All about the money

[yllus]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: RossMAN

Originally posted by: yllus
Can someone explain to a layman why you are allowed to sue both criminally and civilly on the same case in the current legal system? I can't see any possible advantages to this.

I'd like to know this as well.

criminal case is just about punishing the person that commited the crime. the civil case allows the victim to get compensation from the perpetrator.

criminal case is not by the victim but by the state. civil case is by the victim.

Hmm, well I knew that part. I meant what justification is there for separating the two when a one-shot deal would be far more efficient and fair. It's like the civil suit system is structured to allow a greater number of frivolous lawsuits through...

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: RossMAN

Originally posted by: yllus
Can someone explain to a layman why you are allowed to sue both criminally and civilly on the same case in the current legal system? I can't see any possible advantages to this.

I'd like to know this as well.

criminal case is just about punishing the person that commited the crime. the civil case allows the victim to get compensation from the perpetrator.

criminal case is not by the victim but by the state. civil case is by the victim.

Hmm, well I knew that part. I meant what justification is there for separating the two when a one-shot deal would be far more efficient and fair. It's like the civil suit system is structured to allow a greater number of frivolous lawsuits through...

the why would be, most politicians are lawyers and they will do whatever it takes to get themselves more work.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ohtwell

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: moshquerade
debate intelligently or don't debate at all.

Try taking your own advice instead of jumping to "flamebait" or responses like those posted above. You have yet to make any real point and I doubt you will.

minendo, when someone calls me a name it is flamebait. they are flaming me so i will take the bait and give it back.

I don't get it. You don't like to be called names, but you jump at the opportunity to call others names.


: ) Amanda

i was defending why calling someone a name is flamebait

How'd you do that? You were the first one to insult ohtwell personally. You weren't defending anything.

I believe that makes the second time that Kelvrick has pointed out your hypocrisy in this thread.

Get out while you still can.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
those quotes for the word raped above are accurate and true UNTIL KOBE IS PROVEN GUILTY.

that's what innocent until proven guitly means.

I agree. Too bad his accuser doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
those quotes for the word raped above are accurate and true UNTIL KOBE IS PROVEN GUILTY.

that's what innocent until proven guitly means.

I agree. Too bad his accuser doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.

why should accusers get the benefit of the doubt?? that's the whole point of the system.

if i did nothing wrong and you accused me, you would be slandering me so it is just and right that you DON'T get the benefit of the doubt.

if i did do something wrong and you accused me, it would be up to you to PROVE it. if you can't prove it, than it is slander.

you can't have it both ways. the BURDEN of PROVE is on the accuser, therefore the accuser doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
those quotes for the word raped above are accurate and true UNTIL KOBE IS PROVEN GUILTY.

that's what innocent until proven guitly means.

I agree. Too bad his accuser doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.

Not sure about that. I didn't know much about Kobe before this case came out, I hate basketball. I didn't even know he was married. But after everything I've read about this case, I came to the conclusion that this is most likely a false accusation in order to get some quick bucks.

 

[Ynog]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Ynog
Just curious, how many people believe that Mike Tyson raped Desiree Washington.

I definately think he did.

Now do you believe Kobe raped this girl.

Because while Tyson and Bryant are very different people,
the situations are very similar. Women going back to stars hotel rooms late at night

He said, she said, except with Tyson there was zero physical evidence.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
too bad the blame is always put on the woman, after all Nicole Simpson asked to be murdered :roll:

wow... just wow.. :roll:

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
those quotes for the word raped above are accurate and true UNTIL KOBE IS PROVEN GUILTY.

that's what innocent until proven guitly means.

I agree. Too bad his accuser doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.

Sure she did. Until people found out she was a lying, drug-addled, psycho.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
those quotes for the word raped above are accurate and true UNTIL KOBE IS PROVEN GUILTY.

that's what innocent until proven guitly means.

I agree. Too bad his accuser doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.

Sure she did. Until people found out she was a lying, drug-addled, psycho.

i disagree, i don't think the accuser should get the same benefit of doubt.

if you are going to take an aggressive stance and accuse someone of something criminal then it is just and right that your motives, your lifestyle and your character be questioned. the accuser should NOT be given the benefit of the doubt.

that should ALWAYS go to the accused, that's what Innocent until proven guilty means.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Ynog
Just curious, how many people believe that Mike Tyson raped Desiree Washington.

I definately think he did.

Now do you believe Kobe raped this girl.

Because while Tyson and Bryant are very different people,
the situations are very similar. Women going back to stars hotel rooms late at night

He said, she said, except with Tyson there was zero physical evidence.

