This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Exactly. Which means that the Rooneys have a PR problem on their hands. I think a lot of folks around here have grown tired of Ben's act. I know I have, and I used to be a pretty big fan. I actually have a Ben jersey. But I'm pretty close to tossing in in the garbage.consistent with all that I know as well.This doesnt mean he raped or assaulted a girl, just that he's generally a POS.
As I said in another thread John Steigerwald has issues of his own and in no way shape or form should he be calling out anyone for being arrogant and a punk.
As long as he doesn't break the law and wins football games I couldn't care less if Ben is a jerk. Unfortunately the dude just can't stay out of the news and is casting a bad light on my favorite team and hometown. And if he is assaulting women then obviously he has gone too far. Those things I do care about ...Exactly. Which means that the Rooneys have a PR problem on their hands. I think a lot of folks around here have grown tired of Ben's act. I know I have, and I used to be a pretty big fan. I actually have a Ben jersey. But I'm pretty close to tossing in in the garbage.consistent with all that I know as well.This doesnt mean he raped or assaulted a girl, just that he's generally a POS.
Oh lay off... he was just doing his Chapelle/Rick James impersonation. The next thing he said was "Show Charlie Murphey your tittays!".
More poor judgment.He should know 20 year old sorority girls are not going to get Chapelle pop-culture references. Should have led with a good Jonas Brothers line.
I bet Cedrick Wilson would disagree
CE, I have to commend you for your objectivity throughout the many discussions of this issue. Generally, it is the nature of fans to defend their favorite teams and players thereof to a fault. I'm not suggesting other Steelers fans are doing this, but you in particular stand out as being very objective - not allowing your emotions/allegiance to blind your perception in any way whatsoever. Anyway, props.Exactly. Which means that the Rooneys have a PR problem on their hands. I think a lot of folks around here have grown tired of Ben's act. I know I have, and I used to be a pretty big fan. I actually have a Ben jersey. But I'm pretty close to tossing in in the garbage.consistent with all that I know as well.This doesnt mean he raped or assaulted a girl, just that he's generally a POS.
He lost the beef jerky quicker than Tiger lost gatoraid.
I just hope the truth comes out. If he's not guilty it shouldn't ruin his career. If he is guilty, I hope he goes to jail. I have no use for guys who assault or abuse women, sexually, verbally, or any other way.CE, I have to commend you for your objectivity throughout the many discussions of this issue. Generally, it is the nature of fans to defend their favorite teams and players thereof to a fault. I'm not suggesting other Steelers fans are doing this, but you in particular stand out as being very objective - not allowing your emotions/allegiance to blind your perception in any way whatsoever. Anyway, props.
or When Keepin' It Real Goes Wrong.
A buddy of mine that I play softball with owns the Big Ben's BBQ sauce brand (he also does a few other Big Ben products). He knows Ben very well after the first incident said to me that Ben was being railroaded. I haven't seen him since this incident but he has GOT to be po'ed right now.
He's got to be working on the "Big Ben's Male Chastity Harness" patent
I've been married for 2 yrs but been with her for over 11. And if you've been married for 17 yrs and have a young baby, I think it's safe to say you were together at an early age as well. That said, what makes your or my decision any "smarter" or "more grown up" than his? Just because your or I wouldn't make the same decisions as him doesn't make his lifestyle "wrong". (And merely "hanging out with people his age" doesn't solve the problem - hell, I know 28 yr olds who are much bigger golddiggers than any 20 yr old I've met). Friends of our family in Pitt know Ben and Jeff Reed and describe him as "gross" in the club - but also that plenty of girls are throwing themselves at them knowing that full well. So, while I have no doubt he was an #######/arrogant/whatever, I also have a little trouble thinking he necessarily forced himself on her. If anything, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and frankly I would be surprised if it wasn't more a situation where she was drunk and then in retrospect saw an "opportunity".I am NOT saying he was justified if he did indeed sexually assault her or anything - I'm just saying there should be some caution in taking ths allegation as fact. I mean, isn't it a bit of a red flag that she went to a civil lawyer not the police?
With all the sexual assault cases B.R. has going on at the same time it's easy to mix them up.
Sounds like he told his bodyguards to make sure he had some privacy while he put the moves on. They might be the only witnesses as to who went in the bathroom when and what happened when they came out. I wonder how loyal they are and whether they will lie for him. Cops lie all the time in cases, so I wouldn't put it past them to back up whatever story Ben tells.
You're right, I guess that's what happens when you post drunk - for whatever reason I thought there were no criminal charges pending here. The point remains that we shouldn't just take allegations as fact - as I said, I think the truth probably falls somewhere in the middle.
You do realize that almost immediately after this happened she went to the police, right?
Like I said, I got the two events mixed up lst night when I was drunk... but, just going to the police especially when you're drunk doesn't mean your right. I've known plenty of people who fell/got into fights/whatever and couldn't remember what *really* happened (or all the details). And just to play devil's advocate - what if she learned her lesson from the first accuser - if you don't want to be discredited, then you have to go to the police.Again, I'm not suggesting Ben didn't do anything wrong... I'm just saying that just because there's a pattern of accusers doesn't mean he actually did anything. Hell, even if they had sex doesn't mean he did anything wrong. I guess I'm just skeptical on either side seeing ths as a black and white issue. Ben has proven to, at the very least, make poor choices and pt himself in poor situations. That doesn't mean that she is necessarily just a victim in the situation either.
