What do Big Ben and Lawrence Taylor have in common?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CrustyRedskin

What happened to Dave Meggett?

Legal Troubles

In 1990, while with the Giants, Meggett was also charged with lewdness after allegedly soliciting sex from an undercover Baltimore police officer[1]; he was later found not guilty of those charges.[2] In 1995, he was charged with assaulting a former girlfriend; the charges were dropped.[3] Meggett was released by the New England Patriots in 1998 after being accused of sexually assaulting and robbing a prostitute in a Toronto hotel room[4]; the sexual assault charge was later dropped by prosecutors.[5] He was again accused of sexual assault in June 2001 in Charleston, South Carolina by a woman that he met in a bar.[6] In 2004, Meggett surrendered to Dedham, Massachusetts authorities for failing to produce $191,600 that he owed in child support.

On September 1, 2006, he was formally charged with the Second Degree Rape of his girlfriend.[7] A month later, amid the charges, he resigned his post as the parks and recreation director of Robersonville, North Carolina. He was convicted of sexual battery and given two years probation in the case.[8]

In September 2008, he was charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct after a 17-year-old North Charleston woman accused him of raping her.[9]

Meggett was again arrested on January 13, 2009, by police in North Charleston, SC, this time on charges of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct and Burglary. He was taken into custody when he showed up at the hospital where his victim was receiving treatment.[10] Both arrests put him in violation of his probation in the 2006 rape charges; North Carolina authorities have been notified.

Dave Meggett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Facts and allegations are two different things.

true, but none of us know the facts about anything don't witness directly with our own eyes. and taylor did admit to pretty much everything before finding out that the girl was 16. i dont see any reason to doubt the main points of the allegations.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

true, but none of us know the facts about anything don't witness directly with our own eyes. and taylor did admit to pretty much everything before finding out that the girl was 16. i dont see any reason to doubt the main points of the allegations.

Did you know he admitted to some of these allegations (I don't think he's said anything about giving the girl a black eye) before you called them facts?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Did you know he admitted to some of these allegations (I don't think he's said anything about giving the girl a black eye) before you called them facts?

taylor never said anything about giving the girl a black eye, so i dont know where you got that from. in fact, the initial allegations even went out of the way to say he was not responsible for the black eye. from the beginning, taylors comments have pretty closely alligned to the allegations.

its not like the rothlesberger situations where there was alot of he said/she said. this is about as "open and shut" as they come. both "sides" agree that taylor, a married man, paid to engage in some form of sexual contact with a 16 year old girl who had a black eye at the time. taylor's laywers may dispute what he knew when, but those issues really aren't relevant. since everyone is agreeing on the main points, i have no reason to not beleive that they are factual.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

taylor never said anything about giving the girl a black eye, so i dont know where you got that from. in fact, the initial allegations even went out of the way to say he was not responsible for the black eye.

You said:

That, and being a scumbag. Regardless of whether Taylor thought the girl was 16 or 18 or 19, these disturbing facts remain - Taylor, a 51 year old married man paid to have sex with a prostitute whom he thought was 18ish and showed signs of being physically abused. Married +Cheating + Prostitute + Young girl + Black eye = Scumbag.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

true, but none of us know the facts about anything don't witness directly with our own eyes. and taylor did admit to pretty much everything before finding out that the girl was 16. i dont see any reason to doubt the main points of the allegations.

Do you have any contacts within the investigation or just going off of what's being reported in the media? As I and SS can tell you from experience in the media, believe none of what you read and half of what you see. The true FACTS rarely, if ever, emerge in the press in a high profile criminal investigation.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I will say that ignorance is not an excuse. LT is being charged with having sex with a juvenile under the age of 17 which is a class 3 Felony. Unless he can prove she had an ID saying she was older it will be hard for him to win his case.

The burden of prof is on the state. It's not required of Taylor to prove he didn't know the girls age, the state has to be able to make a case that he did.

