What do Big Ben and Lawrence Taylor have in common?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

hopefully, LT would agree to be a state witness regardless, but i agree they could be inclined to work something out. then again, I could also see NY using LT's celebrity to make an example out of him. i guess it comes down to what the DA thinks would do the most good - getting a minor-trafficing pimp off the streets or sending a message that would hopefully curb the demand for prostitution to begin with. put another way, does the DA want to attack the supply or curb the demand? i wonder how long until the law&order episode comes out.

yeah, i could see this one going that way. I don't see Stabler going toe to toe with LT, even at 51

Another part is how LT's past convictions will play into sentencing. If NY has any type of 3 strike law, and he does get found guilty of the current charges, and not a lesser one, he could be looking at a longer time than 3-4 years.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

I appreciate you putting me wise with NY state laws regarding this type offense. I'm under the impression the state would have the burden since this was an arranged situation that involved patronizing prostitution, contrary to the normal boy meets girl situation. So much for ignorance of the law not being an excuse.

i don't think ignorance of the law is ever an excuse. if it is, then thanks for the tip! no more speeding tickets for me! haha

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

yeah, i could see this one going that way. I don't see Stabler going toe to toe with LT, even at 51

Another part is how LT's past convictions will play into sentencing. If NY has any type of 3 strike law, and he does get found guilty of the current charges, and not a lesser one, he could be looking at a longer time than 3-4 years.

really? aren't the charges he's looking at already considered a misdemeanor? or do 3 strike laws apply to ANY kind of conviction?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

well I guess thats the piece of information you're missing. LT admitted to pretty much everything when the story first broke. This is before he got a lawyer, as he was under the impression it was just a simple solicitation charge. after it came out that the girl was 16, he got a lawyer. the lawyer denied what LT had previously admitted to, but it may have to do with the actual nature of the contact between the LT and the girl.

I guess I totally missed that then

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

what are you talking about? both taylor and the girl agree that she told him she was 19. from the states perspective, its completely irrelevant whether taylor knew she was 16 or not. it might earn him some sympathy in the court of public opinion (from other scumbags), but it won't make a bit of difference in whether he's convicted of the crime. if he had sexual contact with her, he's guilty.

If this case actually goes to trial I doubt very seriously that line of defense will be pursued. Even his "scumbag" lawyer would defer on that one.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

really? aren't the charges he's looking at already considered a misdemeanor? or do 3 strike laws apply to ANY kind of conviction?

The sex charge is a felony, the prostitution charge is probably a misdemeanor. I think 3 strikes only apply to felonies. I don't really know, just know he has been convicted of another felony(ies), and a felony sex charge conviction would surely end bad (worse than the 3-4 years mandatory) for him.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

i don't think ignorance of the law is ever an excuse. if it is, then thanks for the tip! no more speeding tickets for me! haha

well many states ( i thought) allow for the defense to prove the defendant reasonably believed that the victim was over the age of consent. ie if you are in a college bar and take a lady into the bathroom, you would be able to defend yourself if she turned out to be 16, but not if she is 20, but then you get a cop to erase the tape and don't say anything, and it doesn't apply anyway.

(see how i tie all this back to the original thread title without actually mentioning anyone. witty cynicism indeed!)

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

well many states ( i thought) allow for the defense to prove the defendant reasonably believed that the victim was over the age of consent. ie if you are in a college bar and take a lady into the bathroom, you would be able to defend yourself if she turned out to be 16, but not if she is 20, but then you get a cop to erase the tape and don't say anything, and it doesn't apply anyway.

(see how i tie all this back to the original thread title without actually mentioning anyone. witty cynicism indeed!)

impressive! however, i think the similarities end there. since taylor is retired, its not like his team can threaten to trade him to oakland in an effort to convince him to clean up his life. no one wants to be the QB for oakland.

[CRedskinsRule]

"The only thing I can tell you was that [Taylor] had no contact with Rasheed Davis or anyone who acted like a pimp," Aidala said. "Let's deflate some of the myths. He doesn't know this guy.

"I don't think we are going to see any phone records of this person coming into LT's phone, going out of LT's phone," Aidala added. "In terms of Rasheed Davis, Lawrence is adamant that he has no clue who this person is."

According to the complaint, Davis sent the girl a text message on Wednesday in which he said he wanted her to have sex with "Client-1" for $300. When she refused, Davis began threatening her with text messages, prosecutors said.

The texts were "along the lines of 'I'm going to 'F' you up,'" Kramer said.

The complaint said Davis later beat up the victim, drove her to the hotel against her will and waited outside for an hour while she had sex with Taylor.

"I believe even by the investigation done by the district attorney's office and the police department, nobody is saying that Lawrence Taylor saw a bloodied-up young woman," Aidala said. "If he saw a young, underaged woman bloodied up, he wouldn't want anything to do with her except get her help. If you see some woman thrown into your room and she is in distress -- he did not see any woman in distress, bloodied injured in any way shape or form."
Aidala reiterated that his client did not have intercourse with anyone at the hotel that night.

"I don't think their statement is, 'Yes he had sex with her,'" Aidala said of what authorities are claiming. "I think their statement is, 'Yes, he had sexual relations with her.' [But] I don't have a copy of the statement."

Here is what LT's lawyer is now saying, from an ESPN story, and seems like he is trying to backtrack on a lot, from LT not knowing the pimp (so then who called is an interesting question) to the fact that she was not bruised. I think the lawyer has a tough job, and still believe he is trying to give the DA a line to make a deal on.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Is the answer to this question 2 Super Bowl rings?

If I am looking two mentor kids, I will pass on these two guys. If I am looking to win football games, I would take both in a second.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

Is the answer to this question 2 Super Bowl rings?

If I am looking two mentor kids, I will pass on these two guys. If I am looking to win football games, I would take both in a second.

LTs playing days are long over.

[SBXVII]

More news... apparently LT simply played with himself. I know he has said this but now the friend who drove the girl to meet LT is saying that after the encounter the victim advised them she made easy money. She didn't even have to "F" him cause all he did was masturbate.
Comments on 16-year-old hooker told friend: I didn't hav - 05-13-2010

"The 16-year-old hooker whose claims about having sex with ex-Giant Lawrence Taylor led to a rape charge against him actually bragged to a friend about making "easy money" because "I didn't even have to f— him," a source told The Post.

The friend, who drove with the hooker to meet Taylor that night, has given a sworn statement that the girl told her immediately afterward that the Hall of Famer merely engaged in masturbation before paying her $300 — not sexual intercourse or oral sex, said the source.

So now either it truly didn't happen or is LT paying someone off to say they were told there was no physical sex involved?

[MTK]

definitely TMI

I don't think this makes things any better, and legally he may still be in hot water.

[SBXVII]

I'm sure there still has to be a charge for exposing oneself to a minor but atleast it might not be a felony. Atleast I think thats what he and his lawyer are going to argue.

It still ruins his image and if he had a family I'm sure it doesn't help it out either.

[MTK]

Anyone hear his wife in a recent interview? She's in total denial. She sounds crazy as all hell too. Not surprising I guess since LT isn't exactly the most stable person either.