I generally agree with you that we can't prejudge this thing. However, if I were a betting man I would say that Ben probably did something wrong, based on the previous accusation, the immediate report by the woman, the bump on the head, the admission that they had some sort of "contact". BUT, that doesn't make anything even close to conclusive, we just need more facts. If he is innocent, my bet would be that rather than conjuring up a story the girl was wasted and like you said, isn't even sure what happened. Her intoxication level might be the major factor in whether they decide to charge Ben. Its hard to imagine that she targeted Ben, seduced him, and then accused him. Its certainly possible though. Its perhaps no more hard to imagine than Ben slamming her head against the wall and raping her...its hard for me to imagine that he is that big of a criminal.
yeah, NFL players never do that.
Do you think he'll call you back or lost respect for you?
Irvin's talking from experience and makes a good point,but, his 15 minutes of fame expired a long,long time ago..why can't he and Rodman just go away already..?
Why? Because he did a lot of coke and messed around with strippers? That eliminates 90% of all athletes at one point in their life.
It's probably best for all people involved that it's done right, not quickly.
I think it was more than 15 minutes. 3 SBs and HOF. I think he's an OK studio analyst just because he spices it up.
I think part of it is that Garland has bought some time for his client, probably by putting off the interview and DNA sample until a later date. This allows his investigator to go to work before any charge happens. But I agree, I don't think the investigation should be that complicated. Maybe the GBI is doing a serious background check on the victim to make sure there are no surprises later.
Just out of curiosity, what is a DNA sample expected to show? Didn't he already admit to having "contact" with her, whether sexual or otherwise? Isn't the open question whether or not whatever happened was consensual and, if her "fall" was caused by him? I'm not sure how a DNA sample helps answer that question one way or another.If an interview with and DNA sample from Ben is the only thing holding up charges being filed, that suggests to me that there might not be enough evidence to get an indictment.
I think that's true assuming Ben did in fact admit to the sexual contact. But keep in mind he could change his story later or say that by "contact" he meant kissing or something non-sexual. So if they recovered a sample from her that matches him it could still be an important piece of evidence. If Ben decides to give them another statement, that could clear things up for them going forward. Like I said, maybe the background check on her is taking some time too. If they have decided to interview a bunch of people from her past that opens up a much bigger list of people and investigative work.
I think they decided to drop the Kobe case because she lacked credibility; and then she got the settlement later. I don't remember how that played out. Did they drop the case because she voluntarily said she wouldn't testify? BTW, its obstruction of justice to pay-off a victim in a criminal case.
There's no such thing as "innocent till proven guilty" outside of the courtroom and there never was. That's one of the most misapplied cliches ever. The public is is free to think of Big Ben as a sleazy sonofa##### and to think of the Steelers in the same manner by association as long as they keep him on the team. And the Steelers are free to yield to the public outrage if they so desire.
'With jury selection under way, the criminal case was dropped late Wednesday by prosecutors who said the 20-year-old woman accusing Bryant of rape had decided not to participate. Her exit followed gaffes that led to the public disclosure of her name and other personal details, and prosecutors said they would not carry on without her testimony."
Pittsburgh TV station KDKA reported that that Ben admitted to having sexual contact but that intercourse did not occur. However they claimed they were told this by an unnamed source. I haven't read or heard of any direct quotes from Ben or his attorney where they have admitted anything.
The Steelers are not going to release their franchise QB over this incident if no charges are filed.
Yeah I just checked wikipedia, she did refuse to testify. Then she later settled the civil suit out of court. Kobe issued an apology prior to the settlement, but after the criminal charge was dismissed. "Before the case was scheduled to go to trial, Faber filed a civil lawsuit against Bryant over the incident on August 10. The two sides ultimately settled that lawsuit, with specific terms of the settlement being undisclosed to the public. Bryant did, however, issue the following statement through his attorney, as part of an agreement with the accuser to dismiss the sexual assault charge:"First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year. Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colo.I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado.[24]"Of course, the prosecutor had to sign-on to this agreement; but he doesn't have a lot of choice when the accuser decides she doesn't want to testify. I bet the money part was settled as part of the agreement, despite what Kobe says in the statement.
I don't think they will release him even if charges are filed. I think he has to be convicted for that to happen.
My point wasn't that the Steelers couldn't release him, my point was that they shouldn't just based on an unproved allegation.
Her statement alone is enough to get an indictment depending upon what she specifically states and what criminal charge the prosecutor is seeking. The grand jury would likely hear only the accuser's side of the story when they take the matter up. But composition of the grand jury, just like with a trial jury, can make a big difference. Some grand jurors see "he said / she said" matters as losers from the get go or take the parties' identities into consideration. Technically speaking, the credibility of the witnesses should be a matter for the trial jury, not the grand jury, to consider. But I have seen cases where the reputation of the accuser and/or the accused seems to have caused an unsual grand jury outcome. And given how nuanced physical communication can be (consider whether a squeeze of the shoulders was an uninvited caress or a gesture of friendly encouragement), those biases the grand jurors bring in with them give them a motive to see those subtleties in a light most consistent with their own views.
With respect, my point was that Big Ben boozing it up with college girls and dismissing them from his presence when the #####es won't join his harem gives him a black eye in the PR department. And if that black eye causes the Steelers to take a PR hit, why shouldn't they get rid of him? What do they owe him? A paycheck as long as they want him around. That's it. When they no longer want him around, it doesn't matter whether it's because of diminished skills or diminished ticket sales because NOW is protesting out in the parking lot, they "should" do what they like. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
He may not get a grand jury, b/c in GA indictments are optional:"Twenty-five states (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming) make the use of indictments optional. Most of them let prosecutors use either an indictment or an information to charge any offense."
Cutler didn't lead his team to 2 SB titles. My bet is that if he did, his drinking and attitude wouldn't be such a big deal. We agree that the Steelers can and should do what they want to. I'm just saying they shouldn't release him because he is a jerk, or because of some unproven accusation. And I don't think they will.