Are you comparing Mike Tyson to Kobe Bryant? :roll:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Ynog
Just curious, how many people believe that Mike Tyson raped Desiree Washington.

I definately think he did.

Now do you believe Kobe raped this girl.

Because while Tyson and Bryant are very different people,
the situations are very similar. Women going back to stars hotel rooms late at night

He said, she said, except with Tyson there was zero physical evidence.

right. but there is not evidence that the victim had sex with other people AFTER the "rape" and before the rape kit was done.etc etc.

there is a lot of evidance that Kobe may not have done it and that the "victim" is in it for the money.

 

Originally posted by: XietyCOM

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Ynog
Just curious, how many people believe that Mike Tyson raped Desiree Washington.

I definately think he did.

Now do you believe Kobe raped this girl.

Because while Tyson and Bryant are very different people,
the situations are very similar. Women going back to stars hotel rooms late at night

He said, she said, except with Tyson there was zero physical evidence.

Are you comparing Mike Tyson to Kobe Bryant? :roll:

He's comparing the situtions.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: RossMAN

Originally posted by: yllus
Can someone explain to a layman why you are allowed to sue both criminally and civilly on the same case in the current legal system? I can't see any possible advantages to this.

I'd like to know this as well.

criminal case is just about punishing the person that commited the crime. the civil case allows the victim to get compensation from the perpetrator.

criminal case is not by the victim but by the state. civil case is by the victim.

Hmm, well I knew that part. I meant what justification is there for separating the two when a one-shot deal would be far more efficient and fair. It's like the civil suit system is structured to allow a greater number of frivolous lawsuits through...

the why would be, most politicians are lawyers and they will do whatever it takes to get themselves more work.

Blah. Surely there are still a few statesmen left in the country.

My major grievance is that with this dual system, it's like claiming that having the state prosecute on your behalf isn't enough. That seems like a total cop-out from the ideals of the American legal system. Is there even a reform movement underway or acknowledgement of this craziness?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: agnitrate

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ohtwell

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: moshquerade
debate intelligently or don't debate at all.

Try taking your own advice instead of jumping to "flamebait" or responses like those posted above. You have yet to make any real point and I doubt you will.

minendo, when someone calls me a name it is flamebait. they are flaming me so i will take the bait and give it back.

I don't get it. You don't like to be called names, but you jump at the opportunity to call others names.


: ) Amanda

i was defending why calling someone a name is flamebait

Perhaps you'd like to prove them wrong by stating exactly how "in more ways than one" the OJ Simpson trial has any relevance on this case whatsoever.

-silver

nah, i'm tired of being ripped a new a$$hole for stating my opinion.
if you want my reply to why i think there are similarities - PM me.

"i'm tired of being ripped a new a$$hole"
ROTFLMAO

/methinks mosh has met Kobe as well in a hotel?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: RossMAN

Originally posted by: yllus
Can someone explain to a layman why you are allowed to sue both criminally and civilly on the same case in the current legal system? I can't see any possible advantages to this.

I'd like to know this as well.

criminal case is just about punishing the person that commited the crime. the civil case allows the victim to get compensation from the perpetrator.

criminal case is not by the victim but by the state. civil case is by the victim.

Hmm, well I knew that part. I meant what justification is there for separating the two when a one-shot deal would be far more efficient and fair. It's like the civil suit system is structured to allow a greater number of frivolous lawsuits through...

the why would be, most politicians are lawyers and they will do whatever it takes to get themselves more work.

Blah. Surely there are still a few statesmen left in the country.

My major grievance is that with this dual system, it's like claiming that having the state prosecute on your behalf isn't enough. That seems like a total cop-out from the ideals of the American legal system. Is there even a reform movement underway or acknowledgement of this craziness?

every election year you hear rhetoric about TORT REFORM, nothing ever gets done.

there should be a system built in that penalizes lawyers for lawsuits that are dismissed.

trial lawyers argue that if you did that, fewer lawsuits would be filed (duh) and that lawers would be reluctant to take cases that were borderline (duh) and cases that were legitimate would never get to court because of that.

 

[Ynog]

Originally posted by: XietyCOM

Are you comparing Mike Tyson to Kobe Bryant? :roll:

Yes, I am. The situatoins are extremely similar except that Kobe's defense team is
probably 100 million dollars better than Tysons.

And for the Kobe's accuser in for the money. Desiree not only sued Tyson, but
had negotiated both movie and tv rights before the trial began.

Also Desiree waited 3 days before accusing Tyson of rape.

