Cops Releasing Ben Roethlisberger Investigation DVDs Publicly (1 Viewer)

[Godsbrother]

The perfect gift for someone with insomnia -- 50 DVDs in all.

Cops Releasing Ben Roethlisberger Investigation DVDs Publicly

Police Interviewed Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback's Accuser, Friends

POSTED: 4:39 pm EDT June 8, 2010

UPDATED: 4:55 pm EDT June 8, 2010

MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. -- The Georgia Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday will release DVDs with interviews and photographs from the month-long investigation of a college student's claim that she was sexually assaulted by Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.

The Roethlisberger investigation DVDs are being made available through the GBI's Open Records Unit and will be released at 10 a.m. in Milledgeville, Ga.

There are about 50 discs, and they include police interviews with the 20-year-old accuser and her friends, as well as friends of Roethlisberger, all of whom were in the Capital City nightclub on the night of March 4 into the early morning of March 5.

No criminal charges were filed after the GBI and the Milledgeville Police Department concluded their investigation of the 20-year-old woman's claims of what took place inside a bathroom in the club's VIP area.

Investigators are required by Georgia law to release the evidence, even though District Attorney Fred Bright decided not to file charges.

Roethlisberger has rejoined the Steelers for offseason practices but remains under a six-game suspension from National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

So how long before these are on youtube?

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Joe Francis needs to start selling these on late night TV.

 

[Donsmith753]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

 

[Godsbrother]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

I was wondering the same thing, seems to me like they probably would continue to protect the identity of the accuser but I am not sure that is fair.Putting aside your beliefs on the innocence or guilt of Roethlisberger,does it seem right to continue to publish the name of the accused while protecting the name of the alleged victim in cases where the DA admits "We didn't even have probable cause in this case" (that is an exact quote).It seems to me in cases where no charges are filed, ALL or NONE of the identities should be protected when this type of information is released to the public.

 

[Donsmith753]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

I was wondering the same thing, seems to me like they probably would continue to protect the identity of the accuser but I am not sure that is fair.Putting aside your beliefs on the innocence or guilt of Roethlisberger,does it seem right to continue to publish the name of the accused while protecting the name of the alleged victim in cases where the DA admits "We didn't even have probable cause in this case" (that is an exact quote).It seems to me in cases where no charges are filed, ALL or NONE of the identities should be protected when this type of information is released to the public.

I'd tend to agree with this. I don't see the value in releasing this really.

 

[foxco]

Seems like a pretty dumb idea unless I'm missing something.

 

[bonesman]

Seems like a pretty dumb idea unless I'm missing something.

Perhaps you're missing that it is required by law. It's not an "idea" someone had.

 

[fatness]

I'm assuming the DVD's won't include the video of the evening which the nightclub "accidentally erased".

 

[Godsbrother]

I'm assuming the DVD's won't include the video of the evening which the nightclub "accidentally erased".

Nope. The cops screwed the pooch on that one.

 

[fatness]

I'm assuming the DVD's won't include the video of the evening which the nightclub "accidentally erased".

Nope. The cops screwed the pooch on that one.

And the nightclub protected their cash cow.

 

[Grimace59]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

TMZ already has posted pics of the victim so there is no way to protect her privacyhttp://photos.tmz.com/galleries/andrea_mcn...nt&id=47437

 

[ang12]

Some clips are up on TMZ.

 

[brewer]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

TMZ already has posted pics of the victim so there is no way to protect her privacyhttp://photos.tmz.com/galleries/andrea_mcn...nt&id=47437

That's the girl from the Reno case, not the most recent one.

 

[pantherclub]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

TMZ already has posted pics of the victim so there is no way to protect her privacyhttp://photos.tmz.com/galleries/andrea_mcn...nt&id=47437

That's the girl from the Reno case, not the most recent one.

ouch

 

[Grimace59]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

TMZ already has posted pics of the victim so there is no way to protect her privacyhttp://photos.tmz.com/galleries/andrea_mcn...nt&id=47437

That's the girl from the Reno case, not the most recent one.

ouch

Oh Snap

 

[Grimace59]

Heres sample of the video, of the Georgia girl, with her face blurred out.

