I think a lot of people are misinformed about this matter. I don't know enough about it so I can't say I feel one way or another about it. But from the people who actually read the testimonies filed in Court, their response has been a 6-game suspension was a good decision or not good enough.
I don't think that is true at all. The reason the case didn't go forward is because it WAS a he-said she-said and there wasn't any real evience to prove the alleged crime.
Rape kit proved penetration. He was too drunk to fire so there was not enough material to get a DNA profile. That was one of the major reasons the police and the DA couldn't build a case. Read the fucking report before you try and comment on this shit.
I hear you but I simply don't think it's very relevant what people who are more familiar with the case think. The point is, the Georgia legal authorities, whose job it is to determine A) if a crime was committed and B) whether or not there is enough evidence to PROVE said crime, decided not to even press charges. In my opinion, it's very dangerous for the commisioner of the NFL to usurp that decision and decide to arbitrarily legislate morality. Because now, anyone looking to extort a famous NFL player can make up a phony accusation (and get a friend to corroborate the story), and the NFL player in question would be best advised to give the false accuser some cash so that he doesn't lose six games worth of game checks. The point is, if the NFL is going to arbitrarily decide to suspend players for NON-CRIMINAL behavior, then there is no OBJECTIVE STANDARD by which said players can be expected to behave.
1) When reading the case documents, the suspension is about the furthest thing from the word arbitrary as possible when taking into consideration the personal conduct policy Ben's employer has. 2) When reading the case documents, it is very clear that objectively, Ben's actions fall well short of the personal conduct policy his employer has.
Uhm, actually I have read the report. Saying that the rape kit "proved Penetration" is an outright fabrication. The rape kit was "INCONCLUSIVE". There MAY have been "penetration" but it just as easily could have been a finger, two fingers, (a foreign object?), etc as it could have been a penis. Also, we know both people in question were drunk out of their minds. There is no way to properly asses consensuality here. There is no case and NO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. I would drop the ignorant but yet amusingly arrogant self-righteous act and stick to facts.
I think this part might have been beaten to death in this thread, but, he's had history of forcing himself on to women. If this was his 1st time offense and he got 6 games, I would consider that a bit harsh. But this is now going on his 2nd offense, and maybe even a 3rd. At some point you have take the blinders off. I honestly believe Goodell when he tells Big Ben in his suspension letter that this decision is truly a wake up call. Not only to help salvage his NFL career, but also reflect on his actions and change his behavior before it's too late.
You're acting like this is the first time that a commissioner has suspended someone for their actions without criminal charges. For two times in as many years, Ben Roethlisberger has been accused of sexual assault/rape. There's the first red flag. Then there were his actions that night that that happened before the sexual assault/rape, like walking into the bathroom with his penis out. Not exactly the greatest way to promote the NFL. Then there is the fact that the whole city of Pittsburgh has pretty much grown tired of all the bullshit he does in that city like refusing to pay cover at clubs, walking out on cheques, refusing to talk to fans, refusing to sign autographs and acting like a creep and asshole to chicks in bars and clubs all over the city. Roethlisberger has done everything to hurt his image and the NFL. The Steelers are pissed off at him, the city of Pittsburgh is pissed off at him and the commissioner is pissed off at him. All rightfully so. Frankly, you're male paranoia over this is ridiculous to the point of being insulting. Especially when you consider that it would probably be more profitable for any girl to just say yes, make sure he goes in raw, and then refuse the abortion so she'll be set for life. Do you realize how far these teams and leagues will go to protect their players and their image? If this was a false accusation then the cops, the Steelers, and the NFL investigators would have run this girl out of Milledgeville and likely the state of Georgia.
If this happened to anyone on this forum you would be fired and go to jail. Six games suspension, Ben is probably giving high fives to his boys back at home.
1) I'm not saying that the NFL doesn't have a RIGHT to suspend Ben nor am I saying that the NFL doesn't have a RIGHT to implement and inforce any Personal Conduct policy they want to (within the framework of discriminatory laws, of course). What I am saying is that, In my humble opinion, it is extremely dangerous for the NFL to engage in moral legislation in instances where no criminal behavior has been committed. I believe once you suspend a guy who hasn't even been CHARGED with committing a crime, you are going down a slippery slope with no end in sight. Again, no one is questioning the NFLs legal RIGHT to suspend Ben. 2) We'll have to agree to disagree on the use of the word arbitrary because I think it applies in spades.
I'm not saying Ben doesn't need a wake up call. I'm just saying that it sets a dangerous precedent to be suspending NFL players who haven't been charged with a crime.
Are you fucking kidding me? There is typically one type of material that they look for in there, which they found. Of course, acknowledging that point would mean having to actually develop a real argument when you could just as easily ignore it and say that it was a finger or foreign object. Also, if you're going to attack someone for an amusingly arrogant demeanor, I wouldn't start my sentences with phrases like "Uhm, actually" as if I was a 14 year old girl debating which Avril Lavigne rumor is more accurate based on what you read in Teen Cosmo.
This is complete and utter nonsense. If this happened to anyone on this forum (being questioned by police for an alleged crime in another state and NEVER BEING CHARGED), there is a VERY good chance the person's employer WOULDN'T EVEN FIND OUT ABOUT IT. :wink:
If they found anything close to conclusive, they would have charged the guy. Stop acting like you don't understand that basic verity. And, uhm, actually, your demeanor was amusingly arrogant and self-righteous. You have NO IDEA what happened in that bathroom and whether or not things were consensual, so when you act like you do have an idea, you come off as being INCREDIBLY arrogant.
Things I've learned in this thread: 1) If a girl has no bruises, even if I force myself upon her, it's not rape. Maybe I should go buy some roofies? 2) As long as I have people who look out for me, by cleaning the area I left my DNA on, blocking doorways to prevent witnesses, corroborating my story (however poorly) I am completely irresponsible for my actions. 3) It is not within the power of an organization's leader to mete out discipline as he/she sees fit, even if said behavior is detremental to that organization. 4) Other members of the organization where the punishment occurred, who even flatly admit they don't know any of the facts of the case, are right to speak out against the organization's leadership for the punishment levvied. 5) There are some really stupid people on this board.
I don't understand why people keep falling back on the legal system as somehow being the measuring stick for being able to objectively suspend someone. There is effectively a personal conduct clause in his contract. It is the definition of appropriate personal conduct that rules what his employer decides to do with regards to his employment, not state law. In fact, state law has absolutely NOTHING to do with the objectivity of the NFL's decision to suspend based on the personal conduct policy. The only thing state law will do is lessen the legwork the league has to do to satisfy an investigation as to whether or not their policy was violated. If their are charges and/or convictions, the evidence collection has already been done for them. If there are not charges and/or convictions, the league needs to look over the evidence to determine if their standards set forth were comprimised by the employee. The legal system really has nothing to do with the objectivity of a suspension in this case because, while they're certainly often congruent, the state law is not the standard by which the NFL governs its players.
come on!..... it took you til this thread to be convinced of this? The simple fact is, they let anybody join here, and it appears the dolts and door stops have!
"I'm smarter than you" - I'm smart enough to know that if you have honest inclinations about how smart I am and how good looking I am based entirely on a few comments I made on an internet forum, then you couldn't possibly be as smart as me. :wink:
