Cops Releasing Ben Roethlisberger Investigation DVDs Publicly (1 Viewer)

[captain_amazing]

I wonder if the special features include play-by-play analysis by Madden....

 

[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?

Your intent and meaning was blatantly obvious.

So why did you choose to ignore it and choose one ill-worded sentence to pick apart? And why don't you address my last question?

 

[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.

So why did you choose to ignore it and choose one ill-worded sentence to pick apart? And why don't you address my last question?

No I'm agreeing with you. I'm the guy that gave you the well thought out position compliment.Your point was clear, as was the intent of your post.It takes someone with an agenda to grind the ax and intentionally misinterpret what you were saying.

 

[Bayhawks]

No I'm agreeing with you. I'm the guy that gave you the well thought out position compliment.Your point was clear, as was the intent of your post.It takes someone with an agenda to grind the ax and intentionally misinterpret what you were saying.

Sorry, my bad.

 

[fatness]

It takes someone with an agenda to grind the ax and intentionally misinterpret what you were saying.

I quoted exactly what he said. Bunch of crybabies here.

 

[treat88]

It takes someone with an agenda to grind the ax and intentionally misinterpret what you were saying.

I quoted exactly what he said. Bunch of crybabies here.

First quoted and then misinterpreted.Right back at ya with the crybaby BS quotemeister.Good lord you'd think you worked the TMZ gutterbeat the way you've been pushing your skewed agenda since news of this story first broke.

 

[Bayhawks]

It takes someone with an agenda to grind the ax and intentionally misinterpret what you were saying.

I quoted exactly what he said. Bunch of crybabies here.

Nobody's crying. You did quote exactly what I said. However, as I admitted, it was a poorly worded sentence, and you chose that sentence and misinterpreted the meaning of my post.How about you answer this question:

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?

Because if you believe Ben is being treated fairly by the GA authorities and legal system, then you would have no problem with the scenario above, right?

 

[fatness]

If she had a history of doing similar things over and over again like Roethlisberger had, the situations would be similar. And people would reach that conclusion whether the evidence was released or not.

Now quit crying about the persecution of St. Benjamin.

You argue on one hand that the evidence released by the DA's office wasn't sufficient to charge him with a crime. That's a central part of your argument. Why aren't you arguing loud and clear that people should read and hear all that evidence? If it so clearly shows him to be a persecuted martyr, it'll be obvious, won't it?

 

[Bayhawks]

Now quit crying about the persecution of St. Benjamin.

Okay, you obviously have 2 problems.The first is with, as you call him, "St. Benjamin." Clearly you don't like him. Maybe you're a Steelers fan who feel he has hurt the reputation of your team. Maybe you're a Steelers hater who hates all Steelers. Maybe you just hate Roethlisberger because (by many accounts), he's kind of a jerk. But you're letting those feelings influence what (should be) logical thought.

The second is reading comprehension.

I haven't once said Roethlisberger didn't do anything wrong. Nor have I said that he is blameless in this situation, or the situation in Nevada. I have definitely not implied that he was a "saint."

In fact, I have said that he probably did things that I would judge as wrong (that's the strongest wording I used, since I wasn't in GA when the situation occurred and have no more insight into it than anyone else).

What I have posted about, and what this thread is about, is the release of "evidence" by the GA legal system. You seem to think that this release is validated by Roethlisberger's personality, profession, or previous actions. IT IS NOT. According to what we have been told, it is GA law that this evidence is released. Not that they have to release it because it was a pro football player, but it would be released in ANY CASE.

If Ben Roethlisberger had instead been John Smith, according to what we've been told, the GA authorities would still have released this information, and (in theory), they would have continued to try to hide the woman's identity and protect her privacy, while John Smith's identity would have been broadcast to the world.

You argue on one hand that the evidence released by the DA's office wasn't sufficient to charge him with a crime. That's a central part of your argument. Why aren't you arguing loud and clear that people should read and hear all that evidence? If it so clearly shows him to be a persecuted martyr, it'll be obvious, won't it?

OK, here's that reading comprehension problem again. The central part of my argument is that THE GA LEGAL SYSTEM DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CHARGE ROETHLISBERGER WITH A CRIME, THEREFORE HE IS MERELY A CITIZEN, NOT A PERSON CHARGED WITH A CRIME, AND NOT A CRIMINAL. BY RELEASING THE INFORMATION AND CONTINUING TO PROTECT THE WOMAN'S IDENTITY AND PRIVACY, THEY ARE TREATING ROETHLISBERGER DIFFERENTLY. THAT IS WRONG.

If she had a history of doing similar things over and over again like Roethlisberger had, the situations would be similar. And people would reach that conclusion whether the evidence was released or not.

Her past, and Roethlisberger's past have NOTHING to do with the release of this information. It was released based SOLELY on this incident and the inability to charge Roethlisberger with a crime. If the situation was reversed, and Ben had accused her, but no charges were filed. The same situation would (in theory) apply. It wouldn't matter if the woman had been charged 214 times with solicitation. And you're absolutely right, people would reach their conclusions with this information, or in spite of it. However, those people are not the government or the legal system, and they are not required to treat all citizens equally and fairly.

You don't like Roethlisberger, I get it. That's your prerogative. However, this GA law is unfair, and if you weren't so blinded by ignorance and your feelings towards "St. Benjamin," you'd know that.