Sorry for the wrong post earlier

http://www.wpxi.com/video/23844103/index.html

 

[Eminence]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

TMZ already has posted pics of the victim so there is no way to protect her privacyhttp://photos.tmz.com/galleries/andrea_mcn...nt&id=47437

Really? ...you're telling me he can't get BETTER looking woman; without forcing himself on them?

 

[bonesman]

Heres sample of the video, of the Georgia girl, with her face blurred out.

Sorry for the wrong post earlier

http://www.wpxi.com/video/23844103/index.html

LOL... Willie the offensive-line-backer

 

[menobrown]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

TMZ already has posted pics of the victim so there is no way to protect her privacyhttp://photos.tmz.com/galleries/andrea_mcn...nt&id=47437

Really? ...you're telling me he can't get BETTER looking woman; without forcing himself on them?

I think that's the saddest part about this. The Reno lady is dog ugly and while I don't know what the 20 year old looks like she was described as 5-4 and 140 or 145. Not exactly a spinner.

 

[Sabertooth]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

I was wondering the same thing, seems to me like they probably would continue to protect the identity of the accuser but I am not sure that is fair.Putting aside your beliefs on the innocence or guilt of Roethlisberger,does it seem right to continue to publish the name of the accused while protecting the name of the alleged victim in cases where the DA admits "We didn't even have probable cause in this case" (that is an exact quote).It seems to me in cases where no charges are filed, ALL or NONE of the identities should be protected when this type of information is released to the public.

What would the victim or the prosecution gain by having her identity revealed?

 

[Sabertooth]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

TMZ already has posted pics of the victim so there is no way to protect her privacyhttp://photos.tmz.com/galleries/andrea_mcn...nt&id=47437

Really? ...you're telling me he can't get BETTER looking woman; without forcing himself on them?

With sexual predators it is about power, not sex. Remember he doesn't think like normal people do. He didn't want to date her or have a one nighter. He wanted to force his will on her.....allegedly

 

[PatsFanCT]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

TMZ already has posted pics of the victim so there is no way to protect her privacyhttp://photos.tmz.com/galleries/andrea_mcn...nt&id=47437

Really? ...you're telling me he can't get BETTER looking woman; without forcing himself on them?

He could get tons of better looking woman. He just can't find too many that say no.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

I was wondering the same thing, seems to me like they probably would continue to protect the identity of the accuser but I am not sure that is fair.Putting aside your beliefs on the innocence or guilt of Roethlisberger,does it seem right to continue to publish the name of the accused while protecting the name of the alleged victim in cases where the DA admits "We didn't even have probable cause in this case" (that is an exact quote).It seems to me in cases where no charges are filed, ALL or NONE of the identities should be protected when this type of information is released to the public.

If you want to start releasing the identity of all rape victims or hiding the identity of a rapist because the cops blew a case, or the perp covered his tracks, you're asking for a whole boatload of problems.

 

[TitansFan10]

I'm tired of calling Ben a rapist when no one knows he is...

 

[Kenny Powers]

When is all this BS gonna end?!

Its annoying already!!

 

[LTF]

After watching those interviews, it was clear to me why the case was dismissed. I don't think the woman or her friend come off well at all in these, to be honest...

 

[SSOG]

I'm tired of calling Ben a rapist when no one knows he is...

I'm sure Ray Lewis is tired of being called a murderer, too. Such is life in the Court of Public Opinion.

 

[karmarooster]

I'm tired of calling Ben a rapist when no one knows he is...

it's the haircut

 

[Class Dismissed]

After watching those interviews, it was clear to me why the case was dismissed. I don't think the woman or her friend come off well at all in these, to be honest...

It would of been better for Ben if this had gone to trial.He would of been cleared easily.This girl acts like she witnessed a fender bender at Wal Mart rather than a victim of rape.It's no wonder she bailed.

 

[Godsbrother]

If you want to start releasing the identity of all rape victims or hiding the identity of a rapist because the cops blew a case, or the perp covered his tracks, you're asking for a whole boatload of problems.

