of lawjust seems odd the side you chose to default towards is all

 

[B-Deep]

Again, aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be presumed innocent before guilty or not?

In a court of law? Yes. On a message board? Not necessarily.

More than a message board and the court of public opinion has already weighed in. How is LT going to receive a fair trial? That's the problem.

that's not a problem at allthat's life

 

[B-Deep]

Odd story. Hard to know what to make of it until more evidence comes to light.If LT was seeking some companionship and happened to come across a prostitute that looked older than she really was (and had consentual sex), not as big of a deal. It'd be nice if he was looking for someone more his age, but it's a far cry from what he's being charged with. Men wanting to go to bed with females around the age of 20 is nothing new.If what's being alleged by the young lady is true, it's a horrible, horrible tragedy and LT/Davis should both rot away in a jail cell for the vast majority of the remainder of their lives. I hope it's not true.I think prostitution should be legal and, however this case turns out, it sounds like it'll be even more evidence of the merits of legal prostitution. The MSNBC/ESPN articles said the young lady had been with Davis for 3 weeks and one would assume this isn't the first incident. I'm curious why this incident would be the one that caused her to text her uncle. Oh, and scumbag or not, LT is LT. I find it a little annoying that it has to be clarified as "LT 1".

Agree with all of your points.

why would we assume this was not her first time?i have no idea how pimps turn runaways into hookers.i'd think her calling is a good indication this may have been the first time. And her getting punched in the face is a good indication that maybe she resisted

 

[Two Deep]

If he was at the height of his career, like Ben Rothelisberger he would skate past this charge with the grace of Brian Boitano.

 

[kevinray]

again, people said again and again Big Ben should have just went out and got whores instead of prowling college bars forcing himself on drunk college chicksand when LT did just that (it appears) he's called a rapistnow, the girl was underage, and by the letter of the law that makes is an X crime, but I sense a lot more going on here - and if he wasn't Lawrence Taylor? If I'd paid the $300 buck? Nobody would said a word, everyone happy happy because I don't have money or an NFL spot in the hall of fameif I had to make a guess, the girl is a hooker, it was all good and good until she found out who he was, told the pimp and they decided a few hundred thousand dollars was on the line and that's it

People probably meant whores in the figurative sense and not literally.

 

[jackdubl]

My interpretation of a rapist is more inline with what it used to mean 30+ years ago. I still have problems thinking that my son could someday be considered a rapist if he happens to have a girlfriend who is 17 and he just turned 18 and they bump consensual uglies.

In most states, that would not be considered statutory rape.

How does California view it because that's where I am?

CA is the same as NY. Your son would not be considered a rapist in either state. If LT had been 18, he wouldn't be considered a rapist.

 

[Statorama]

See, and everyone thought Hugh Grant was nuts for picking up a 40 year old hooker.

Nuts like a fox.

 

[jackdubl]

Can one of the legal minds explain this to meisclaimer: it appears that both LT and the pimp did something seriously terrible to this girl, so this question is not really about their situation exactly but more the idea of the law.I'm wondering about this 3rd-degree rape, I've also heard it called statutory. ie it MUST be rape because a 16 year old is incapable of making an informed decision.However, if this were a murder case, the DA would push for such a 16 year old to be tried as an adult, not a juvenile. There has been a strong push for that over the last few decades. I guess the logic is that a 16 year old is close enough to being an adult and wouldn't have enough time in juvee to rehabilitate him/herself.I find these two doctrines at odds. On one hand, the 3rd degree/statutory law suggests that a 16 year old (95% of the time a female) has a brain so filled with mush that she is incapable of making a decision. almost like an infant. On the other hand, in murder cases, the law suggests that the 16 year old (95% of the time a male) is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions and suffer the consequences for the rest of his life.on top of these screwy ideas, we allow 16 year old (males and females equally) to drive cars. A car is a loaded responsibility. In driving a car, you are essentially given the responsibility not to use it as a deadly weapon thru negligence. I would say that requires an adult mind to understand that if you are careless in driving, even for a few seconds, you can maim or kill any number of pedestrians, other drivers, and your own passengers. Why does this make no sense?

First of all, almost every 16 year old that commits a crime is treated as a juvenile. Almost 100%. Only in cases where the crime is really bad do prosecutors move to have them tried as adults. They have to go through an extra process and a judge makes the decision, so it's not an automatic thing. It's mostly done because there is an emotional reaction when, say, a 16 or 17 year old kills somebody or several somebodies but would only serve 1 year or less in juvenile hall for it and then be free. The public gets real emotional about cases like that, so laws were passed saying courts can try those people as adults when given convicing circumstances.

 

[glock]

Can one of the legal minds explain this to me:

Disclaimer: it appears that both LT and the pimp did something seriously terrible to this girl, so this question is not really about their situation exactly but more the idea of the law.

I'm wondering about this 3rd-degree rape, I've also heard it called statutory. ie it MUST be rape because a 16 year old is incapable of making an informed decision.

However, if this were a murder case, the DA would push for such a 16 year old to be tried as an adult, not a juvenile. There has been a strong push for that over the last few decades. I guess the logic is that a 16 year old is close enough to being an adult and wouldn't have enough time in juvee to rehabilitate him/herself.

I find these two doctrines at odds. On one hand, the 3rd degree/statutory law suggests that a 16 year old (95% of the time a female) has a brain so filled with mush that she is incapable of making a decision. almost like an infant. On the other hand, in murder cases, the law suggests that the 16 year old (95% of the time a male) is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions and suffer the consequences for the rest of his life.

on top of these screwy ideas, we allow 16 year old (males and females equally) to drive cars. A car is a loaded responsibility. In driving a car, you are essentially given the responsibility not to use it as a deadly weapon thru negligence. I would say that requires an adult mind to understand that if you are careless in driving, even for a few seconds, you can maim or kill any number of pedestrians, other drivers, and your own passengers.