The girl obviously was not his neighbor, and I've never known a john to ask a prostitute for her birth certificate or prof of age. If he knowingly had sex with a minor that could be serious, but in this particular case it would have to be established that he actually knew the girls age and continued on his mission in disregard. The case has to be against the pimp.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

You said:

That, and being a scumbag. Regardless of whether Taylor thought the girl was 16 or 18 or 19, these disturbing facts remain - Taylor, a 51 year old married man paid to have sex with a prostitute whom he thought was 18ish and showed signs of being physically abused. Married +Cheating + Prostitute + Young girl + Black eye = Scumbag.

i never said taylor gave her the black eye. as i've said a number of times, all sides in the issue agree that she had the black eye BEFORE visiting taylor. i merely said that his engaging in sexual conduct with someone who had obviously been abused is part of why he's a scumbag.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Do you have any contacts within the investigation or just going off of what's being reported in the media? As I and SS can tell you from experience in the media, believe none of what you read and half of what you see. The true FACTS rarely, if ever, emerge in the press in a high profile criminal investigation.

again, this isnt a case where taylors camp and the victims camp are preaching two different stories. so there's no reason not to beleive the reports that we have thus far. i'm sure there's much more to it than we know, but the basic scenario of what transpired seems pretty clear.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

The burden of prof is on the state. It's not required of Taylor to prove he didn't know the girls age, the state has to be able to make a case that he did.

The girl obviously was not his neighbor, and I've never known a john to ask a prostitute for her birth certificate or prof of age. If he knowingly had sex with a minor that could be serious, but in this particular case it would have to be established that he actually knew the girls age and continued on his mission in disregard. The case has to be against the pimp.

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

That, and being a scumbag. Regardless of whether Taylor thought the girl was 16 or 18 or 19, these disturbing facts remain - Taylor, a 51 year old married man paid to have sex with a prostitute whom he thought was 18ish and showed signs of being physically abused. Married +Cheating + Prostitute + Young girl + Black eye = Scumbag.

He should be thankful that a couple of years in prison, a ruined marriage, and a further damaged reputation is his "worst-case scenario." In my opinion, the man doesn't deserve the air he's breathing.

All I'm saying is when you wrote this I don't believe any of this had been known to have been admitted to by LT. In fact, didn't his lawyer vehemently deny it? And, of course, that's not to say you should believe his lawyer. But there wasn't a reason not to.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

All I'm saying is when you wrote this I don't believe any of this had been known to have been admitted to by LT. In fact, didn't his lawyer vehemently deny it? And, of course, that's not to say you should believe his lawyer. But there wasn't a reason not to.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

The burden of prof is on the state. It's not required of Taylor to prove he didn't know the girls age, the state has to be able to make a case that he did.

The girl obviously was not his neighbor, and I've never known a john to ask a prostitute for her birth certificate or prof of age. If he knowingly had sex with a minor that could be serious, but in this particular case it would have to be established that he actually knew the girls age and continued on his mission in disregard. The case has to be against the pimp.

Actually in NY State Law, not knowing is not an affirmative defense. When the DA said that ignorance was not an excuse I thought that was strange, because I always thought it was. I looked online at the NY statutes, and it doesn't list "reasonable belief of the victims ability to consent" (another way to say ignorance that the victim was under age) as a defense. What LT knew or didn't know isn't going to make much difference.
With that said, I would be shocked if they don't agree to a much less serious charge like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or something, assuming LT cooperates and becomes a witness for the state against the pimp,

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Actually in NY State Law, not knowing is not an affirmative defense. When the DA said that ignorance was not an excuse I thought that was strange, because I always thought it was. I looked online at the NY statutes, and it doesn't list "reasonable belief of the victims ability to consent" (another way to say ignorance that the victim was under age) as a defense. What LT knew or didn't know isn't going to make much difference.
With that said, I would be shocked if they don't agree to a much less serious charge like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or something, assuming LT cooperates and becomes a witness for the state against the pimp,

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.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Actually in NY State Law, not knowing is not an affirmative defense. When the DA said that ignorance was not an excuse I thought that was strange, because I always thought it was. I looked online at the NY statutes, and it doesn't list "reasonable belief of the victims ability to consent" (another way to say ignorance that the victim was under age) as a defense. What LT knew or didn't know isn't going to make much difference.
With that said, I would be shocked if they don't agree to a much less serious charge like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or something, assuming LT cooperates and becomes a witness for the state against the pimp,

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.