I was not advocating releasing her identity but it seems to me quite unfair to continually bring up the identity of the accused when nothing has been proven and they didn't have enough probable cause to arrest him. It is just too easy for a person to smear someone's name merely by accusing them of sexual assault. To make matters worse, the accused's name is again dragged through the mud when months later they publically release the results of an investigation that didn't yield enough evidence to bring charges based in large part by conflicting testimony of the accuser.If they must release this information then at the very least the name of the accused should be replaced with John Doe and any images of that person should be blurred, just as they do for the accuser. I am not talking specifically about this case -- it should be true in all cases where they DA does not file charges.

 

[fatness]

I'm tired of calling Ben a rapist when no one knows he is...

Then stop calling him one.

 

[Ray_T]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

TMZ already has posted pics of the victim so there is no way to protect her privacyhttp://photos.tmz.com/galleries/andrea_mcn...nt&id=47437

aww man, what the **** is Rothlisberger doing with such a horseface. She is one ugly woman.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

I'm tired of calling Ben a rapist when no one knows he is...

I'm sure Ray Lewis is tired of being called a murderer, too. Such is life in the Court of Public Opinion.

This...^^^^

 

[PatsFanCT]

If you want to start releasing the identity of all rape victims or hiding the identity of a rapist because the cops blew a case, or the perp covered his tracks, you're asking for a whole boatload of problems.

I was not advocating releasing her identity but it seems to me quite unfair to continually bring up the identity of the accused when nothing has been proven and they didn't have enough probable cause to arrest him. It is just too easy for a person to smear someone's name merely by accusing them of sexual assault. To make matters worse, the accused's name is again dragged through the mud when months later they publically release the results of an investigation that didn't yield enough evidence to bring charges based in large part by conflicting testimony of the accuser.If they must release this information then at the very least the name of the accused should be replaced with John Doe and any images of that person should be blurred, just as they do for the accuser. I am not talking specifically about this case -- it should be true in all cases where they DA does not file charges.

It may not be fair, but there's no other way. If a woman is raped, and there's a chance her name is going to be released because of shoddy police work, or not enough evidence to prosecute, then woman will just stop reporting the crime. At the same time, if a rapist's name is withheld because he knows he has a good chance of getting away with it without getting his name smeared, he's going to do it more often. Combine that with woman not reporting the rape, and it's a rapists free-for-all out there.It may not be fair that Ben is getting his name dragged through the mud, but that's the fallout of putting yourself in a position to get your name dragged.

 

[Godsbrother]

If you want to start releasing the identity of all rape victims or hiding the identity of a rapist because the cops blew a case, or the perp covered his tracks, you're asking for a whole boatload of problems.

I was not advocating releasing her identity but it seems to me quite unfair to continually bring up the identity of the accused when nothing has been proven and they didn't have enough probable cause to arrest him. It is just too easy for a person to smear someone's name merely by accusing them of sexual assault. To make matters worse, the accused's name is again dragged through the mud when months later they publically release the results of an investigation that didn't yield enough evidence to bring charges based in large part by conflicting testimony of the accuser.

If they must release this information then at the very least the name of the accused should be replaced with John Doe and any images of that person should be blurred, just as they do for the accuser. I am not talking specifically about this case -- it should be true in all cases where they DA does not file charges.

It may not be fair, but there's no other way. If a woman is raped, and there's a chance her name is going to be released because of shoddy police work, or not enough evidence to prosecute, then woman will just stop reporting the crime. At the same time, if a rapist's name is withheld because he knows he has a good chance of getting away with it without getting his name smeared, he's going to do it more often. Combine that with woman not reporting the rape, and it's a rapists free-for-all out there.It may not be fair that Ben is getting his name dragged through the mud, but that's the fallout of putting yourself in a position to get your name dragged.

His name was already dragged through the mud during the original investigation. All I am saying is that when they release the report of the investigation, the accused's identity should be protected if that person was not charged with a crime.

