**Breaking News** (1 Viewer)

[hellzbellz]

just like 5 min ago charges were relased that Daunte Culpepper, Fred Smoot and Moe Williams Will be charged with indescent exposure due to the sex scandal..

 

[Native]

Interesting. So Daunte may not return to the team after all...

 

[hellzbellz]

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S12783.html?cat=1

 

[zamboni]

How convenient that two of them are on injured reserve.

 

[hellzbellz]

im sorry 4 members, bryant mckinnie

 

[beto]

:X

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The phrase "all that for nothing?" comes to mind.

 

[cstu]

The phrase "all that for nothing?" comes to mind.

Wow, indecent exposure. Anyway, good luck in court trying to find them guilty of that crime on a private boat.

 

[Marc Levin]

Interesting. So Daunte may not return to the team after all...

????

 

[Marc Levin]

The phrase "all that for nothing?" comes to mind.

Wow, indecent exposure. Anyway, good luck in court trying to find them guilty of that crime on a private boat.

 

[hellzbellz]

whats dauntes wife gonna think.

 

[Marc Levin]

whats dauntes wife gonna think.

I'm sure she already thought whatever she thought 2 months ago when she knew her hubbie was on a sex boat.

 

[hellzbellz]

'Im sure she already thought whatever she thought 2 months ago when she knew her hubbie was on a sex boat.

tru tru.. no matter what she does shes gonna be loaded for life

 

[kupcho1]

The phrase "all that for nothing?" comes to mind.

Wow, indecent exposure. Anyway, good luck in court trying to find them guilty of that crime on a private boat.

It wasn't their boat was it? If they exposed themselves to the employees of a chartered boat I think they might be in some trouble.

 

[zamboni]

Interesting. So Daunte may not return to the team after all...

Michael Pittman and Randy Moss had no problems returning after trying to run people over. Same for Jamal Lewis upon spending time in the joint.What makes you think Culpepper won't come back after some measly indecent exposure charge?

 

[godeepthreatz1]

ESPNEWS just reported nobody will be charged from the boat thing.Their 1:07 pm update with Mike Kim.

 

[snogger]

They are probably getting charged for the Peeing on public propety incident that was the highlights of the reports for a while but then dropped.Like ANDy said.. Nothing to see here, another story Blown WAYYYY out of the water.

 

[BlueOnion]

Very dissapointing if true. I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Very dissapointing if true. I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

How so?

 

[Marc Levin]

Very dissapointing if true. I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

???How - the companies are not actors.

 

[BlueOnion]

Very dissapointing if true.  I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

How so?

The allegations stem from the employees of the boats and an infraction against their right to a certain level of acceptable working conditions. This responsibility squarely falls on the boat owners first (and consequently the captains). But as the story originally broke the Captains did nothing to protect their employees, from what I recall. They never asked those on the boat to cease and desist any activity and afterwards cleaned the boats and disposed of the evidence.

 

[BlueOnion]

Very dissapointing if true.  I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

???How - the companies are not actors.

Marc -If I recall you are a lawyer so maybe I am wrong and you can shed some light. If the employees have a legit complaint about certain activities they are exposed to while on the clock, what is the employer's responsibility in this situation?

I believe for the company to get a free pass on this, they would have to show they did everything they could to protect their employees, which was clearly not the case.

 

[BlueOnion]

Could somebody explain to me what these allegations mean:

Daunte Culpepper, Bryant McKinnie, Fred Smoot and Moe Williams were charged with indecent conduct, disorderly conduct and lewd or lascivious conduct, according to court papers.

Does lewd behavior infer grabbing yourself or actually exposing yourself?

 

[houndirish]

I like "Fred Spoo" better!

 

[culdeus]

:IBTL: :ibtb:

 

[Gigantomachia]

The phrase "all that for nothing?" comes to mind.

Wow, indecent exposure. Anyway, good luck in court trying to find them guilty of that crime on a private boat.

It wasn't their boat was it? If they exposed themselves to the employees of a chartered boat I think they might be in some trouble.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

On the other hand, here's a letter to today's Minneapolis Star Tribune:

My 12-year-old son and I came to Minneapolis last weekend for a basketball tournament. We decided to stay and go to the Vikings game against the St. Louis Rams. We discovered, to our delight, that our hotel was the one where the Vikings stayed the night before the game. On Saturday night, Koren Robinson and Michael Bennett both stood in the lobby and signed autographs for anyone who wanted one. Everyone on the team got their picture taken with the players. They were both extremely cordial and talked to each kid. On Sunday, we got to the game early and took our seats low in one of the Metrodome's end zones. Robinson, stretching out before the game, looked up in the stands and -- perhaps recognizing my son from the night before -- picked up the football he had and threw it to my son. Needless to say, my son was in heaven. With all the negative publicity that seems to cover the airwaves and print, we should remember that there are some truly wonderful sports personalities. And two of them happen to play for the Minnesota Vikings.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Very dissapointing if true.  I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

How so?