Just saying that everyone who has said, the woman is in it for money, or that
any woman that goes to a star's hotel room at night isn't just going for an autograph,
basically better believe Iron Mike is innocent as well. Because those were nearly the
same conditions of his accusation. Except Mike went to trial much faster than Kobe.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: XietyCOM

Are you comparing Mike Tyson to Kobe Bryant? :roll:

Yes, I am. The situatoins are extremely similar except that Kobe's defense team is
probably 100 million dollars better than Tysons.

And for the Kobe's accuser in for the money. Desiree not only sued Tyson, but
had negotiated both movie and tv rights before the trial began.

Also Desiree waited 3 days before accusing Tyson of rape.

Just saying that everyone who has said, the woman is in it for money, or that
any woman that goes to a star's hotel room at night isn't just going for an autograph,
basically better believe Iron Mike is innocent as well. Because those were nearly the
same conditions of his accusation. Except Mike went to trial much faster than Kobe.

but character does come into play here.

rape very often isn't about fact but about opinion. even if the whole act were filmed it could only prove that she said "no" at the moment, it couldn't prove conclusively that she didn't "want" it.

that is the problem with rape as a crime. rape is about what the woman did or did not "want". and did she communicate that clearly enough.

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
those quotes for the word raped above are accurate and true UNTIL KOBE IS PROVEN GUILTY.

that's what innocent until proven guitly means.

I agree. Too bad his accuser doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.

Sure she did. Until people found out she was a lying, drug-addled, psycho.

IF that's true, that doesn't mean she wasn't raped. She may have gone into that room willingly, she may have agreed to have sex. But if she told him no, to anything, and he did it anyway, whatever she did 5 minutes ago doesn't mean jack. I'm not saying that's what happened - I don't claim to have been there or to have some psychic power that tells me what happened. Only two people know for sure what happened in that room, the rest of us are guessing. Calling her names and judging her motives based on a guess is pretty low.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: sixone

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
those quotes for the word raped above are accurate and true UNTIL KOBE IS PROVEN GUILTY.

that's what innocent until proven guitly means.

I agree. Too bad his accuser doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.

Sure she did. Until people found out she was a lying, drug-addled, psycho.

IF that's true, that doesn't mean she wasn't raped. She may have gone into that room willingly, she may have agreed to have sex. But if she told him no, to anything, and he did it anyway, whatever she did 5 minutes ago doesn't mean jack. I'm not saying that's what happened - I don't claim to have been there or to have some psychic power that tells me what happened. Only two people know for sure what happened in that room, the rest of us are guessing. Calling her names and judging her motives based on a guess is pretty low.

even the jurors are just guessing as to what actually happened in the room.

rape is different from other crimes. it is harder to prove rape. it is harder to disprove rape.

rape is about state of mind and not physical evidence.

 

[Ynog]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: XietyCOM

Are you comparing Mike Tyson to Kobe Bryant? :roll:

Yes, I am. The situatoins are extremely similar except that Kobe's defense team is
probably 100 million dollars better than Tysons.

And for the Kobe's accuser in for the money. Desiree not only sued Tyson, but
had negotiated both movie and tv rights before the trial began.

Also Desiree waited 3 days before accusing Tyson of rape.

Just saying that everyone who has said, the woman is in it for money, or that
any woman that goes to a star's hotel room at night isn't just going for an autograph,
basically better believe Iron Mike is innocent as well. Because those were nearly the
same conditions of his accusation. Except Mike went to trial much faster than Kobe.

but character does come into play here.

rape very often isn't about fact but about opinion. even if the whole act were filmed it could only prove that she said "no" at the moment, it couldn't prove conclusively that she didn't "want" it.

that is the problem with rape as a crime. rape is about what the woman did or did not "want". and did she communicate that clearly enough.

Definately true, and I don't think anyone will argue Mike Tyson's character over Kobe's.
However in neither case we know what happened behind closed doors. My only point is, because it was
Tyson versus someone like Kobe, it was oh he raped her, but in a similar situation where its someone
with a much better character (or so it seems), he couldn't have raped her. By the way, argued by Tyson's
attorney (who was an idiot), his character and behavior was always portrayed as an animal. So if you know
that, why go back to his hotel with him.

Do we actually know what Kobe is like? How many people know Kobe? No more than actually know Mike Tyson.
Only what we know of him. Tyson liked to make himself seem like an animal. But as Kobe's ex-teammate Rick Fox
said. No one really knows Kobe.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: XietyCOM

Are you comparing Mike Tyson to Kobe Bryant? :roll:

Yes, I am. The situatoins are extremely similar except that Kobe's defense team is
probably 100 million dollars better than Tysons.

And for the Kobe's accuser in for the money. Desiree not only sued Tyson, but
had negotiated both movie and tv rights before the trial began.

Also Desiree waited 3 days before accusing Tyson of rape.