 

[Class Dismissed]

This thing still may not be over for those Sorority Sisters. If I'm the cops/bodyguards who are being reprimanded for what these girls are saying, I'd have them on the stand for cross examination when I'm suing them or the state/employer for any loss of pay and defamation.

These girls are obviously lying through their teeth. I hope they are called out on it.

They do a tremendous disservice to any woman who has been raped, it's not a game.

 

[Bayhawks]

Will the victim/her friends faces be hidden to protect privacy?

I was wondering the same thing, seems to me like they probably would continue to protect the identity of the accuser but I am not sure that is fair.Putting aside your beliefs on the innocence or guilt of Roethlisberger,does it seem right to continue to publish the name of the accused while protecting the name of the alleged victim in cases where the DA admits "We didn't even have probable cause in this case" (that is an exact quote).It seems to me in cases where no charges are filed, ALL or NONE of the identities should be protected when this type of information is released to the public.

If you want to start releasing the identity of all rape victims or hiding the identity of a rapist because the cops blew a case, or the perp covered his tracks, you're asking for a whole boatload of problems.

Here's where my problem lies. If the police had filed charges, this information would not be released, rather it would become "public" at the trial. At the same time, this woman's identity (and any testimony she gave) would become public knowledge, as well. And at that time, the person who was accused would have the opportunity to defend himself against such allegations & clear his name (if he was indeed innocent). Since the police didn't press charges, this information is now released, but her identity is still hidden. The accused has NO CHANCE to defend himself against these charges, and the court of public opinion will judge him, fair or not.I'm not saying Ben is guilty or innocent, rather that this "law" requiring them to release this information is wrong. If a man is accused of rape and has a legal opportunity to defend himself, then that is one thing.However, it's completely unfair for a man to go out to a bar/nightclub, hit on a girl who was sending signals that she was interested in a sexual relationship (and a DTF nametag definitely sends that signal), be publicly accused of rape, sexual assault, what-have-you, and have NO WAY to defend himself.

 

[Bayhawks]

If you want to start releasing the identity of all rape victims or hiding the identity of a rapist because the cops blew a case, or the perp covered his tracks, you're asking for a whole boatload of problems.

I was not advocating releasing her identity but it seems to me quite unfair to continually bring up the identity of the accused when nothing has been proven and they didn't have enough probable cause to arrest him. It is just too easy for a person to smear someone's name merely by accusing them of sexual assault. To make matters worse, the accused's name is again dragged through the mud when months later they publically release the results of an investigation that didn't yield enough evidence to bring charges based in large part by conflicting testimony of the accuser.

If they must release this information then at the very least the name of the accused should be replaced with John Doe and any images of that person should be blurred, just as they do for the accuser. I am not talking specifically about this case -- it should be true in all cases where they DA does not file charges.

It may not be fair, but there's no other way. If a woman is raped, and there's a chance her name is going to be released because of shoddy police work, or not enough evidence to prosecute, then woman will just stop reporting the crime. At the same time, if a rapist's name is withheld because he knows he has a good chance of getting away with it without getting his name smeared, he's going to do it more often. Combine that with woman not reporting the rape, and it's a rapists free-for-all out there.It may not be fair that Ben is getting his name dragged through the mud, but that's the fallout of putting yourself in a position to get your name dragged.

Sure there is. If charges are not filed because there isn't enough evidence, then the DA shouldn't hold a press conference and rail on and on for almost an hour about how the person who they aren't charging is guilty but they can't prove it. Then months later, they could NOT release the "evidence" that wasn't sufficient to bringe charges.That would be another way to do it.

 

[fatness]

This thing still may not be over for those Sorority Sisters. If I'm the cops/bodyguards who are being reprimanded for what these girls are saying, I'd have them on the stand for cross examination when I'm suing them or the state/employer for any loss of pay and defamation.These girls are obviously lying through their teeth. I hope they are called out on it.

Good lord.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Sure there is. If charges are not filed because there isn't enough evidence, then the DA shouldn't hold a press conference and rail on and on for almost an hour about how the person who they aren't charging is guilty but they can't prove it. Then months later, they could NOT release the "evidence" that wasn't sufficient to bringe charges.That would be another way to do it.