The allegations stem from the employees of the boats and an infraction against their right to a certain level of acceptable working conditions. This responsibility squarely falls on the boat owners first (and consequently the captains). But as the story originally broke the Captains did nothing to protect their employees, from what I recall. They never asked those on the boat to cease and desist any activity and afterwards cleaned the boats and disposed of the evidence.

Yea, boat-hands strike me as the type of people who would be offended by such activity.Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[godeepthreatz1]

Well ESPNEWS just updated their story and it is true that Culpepper and others are being charged Wow, sorry.

 

[Broncoholic]

Their lawyers should try to prove that the indecent exposure was in fact just "The WIZZANATOR"

 

[BlueOnion]

Interesting that after the investigation Stephen Doyle (Hennepin County Sheriff) decided to send the case to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and not to the Hennepin County Courts.

 

[Marc Levin]

Very dissapointing if true.  I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

???How - the companies are not actors.

Marc -If I recall you are a lawyer so maybe I am wrong and you can shed some light. If the employees have a legit complaint about certain activities they are exposed to while on the clock, what is the employer's responsibility in this situation?

Civilly, maybe something depending on prior notice, but nothing criminally.

 

[noneother]

How convenient that two of them are on injured reserve.

lousy pun

 

[Marc Levin]

Interesting that after the investigation Stephen Doyle (Hennepin County Sheriff) decided to send the case to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and not to the Hennepin County Courts.

not really - if a crime occurred, it occurred on the water, not on land, so it is outside the county's jurisdiciton.

 

[BlueOnion]

Civilly, maybe something depending on prior notice, but nothing criminally.

Thanks Marc. It would appear to me these employees would have a stronger case against the boat owners (and captains) if they really felt they were wronged some how. The only reason I can see them going after the Viking players is because of their celebrity status and money.

 

[BlueOnion]

Interesting that after the investigation Stephen Doyle (Hennepin County Sheriff) decided to send the case to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and not to the Hennepin County Courts.

not really - if a crime occurred, it occurred on the water, not on land, so it is outside the county's jurisdiciton.

Actually the articles says because the case is being transferred to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District it is not possible for any criminal allegations.

 

[Marc Levin]

Very dissapointing if true.  I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

How so?

The allegations stem from the employees of the boats and an infraction against their right to a certain level of acceptable working conditions. This responsibility squarely falls on the boat owners first (and consequently the captains). But as the story originally broke the Captains did nothing to protect their employees, from what I recall. They never asked those on the boat to cease and desist any activity and afterwards cleaned the boats and disposed of the evidence.

ifyour boss exposes himself to you, he is criminally liableIf your boss stands around laughing while someone else exposes themselves to you, he is NOT cirminally liable - he is not the actor.

Either way, it is REALLY hard to hold a corporation criminally liable in this sitch - it'd be the individual supervisors/managers/etc. committing crimes - not the company.

 

[Marc Levin]

Interesting that after the investigation Stephen Doyle (Hennepin County Sheriff) decided to send the case to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and not to the Hennepin County Courts.

not really - if a crime occurred, it occurred on the water, not on land, so it is outside the county's jurisdiciton.

Actually the articles says because the case is being transferred to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District it is not possible for any criminal allegations.

because it occurred on the water, not within any "county's" jurisdiction.

 

[Marc Levin]

Civilly, maybe something depending on prior notice, but nothing criminally.

Thanks Marc. It would appear to me these employees would have a stronger case against the boat owners (and captains) if they really felt they were wronged some how. The only reason I can see them going after the Viking players is because of their celebrity status and money.

it'd be under workplace conditions laws - unlikley to cover this situation if they ever participated in sex boats before.

 

[BlueOnion]

Very dissapointing if true.  I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

How so?

The allegations stem from the employees of the boats and an infraction against their right to a certain level of acceptable working conditions. This responsibility squarely falls on the boat owners first (and consequently the captains). But as the story originally broke the Captains did nothing to protect their employees, from what I recall. They never asked those on the boat to cease and desist any activity and afterwards cleaned the boats and disposed of the evidence.

ifyour boss exposes himself to you, he is criminally liableIf your boss stands around laughing while someone else exposes themselves to you, he is NOT cirminally liable - he is not the actor.

Either way, it is REALLY hard to hold a corporation criminally liable in this sitch - it'd be the individual supervisors/managers/etc. committing crimes - not the company.

