Big Ben off the hook again.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Moondog

You're missing the point.



Edit: What I am talking about is that we require different burdens of proof in different situations and contexts. And we all do this, including you, every day.


Looking at legal cases:

In criminal cases the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the very highest burden of proof and it belongs here due to the life-long (or life-ending) consequences of the outcome.

In civil cases (the majority of legal cases people are asked to sit on juries for) the burden of proof is lower. Often simply a Preponderance of the Evidence or Clear and Convincing Evidence.

We do this in our everyday life as well. The more dangerous or risky a possible situation is, likely, the lower our burden of proof becomes before we decide it's a bad idea. For instance, based on Big Ben's history to date, no Child Placement Agency worth their salt is ever going to approve this dunderhead as a licensed foster or adoptive home for teenage girls.

Smoking cigarettes has not ever been found to cause cancer and heart disease beyond a reasonable doubt but I seriously doubt you'd tell your teenage son to smoke because this high burden of proof hasn't been met.

If I was on a jury I'd judge the situation and weigh the evidence based on the burden of proof required for the type of case. But, don't worry, I always get sent home early in any jury selection process because of my profession.

So, is Big Ben guilty of a criminal offense? No. No charge is being brought. Read up on sexual assault cases or talk to local DAs and they can tell you why these are very challenging cases, especially in this media age of C.S.I. fandom, to try.

Is Big Ben a rapist if applying common sense and the evidence we have heard? To me, yes. If that bothers you, that's your problem.

Ok. So instead of an internet forum where you can say whatever you want about anybody, if you were on a TV interview and someone said, "What do you think about Big Ben?". You would answer, "He is a scumbag rapist". That would seem like an easy defamation case to me.

The standard to charge someone with sexual assault is very low. If I am not mistaken, a female who is intoxicated could charge a male with assault in many juridictions. It wouldn't matter if she initiated the encounter. If she presented herself as a believable victim to the police, they could very well arrest and ultimately convict the other party. Well, what male hasn't gone to a bar and hooked up and slept with a drunk girl? Are we all scumbag rapists?

In some places an 18 year old male who sleeps with his 17 year old girlfriend can and are charged with a sexual offense. Are they scumbag rapists?

This is what I want to know. What exactly did this girl think was going to happen when she went into a private bathroom with an NFL player? Was she planning on discussing the playbook?