I think someone said earlier that the evidence becomes public record. They should probably be more even-handed abotu a case that went nowhere, but Ben isn't underrage, so the file doesn't get sealed or anything. I don't think you CAN bury it forever.

 

[Hang 10]

He really needs to stop raping ugly chicks.

 

[Bayhawks]

Sure there is. If charges are not filed because there isn't enough evidence, then the DA shouldn't hold a press conference and rail on and on for almost an hour about how the person who they aren't charging is guilty but they can't prove it. Then months later, they could NOT release the "evidence" that wasn't sufficient to bringe charges.That would be another way to do it.

I think someone said earlier that the evidence becomes public record. They should probably be more even-handed abotu a case that went nowhere, but Ben isn't underrage, so the file doesn't get sealed or anything. I don't think you CAN bury it forever.

But what is it "evidence" of? According to the DA, they didn't have enough to press charges against Ben. At that point, there is no "crime." (again not saying that Ben did or did not assault, rape, etc this woman, rather what the reality of the situation is) If there is no crime, why is this woman's identity still being hidden? I fully get that the victim of a rape (or other crime) deserves to have her identity/privacy protected. But in this case, she is not the victim of a crime, since Ben was charged with no crime. So why does she deserve to have the GA authorities try to protect her identity/privacy/reputation when they are clearly not doing the same for Roethlisberger? Aren't all people supposed to be equal under the law?

 

[biggamer3]

wow that chick should be honored anyone let alone an MVP player wanted her for even a few minutes

 

[PatsFanCT]

Sure there is. If charges are not filed because there isn't enough evidence, then the DA shouldn't hold a press conference and rail on and on for almost an hour about how the person who they aren't charging is guilty but they can't prove it. Then months later, they could NOT release the "evidence" that wasn't sufficient to bringe charges.That would be another way to do it.

I think someone said earlier that the evidence becomes public record. They should probably be more even-handed abotu a case that went nowhere, but Ben isn't underrage, so the file doesn't get sealed or anything. I don't think you CAN bury it forever.

But what is it "evidence" of? According to the DA, they didn't have enough to press charges against Ben. At that point, there is no "crime." (again not saying that Ben did or did not assault, rape, etc this woman, rather what the reality of the situation is) If there is no crime, why is this woman's identity still being hidden? I fully get that the victim of a rape (or other crime) deserves to have her identity/privacy protected. But in this case, she is not the victim of a crime, since Ben was charged with no crime. So why does she deserve to have the GA authorities try to protect her identity/privacy/reputation when they are clearly not doing the same for Roethlisberger? Aren't all people supposed to be equal under the law?

Just because there's not enough evidence to prosecute, doesn't mean there wasn't a crime, or the guy wasn't a rapist. And I'm not saying Ben is. In general, if a rapist knows he can get away with raping with complete anonymity, he's going to do it more often. If a woman is raped and she thinks there's a chance the rapist will not only go free, but will remain anonymous, what is the point of her pressing charges. It just spells more rapes and less reported.It may not be totally fair, but I'm going to go ahead and assume 99.99% of us on this board have never been accused of rape, and that's probably because 99.99% of us have never put ourselves in a situation to be accused. Yet Ben has done so twice. Again, not saying he did, but that is the fallout for putting yourself in that situation.

 

[Bayhawks]

Just because there's not enough evidence to prosecute, doesn't mean there wasn't a crime, or the guy wasn't a rapist.

And just because a women (or her sorority sisters) claim she was attacked doesn't mean she was.The underlying principle of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty." Not only was Ben not proven guilty, he wasn't even charged with a crime; yet he is being treated BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM (of GA) as if he had committed a crime. That's not right.

In general, if a rapist knows he can get away with raping with complete anonymity, he's going to do it more often.

And if a women feels she can make baseless accusations (or at least ones that are impossible to prove) for whatever reason (regret, anger, greed, etc) without suffering any consequences (like having her identity known), then she's going to be more likely to do it.******(See end of post)

It may not be totally fair, but I'm going to go ahead and assume 99.99% of us on this board have never been accused of rape, and that's probably because 99.99% of us have never put ourselves in a situation to be accused. Yet Ben has done so twice. Again, not saying he did, but that is the fallout for putting yourself in that situation.