Why does this make no sense?

First of all, almost every 16 year old that commits a crime is treated as a juvenile. Almost 100%. Only in cases where the crime is really bad do prosecutors move to have them tried as adults. They have to go through an extra process and a judge makes the decision, so it's not an automatic thing. It's mostly done because there is an emotional reaction when, say, a 16 or 17 year old kills somebody or several somebodies but would only serve 1 year or less in juvenile hall for it and then be free. The public gets real emotional about cases like that, so laws were passed saying courts can try those people as adults when given convicing circumstances.

Which makes me nuts. A 16 year old is tried as a juvenile- because we agree that their heads are full of mush- unless they magically become a 17 year old because of "convincing circumstances."

 

[Pantherz]

Odd story. Hard to know what to make of it until more evidence comes to light.

If LT was seeking some companionship and happened to come across a prostitute that looked older than she really was (and had consentual sex), not as big of a deal. It'd be nice if he was looking for someone more his age, but it's a far cry from what he's being charged with. Men wanting to go to bed with females around the age of 20 is nothing new.

If what's being alleged by the young lady is true, it's a horrible, horrible tragedy and LT/Davis should both rot away in a jail cell for the vast majority of the remainder of their lives.

I hope it's not true.

I think prostitution should be legal and, however this case turns out, it sounds like it'll be even more evidence of the merits of legal prostitution.

The MSNBC/ESPN articles said the young lady had been with Davis for 3 weeks and one would assume this isn't the first incident. I'm curious why this incident would be the one that caused her to text her uncle.

Oh, and scumbag or not, LT is LT. I find it a little annoying that it has to be clarified as "LT 1".

Agree with all of your points.

why would we assume this was not her first time?i have no idea how pimps turn runaways into hookers.

i'd think her calling is a good indication this may have been the first time. And her getting punched in the face is a good indication that maybe she resisted

According to the complaint this was not her first time:According to the federal criminal complaint, an FBI agent assigned to the case claims Davis had "caused" the 16-year-old to "engage in multiple commercial sex acts with various individuals" ... and even "set the prices."

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2010/05/07/lawrence-tay.../#ixzz0nHlPFR1B

 

[cstu]

See, and everyone thought Hugh Grant was nuts for picking up a 40 year old hooker.Nuts like a fox.

 

[radballs]

See, and everyone thought Hugh Grant was nuts for picking up a 40 year old hooker.

Nuts like a fox.

Maybe more like nuts like a squirrel.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Can one of the legal minds explain this to meisclaimer: it appears that both LT and the pimp did something seriously terrible to this girl, so this question is not really about their situation exactly but more the idea of the law.I'm wondering about this 3rd-degree rape, I've also heard it called statutory. ie it MUST be rape because a 16 year old is incapable of making an informed decision.However, if this were a murder case, the DA would push for such a 16 year old to be tried as an adult, not a juvenile. There has been a strong push for that over the last few decades. I guess the logic is that a 16 year old is close enough to being an adult and wouldn't have enough time in juvee to rehabilitate him/herself.I find these two doctrines at odds. On one hand, the 3rd degree/statutory law suggests that a 16 year old (95% of the time a female) has a brain so filled with mush that she is incapable of making a decision. almost like an infant. On the other hand, in murder cases, the law suggests that the 16 year old (95% of the time a male) is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions and suffer the consequences for the rest of his life.on top of these screwy ideas, we allow 16 year old (males and females equally) to drive cars. A car is a loaded responsibility. In driving a car, you are essentially given the responsibility not to use it as a deadly weapon thru negligence. I would say that requires an adult mind to understand that if you are careless in driving, even for a few seconds, you can maim or kill any number of pedestrians, other drivers, and your own passengers. Why does this make no sense?

America likes politicians who are tough on crime and who think our daughters never have sex.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Again, aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be presumed innocent before guilty or not?

In a court of law? Yes. On a message board? Not necessarily.

More than a message board and the court of public opinion has already weighed in. How is LT going to receive a fair trial? That's the problem.

A fair trial is only an issue when you have facts in dispute. http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0130.40_130.40.html

§ 130.40 Criminal sexual act in the third degree.

A person is guilty of criminal sexual act in the third degree when:

1. He or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct

with a person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other

than being less than seventeen years old;

2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in oral

sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with a person less than seventeen

years old; or

3. He or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct

with another person without such person's consent where such lack of

consent is by reason of some factor other than incapacity to consent.

Criminal sexual act in the third degree is a class E felony.

At a minimum, as long as he engaged in oral sexual conduct with this girl, he's guilty of a felony. The only element the prosecution will have to prove is that he actually received oral sex from her. I don't think he will have a tough time having a fair trial with respect to this issue; it seems likely that he had either sex or oral sex with a minor, but if he didn't, he'll probably be acquitted. Of course, I imagine most of us think it's pretty unlikely that he asked for a prostitute, spent an hour in a room with her, and didn't have sex with her.

 

[msommer]

What if he only did ######l penetration?



ETA the language filter got that one. Let's call it misionary style, then...

 

[fatness]

Lawrence Taylor Indicted on Rape Charges

Pro football Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor has been indicted by a suburban New York grand jury on charges of rape, criminal sexual act and sexual abuse.

The indictment Wednesday comes after his May 6 arrest at a Holiday Inn. Prosecutors say he paid a 16-year-old girl $300 to have sex with him.

The former New York Giant was also indicted on charges of endangering the welfare of a child and patronizing a prostitute.