Just saying that everyone who has said, the woman is in it for money, or that
any woman that goes to a star's hotel room at night isn't just going for an autograph,
basically better believe Iron Mike is innocent as well. Because those were nearly the
same conditions of his accusation. Except Mike went to trial much faster than Kobe.

but character does come into play here.

rape very often isn't about fact but about opinion. even if the whole act were filmed it could only prove that she said "no" at the moment, it couldn't prove conclusively that she didn't "want" it.

that is the problem with rape as a crime. rape is about what the woman did or did not "want". and did she communicate that clearly enough.

Definately true, and I don't think anyone will argue Mike Tyson's character over Kobe's.
However in neither case we know what happened behind closed doors. My only point is, because it was
Tyson versus someone like Kobe, it was oh he raped her, but in a similar situation where its someone
with a much better character (or so it seems), he couldn't have raped her. By the way, argued by Tyson's
attorney (who was an idiot), his character and behavior was always portrayed as an animal. So if you know
that, why go back to his hotel with him.

Do we actually know what Kobe is like? How many people know Kobe? No more than actually know Mike Tyson.
Only what we know of him. Tyson liked to make himself seem like an animal. But as Kobe's ex-teammate Rick Fox
said. No one really knows Kobe.

but we do know kobe. we know of his incredible discipline. it isn't just raw ability and rage with him the way it was with Tyson. with kobe, we know of his discipline and dedication to his craft. we know that he works to improve his game every off season. we know he is very mindful of history (he does want to be the next MJ). all those things don't add up with a man throwing everything away for a moments pleasure.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ynog

Originally posted by: XietyCOM

Are you comparing Mike Tyson to Kobe Bryant? :roll:

Yes, I am. The situatoins are extremely similar except that Kobe's defense team is
probably 100 million dollars better than Tysons.

And for the Kobe's accuser in for the money. Desiree not only sued Tyson, but
had negotiated both movie and tv rights before the trial began.

Also Desiree waited 3 days before accusing Tyson of rape.

Just saying that everyone who has said, the woman is in it for money, or that
any woman that goes to a star's hotel room at night isn't just going for an autograph,
basically better believe Iron Mike is innocent as well. Because those were nearly the
same conditions of his accusation. Except Mike went to trial much faster than Kobe.

but character does come into play here.

rape very often isn't about fact but about opinion. even if the whole act were filmed it could only prove that she said "no" at the moment, it couldn't prove conclusively that she didn't "want" it.

that is the problem with rape as a crime. rape is about what the woman did or did not "want". and did she communicate that clearly enough.

Definately true, and I don't think anyone will argue Mike Tyson's character over Kobe's.
However in neither case we know what happened behind closed doors. My only point is, because it was
Tyson versus someone like Kobe, it was oh he raped her, but in a similar situation where its someone
with a much better character (or so it seems), he couldn't have raped her. By the way, argued by Tyson's
attorney (who was an idiot), his character and behavior was always portrayed as an animal. So if you know
that, why go back to his hotel with him.

Do we actually know what Kobe is like? How many people know Kobe? No more than actually know Mike Tyson.
Only what we know of him. Tyson liked to make himself seem like an animal. But as Kobe's ex-teammate Rick Fox
said. No one really knows Kobe.

but we do know kobe. we know of his incredible discipline. it isn't just raw ability and rage with him the way it was with Tyson. with kobe, we know of his discipline and dedication to his craft. we know that he works to improve his game every off season. we know he is very mindful of history (he does want to be the next MJ). all those things don't add up with a man throwing everything away for a moments pleasure.

You're joking right? All you have to know is that KOBE HAS A D*CK just like every other male in here. Sht happens when the kitty is thrown in your face, just ask Chipper Jones (who has "discipline and dedication to his craft" lmao)...

 

[jyates]

I haven't been in the loop about the Kobe trial.

Once the judge ruled that the
"victim's" sexual activity in the hours prior to the "attack"
could be admitted into court did she drop the pursuit for
a criminal conviction and now going to sue?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

You're joking right? All you have to know is that KOBE HAS A D*CK just like every other male in here. Sht happens when the kitty is thrown in your face, just ask Chipper Jones (who has "discipline and dedication to his craft" lmao)...

and where in my entire post did i say one thing about Kobe not having a d*ck.

mb next time understand what you read before you respond or argue against it. i'm referring to the fact that RAPE is an arguement about state of mind, he said she said.

because it is primarily a he said she said, a persons perceived character comes into play when jurors try to determine innocence or guilt.

hence, kobe's work ethic etc vs tysons raw animalistic ability says a lot about who jurors would vote guilty or not guilty.