You're looking at one situation, I'm talking about the law/legal system (of GA) in general. Ben wasn't found guilty or charged with a crime. Regardless of whether it's because of poor police work, a loophole in the legal system, etc-he is, for all intents and purposes, John Q public citizen, and should be treated as such. The situation in Nevada doesn't come into play here. The court of public opinion will make their decision, but the GA legal system is being unfair by releasing these tapes with his identity being exposed while the woman who made this accusation has hers protected.*******Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is what this women is doing. I believe that Ben probably did some things that I, personally, would not be okay with. However, the legal system didn't find him guilty, so he should be treated like every other individual who isn't guilty of any crime.

 

[treat88]

Just because there's not enough evidence to prosecute, doesn't mean there wasn't a crime, or the guy wasn't a rapist.

And just because a women (or her sorority sisters) claim she was attacked doesn't mean she was.The underlying principle of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty." Not only was Ben not proven guilty, he wasn't even charged with a crime; yet he is being treated BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM (of GA) as if he had committed a crime. That's not right.

In general, if a rapist knows he can get away with raping with complete anonymity, he's going to do it more often.

And if a women feels she can make baseless accusations (or at least ones that are impossible to prove) for whatever reason (regret, anger, greed, etc) without suffering any consequences (like having her identity known), then she's going to be more likely to do it.******(See end of post)

It may not be totally fair, but I'm going to go ahead and assume 99.99% of us on this board have never been accused of rape, and that's probably because 99.99% of us have never put ourselves in a situation to be accused. Yet Ben has done so twice. Again, not saying he did, but that is the fallout for putting yourself in that situation.

You're looking at one situation, I'm talking about the law/legal system (of GA) in general. Ben wasn't found guilty or charged with a crime. Regardless of whether it's because of poor police work, a loophole in the legal system, etc-he is, for all intents and purposes, John Q public citizen, and should be treated as such. The situation in Nevada doesn't come into play here. The court of public opinion will make their decision, but the GA legal system is being unfair by releasing these tapes with his identity being exposed while the woman who made this accusation has hers protected.*******Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is what this women is doing. I believe that Ben probably did some things that I, personally, would not be okay with. However, the legal system didn't find him guilty, so he should be treated like every other individual who isn't guilty of any crime.

Fact.Excellent well thought out position. I agree 100%.

 

[fatness]

Not only was Ben not proven guilty, he wasn't even charged with a crime; yet he is being treated BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM (of GA) as if he had committed a crime. That's not right.

No, he's not being treated as if he committed a crime. He wasn't sentenced. He's not in jail. He wasn't released from jail on parole. He's not on probation. He doesn't wear an ankle bracelet. He doesn't report to a probation officer. He's not on a sex offender list. Those are things that typically happened when someone has committed a crime. None of them has happened to Roethlisberger.You're confusing the legal system with public opinion. It is not the responsibility of the legal system to do public relations work for people who were investigated. If those people look bad to the public then they look bad. Hundreds of grown men on NFL teams do their own public relations work by avoiding being investigated for a series accusations of sex offenses. Hundreds of them every year. They don't need "the legal system" to do their public relations work for them, they do it themselves. By staying out of trouble.

 

[Bayhawks]

Not only was Ben not proven guilty, he wasn't even charged with a crime; yet he is being treated BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM (of GA) as if he had committed a crime. That's not right.

No, he's not being treated as if he committed a crime. He wasn't sentenced. He's not in jail. He wasn't released from jail on parole. He's not on probation. He doesn't wear an ankle bracelet. He doesn't report to a probation officer. He's not on a sex offender list. Those are things that typically happened when someone has committed a crime. None of them has happened to Roethlisberger.You're confusing the legal system with public opinion. It is not the responsibility of the legal system to do public relations work for people who were investigated. If those people look bad to the public then they look bad. Hundreds of grown men on NFL teams do their own public relations work by avoiding being investigated for a series accusations of sex offenses. Hundreds of them every year. They don't need "the legal system" to do their public relations work for them, they do it themselves. By staying out of trouble.