But what if I am at work and somebody puts a porno on their workstation screen, and I am not the target of the crime?Do I have a better case against the individual or the company I work for?

 

[BlueOnion]

Interesting that after the investigation Stephen Doyle (Hennepin County Sheriff) decided to send the case to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and not to the Hennepin County Courts.

not really - if a crime occurred, it occurred on the water, not on land, so it is outside the county's jurisdiciton.

Actually the articles says because the case is being transferred to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District it is not possible for any criminal allegations.

because it occurred on the water, not within any "county's" jurisdiction.

But I don't think the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District can prosecute criminal cases.

 

[Marc Levin]

Very dissapointing if true.  I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

How so?

The allegations stem from the employees of the boats and an infraction against their right to a certain level of acceptable working conditions. This responsibility squarely falls on the boat owners first (and consequently the captains). But as the story originally broke the Captains did nothing to protect their employees, from what I recall. They never asked those on the boat to cease and desist any activity and afterwards cleaned the boats and disposed of the evidence.

ifyour boss exposes himself to you, he is criminally liableIf your boss stands around laughing while someone else exposes themselves to you, he is NOT cirminally liable - he is not the actor.

Either way, it is REALLY hard to hold a corporation criminally liable in this sitch - it'd be the individual supervisors/managers/etc. committing crimes - not the company.

But what if I am at work and somebody puts a porno on their workstation screen, and I am not the target of the crime?Do I have a better case against the individual or the company I work for?

you are talking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGSThere is NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY in what you are talking about.

For civil liability, in addition to the incident, you must PROVE the porno viewing offended you - you reported it to your boss - nothing was done - and it HAPPENED AGAIN. Single incidents do not give rise to civil liability in your employer unless extremely egregious.

You have a very "sue-happy" brain.

 

[Marc Levin]

Interesting that after the investigation Stephen Doyle (Hennepin County Sheriff) decided to send the case to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and not to the Hennepin County Courts.

not really - if a crime occurred, it occurred on the water, not on land, so it is outside the county's jurisdiciton.

Actually the articles says because the case is being transferred to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District it is not possible for any criminal allegations.

because it occurred on the water, not within any "county's" jurisdiction.

But I don't think the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District can prosecute criminal cases.

Then it is like a crime on the open seas - noone can prosecute it unless it is of a certain degree to cause jurisdiction to attach- if it is a state level crime, the state can prosecute.That's how riverboat gambling is allowed to occur.

 

[BlueOnion]

Very dissapointing if true.  I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

How so?

The allegations stem from the employees of the boats and an infraction against their right to a certain level of acceptable working conditions. This responsibility squarely falls on the boat owners first (and consequently the captains). But as the story originally broke the Captains did nothing to protect their employees, from what I recall. They never asked those on the boat to cease and desist any activity and afterwards cleaned the boats and disposed of the evidence.

ifyour boss exposes himself to you, he is criminally liableIf your boss stands around laughing while someone else exposes themselves to you, he is NOT cirminally liable - he is not the actor.

Either way, it is REALLY hard to hold a corporation criminally liable in this sitch - it'd be the individual supervisors/managers/etc. committing crimes - not the company.

But what if I am at work and somebody puts a porno on their workstation screen, and I am not the target of the crime?Do I have a better case against the individual or the company I work for?

you are talking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGSThere is NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY in what you are talking about.

For civil liability, in addition to the incident, you must PROVE the porno viewing offended you - you reported it to your boss - nothing was done - and it HAPPENED AGAIN. Single incidents do not give rise to civil liability in your employer unless extremely egregious.

You have a very "sue-happy" brain.

Actually, I have a very 'ignorant-happy' brain when it comes to law, but it seems everybody in the States wants to sue everybody. But I do want to thank you for your help here.

So there is no criminal activity associated with this case, do the employee's have a case against the Viking players if the employee's never reported any level of discomfort to the boat captains?

 

[3C's]

On the other hand, here's a letter to today's Minneapolis Star Tribune:

My 12-year-old son and I came to Minneapolis last weekend for a basketball tournament. We decided to stay and go to the Vikings game against the St. Louis Rams. We discovered, to our delight, that our hotel was the one where the Vikings stayed the night before the game.

On Saturday night, Koren Robinson and Michael Bennett both stood in the lobby and signed autographs for anyone who wanted one. Everyone on the team got their picture taken with the players. They were both extremely cordial and talked to each kid.

On Sunday, we got to the game early and took our seats low in one of the Metrodome's end zones. Robinson, stretching out before the game, looked up in the stands and -- perhaps recognizing my son from the night before -- picked up the football he had and threw it to my son. Needless to say, my son was in heaven.

