• SPORTS
    AND
    GAMING
  • Welcome Guest!
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
  • Sports & Gaming Moderators: ghostfreak

Ben Roethlisberger accused of rape

axl blaze

axl blaze

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
31,418
Location
CLE
in a case shockingly similar to Kobe Bryant's years ago - Ben Roethlisberger has been accused of rape in a civil court of law. meaning he is being sued.

while this has the ability to permanently scar Roethlisberger's winning ways and his dominant professional football play since entering the NFL, there are many fishy aspects about his case.

unlike the Kobe Bryant case, there was no initial criminal investigation. the cops never got involved and haven't yet. also, this happened a year ago.

what are your thoughts? do you think he is guilty?

personally I think that the only raping Ben Roethlisberger has done was to other football teams in the NFL playoffs ;)

a guy like him; young and wealthy, has to have had many women. it's just a matter of time before one of them attempts to cash in on this. on the other hand, is he somehow is guilty I hope that he truly does face punishment for this.
 
wow he is the last person(well sloth aka Peyton is THE last) I would think this would happen to. I don't beleive it at all but then again there has been other examples of people actually fucking up. This type of case is so see threw, it's all about the money.... quite sad when you think about a woman doing this type of stuff to get money.
 
Although Ive yet to see anything about this.....I think he's innocent purely due to the fact he's gettinh charged in Civil court....not criminal....LAME :|
 
i think its odd that someone would press civil charges a year after the fact.
 
I don't know shit about sports or Ben Hamburger, but unless your plan is to lose a civil case for sure, and even risk being countersued for abusing the system, you file criminal charges first. Looks like someone's about to get raped twice. Maybe the issue is that a rape kit wouldn't work so long after the fact, and assuming she was raped a call to the police would be pointless because there would be no evidence. Of course I can understand the mentality of someone not wanting to jump up and down and say "I just got raped" as there are a bunch of fears and other reasons that keep people from coming forward in time for a successful trial. Impossible to know who's lying in cases like this for certain.
 
She would only need to convince the jury that there's a 50.00001 percent chance that he raped her in order to obtain a victory in civil court.

She would have get to convince the jury that there's a 98-ish percent chance ("beyond a reasonable doubt" - they intentionally didn't put a numeric percentage to define this term, but I'd say that 98-ish percent sounds about right) that he raped her in order for him to being convicted with the crime in criminal court.

Not weighing in on his guilt or innocence - I know not nearly enough of the facts.

But with that said, it's A LOT easier to reach the "preponderance of the evidence" civil standard than to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that criminal court requires, and THAT alone MIGHT be a suitable reson for filing in civil court first.
 
^^A criminal case needs to at least have the appearance of being legitimate first for a civil case involving rape to fly. It's rape.... you don't need that great of a defense attorney to ask really rhetorically "well why didn't you call the police or tell anyone?" or "Why now all of a sudden?" You take a slightly better (or in Ben's case best) attorney and open up the financial records of the accuser and find loads of debt and then you start chipping away at her character from more creative angles. Destroy her character and eventually her picture is on the news, no more lawyers will take her case on contingency and she's out of money she never had in the first place to play ball, so to speak.

There was no planning on her part; it looks bad even if he's guilty as sin because someone told her what you are saying: the fact that you can squeeze an elephant through reasonable doubt so why even try?

Unfortunately, it holds a lot of weight that she didn't even try to press charges after a very serious crime allegedly took place and went straight for the money. And while your logic makes sense it won't pass the smell test to a judge and his lawyers are going to snipe her lawyers unless they are really cut-throat and taking a huge cut of the winnings.
 
L O V E L I F E said:
She would only need to convince the jury that there's a 50.00001 percent chance that he raped her in order to obtain a victory in civil court.

She would have get to convince the jury that there's a 98-ish percent chance ("beyond a reasonable doubt" - they intentionally didn't put a numeric percentage to define this term, but I'd say that 98-ish percent sounds about right) that he raped her in order for him to being convicted with the crime in criminal court.

Not weighing in on his guilt or innocence - I know not nearly enough of the facts.

But with that said, it's A LOT easier to reach the "preponderance of the evidence" civil standard than to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that criminal court requires, and THAT alone MIGHT be a suitable reson for filing in civil court first.
Click to expand...

Good point I wasn't even thinking of the difference of the standards in both of the courts. I guess that is why so many rich people settle out of court to just get it done with.
 
roeth.jpg


Sean Connery: "I'll take the rapists for seven, Alex!"


( Sorry, had to do it. :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top