First, I'll say that that particular sentence was worded poorly. You are absolutely correct in that Roethlisberger wasn't sentenced, paroled, put on probation, etc which are typical things that happen to people who have committed crimes. He is, however, being treated by the GA legal system in a way in which people who haven't committed or been charged with a crime aren't treated.It was fairly convenient quoting on your part, however, to choose a sentence that I worded poorly in order to try to make some sort of point, while you ignored the meaning of my post.That meaning was: Roethlisberger AND the woman who accused him are both citizens of the United States. As such they are entitled to certain rights. Equal treatment is one, and another is the judicial principle of "innocent until proven guilty." If BR had been found guilty (or even charged) with a crime, it is reasonable to no longer receive the same treatment as a person who had not committed or been charged with a crime. However, that didn't happen, so he and the woman deserve the same treatment. Not for his name, public image, etc to be distributed, along with the words "rape" and "sexual assault," while her name and image are not being displayed as a woman who was bar-hopping with a DTF sticker prominently worn, advertising her availability for casual sex.Look at it this way: what if Ben decided to press charges on this woman, (for example, contending that she assaulted him), and he gave an interview that presented this woman in a negative light, describing her as slutty, easy, promiscuous, etc? After he gave this interview, the police decided there was not enough evidence to charge her. When they then decided to release the "evidence," (as is supposedly required) that presented this woman like a tramp who was looking to have some casual sex with a random partner, would you be so cavalier, saying it's her own fault, for putting herself in that position?

 

[treat88]

Not only was Ben not proven guilty, he wasn't even charged with a crime; yet he is being treated BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM (of GA) as if he had committed a crime. That's not right.

No, he's not being treated as if he committed a crime. He wasn't sentenced. He's not in jail. He wasn't released from jail on parole. He's not on probation. He doesn't wear an ankle bracelet. He doesn't report to a probation officer. He's not on a sex offender list. Those are things that typically happened when someone has committed a crime. None of them has happened to Roethlisberger.You're confusing the legal system with public opinion. It is not the responsibility of the legal system to do public relations work for people who were investigated. If those people look bad to the public then they look bad. Hundreds of grown men on NFL teams do their own public relations work by avoiding being investigated for a series accusations of sex offenses. Hundreds of them every year. They don't need "the legal system" to do their public relations work for them, they do it themselves. By staying out of trouble.

First, I'll say that that particular sentence was worded poorly. You are absolutely correct in that Roethlisberger wasn't sentenced, paroled, put on probation, etc which are typical things that happen to people who have committed crimes. He is, however, being treated by the GA legal system in a way in which people who haven't committed or been charged with a crime aren't treated.It was fairly convenient quoting on your part, however, to choose a sentence that I worded poorly in order to try to make some sort of point, while you ignored the meaning of my post.That meaning was: Roethlisberger AND the woman who accused him are both citizens of the United States. As such they are entitled to certain rights. Equal treatment is one, and another is the judicial principle of "innocent until proven guilty." If BR had been found guilty (or even charged) with a crime, it is reasonable to no longer receive the same treatment as a person who had not committed or been charged with a crime. However, that didn't happen, so he and the woman deserve the same treatment. Not for his name, public image, etc to be distributed, along with the words "rape" and "sexual assault," while her name and image are not being displayed as a woman who was bar-hopping with a DTF sticker prominently worn, advertising her availability for casual sex.Look at it this way: what if Ben decided to press charges on this woman, (for example, contending that she assaulted him), and he gave an interview that presented this woman in a negative light, describing her as slutty, easy, promiscuous, etc? After he gave this interview, the police decided there was not enough evidence to charge her. When they then decided to release the "evidence," (as is supposedly required) that presented this woman like a tramp who was looking to have some casual sex with a random partner, would you be so cavalier, saying it's her own fault, for putting herself in that position?

Your intent and meaning was blatantly obvious.