With all the negative publicity that seems to cover the airwaves and print, we should remember that there are some truly wonderful sports personalities. And two of them happen to play for the Minnesota Vikings.

That is awesome.

 

[Marc Levin]

Very dissapointing if true.  I hope they prosecute Al and Alma's Charter Boats just as much as they are also equal (if not more so) in the blame here.

How so?

The allegations stem from the employees of the boats and an infraction against their right to a certain level of acceptable working conditions. This responsibility squarely falls on the boat owners first (and consequently the captains). But as the story originally broke the Captains did nothing to protect their employees, from what I recall. They never asked those on the boat to cease and desist any activity and afterwards cleaned the boats and disposed of the evidence.

ifyour boss exposes himself to you, he is criminally liableIf your boss stands around laughing while someone else exposes themselves to you, he is NOT cirminally liable - he is not the actor.

Either way, it is REALLY hard to hold a corporation criminally liable in this sitch - it'd be the individual supervisors/managers/etc. committing crimes - not the company.

But what if I am at work and somebody puts a porno on their workstation screen, and I am not the target of the crime?Do I have a better case against the individual or the company I work for?

you are talking TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGSThere is NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY in what you are talking about.

For civil liability, in addition to the incident, you must PROVE the porno viewing offended you - you reported it to your boss - nothing was done - and it HAPPENED AGAIN. Single incidents do not give rise to civil liability in your employer unless extremely egregious.

You have a very "sue-happy" brain.

Actually, I have a very 'ignorant-happy' brain when it comes to law, but it seems everybody in the States wants to sue everybody. But I do want to thank you for your help here.

So there is no criminal activity associated with this case, do the employee's have a case against the Viking players if the employee's never reported any level of discomfort to the boat captains?

No. They only have acivil case against their bosses - and it is an extremely weak case.There IS criminal liability here if indecent exposure occurred, the problem is jurisdiciton - if the conservation district (which I assume controls activities on the water) has no power to enforce any criminal penalties, then the State has to jump in - and it is unliklely the State wants to handle indecent exposure on a party boat.

 

[Marc Levin]

note that if the Vikes exposed themselves TO the employees, then they have civil cases in the form of intentional torts against the vikings players.Not good cases, but cases nontheless.

 

[BlueOnion]

note that if the Vikes exposed themselves TO the employees, then they have civil cases in the form of intentional torts against the vikings players.

Not good cases, but cases nontheless.

Thanks Marc for helping me understand what is going on. Here is the excerpt (sp??) that I am going on.

Reports that some women at the party were paid to come from outside Minnesota had raised the possibility of federal charges, but U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger said Thursday that no such charges would be brought. Heffelfinger cited insufficient evidence.

That decision, along with sheriff's decision to send the case to Tallen's office, meant any charges would be minor. Tallen is the prosecuting attorney for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, which handles nonfelony crimes committed on the big lake just west of Minneapolis.

But the article I got this from opened with the following comments:

Culpepper, Bryant McKinnie, Fred Smoot and Moe Williams were charged with indecent conduct, disorderly conduct and lewd or lascivious conduct, according to court papers.

If convicted, each player faces a maximum of 90 days in jail on each coun

 

[Marc Levin]

note that if the Vikes exposed themselves TO the employees, then they have civil cases in the form of intentional torts against the vikings players.

Not good cases, but cases nontheless.

Thanks Marc for helping me understand what is going on. Here is the excerpt (sp??) that I am going on.

Reports that some women at the party were paid to come from outside Minnesota had raised the possibility of federal charges, but U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger said Thursday that no such charges would be brought. Heffelfinger cited insufficient evidence.

That decision, along with sheriff's decision to send the case to Tallen's office, meant any charges would be minor. Tallen is the prosecuting attorney for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, which handles nonfelony crimes committed on the big lake just west of Minneapolis.

But the article I got this from opened with the following comments:

Culpepper, Bryant McKinnie, Fred Smoot and Moe Williams were charged with indecent conduct, disorderly conduct and lewd or lascivious conduct, according to court papers.

If convicted, each player faces a maximum of 90 days in jail on each coun

2nd part sound like a reporter who found the crimes in the municipal code and found the penalty, but doesn't know it can't be prosecuted..The first part of what you found sounds like it is more acurate an dcomes from a person familiar with the law.

 

[BlueOnion]

2nd part sound like a reporter who found the crimes in the municipal code and found the penalty, but doesn't know it can't be prosecuted..

The first part of what you found sounds like it is more acurate an dcomes from a person familiar with the law.

So what do you think is going on here? Personally, I think the four Vikings are guilty of something and should be released from the team. But legally, what could they be guilty of? It really sounds like the prosecution might be trying to extort the certain celebrities.