News Hawthorn player questioned over sexual assault allegation - No Names, etc; UPDATED: cleared (9/5/16)

[Biscut]

Err...that's precisely what I said but thanks

I'm sure you said NOT guilty, beyond a reason....................

Completely the opposite.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Drink diving is (unfortunately) common in society.
* gets in an accident with a drink driver, not wearing a seatbelt.
Poor you but "Why weren't you wearing a seatbelt!?! ******* idiot!!!"

Rape and sexual assault are (tragically) common in society.
* gets r*ped after going home with two footballers late one night
"I hope the lady is ok"

Don't missunderstand where I am coming from, sexual assault is NEVER ok. But a bit of pro-active risk management.....

You must be a time traveller, because your opinions are straight out of 1925.

In the world I live in a girl can get in a taxi with 4 footballers if she wants, and unless she consents to it, they can all keep their hands and whatever else to themselves.

Anyway, I'm sick of reading your posts. They're utterly stupid.

Have a day off.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Really? Maybe I'm being too literal here, but surely since you mentioned these women as examples of vulnerable women, then you have at least thought it . . . There's a difference between thinking it's possible and even wanting to do it.

No. I'm posting examples of women who have been assaulted in the past and who get blamed due to their actions. I'm saying I see women in similar situations all the time and it never springs to my mind that the situation is calling for me to assault them. My point is - the blame lies with the perpetrator, always. Women should be allowed to walk the streets at night in whatever state they want - they should be able to catch cabs with footy players, they should be able to jog through the park with headphones in and not be assaulted. And if they are - we shouldn't be questioning their motives, but those of the attacker.

 

[Biscut]

I'm sure you said NOT guilty, beyond a reason....................

Completely the opposite.

Anyhow, the burden of proof is high for someone to be found guilty. Not guilty is just that. Not guilty.

 

[eldorado]

Read what I was responding to.

I outline it in the post above. Ffs...I was saying there is no such thing as being found innocent, only not "guilty beyond reasonable doubt"

I shouldnt really need quotation marks for you to realize what I was saying

 

[MistyAvalon]

Read what I was responding to.

I outline it in the post above. Ffs...I was saying there is no such thing as being innocent, only not "guilty beyond reasonable doubt"

I shouldnt really need quotation marks for you to realize what I was saying

but there is no such term. sorry but in law words are important

 

[MistyAvalon]

thanks Griz and thanks Abasi
sorry if I am being finnicky El... just a bit upset

 

[eldorado]

but there is no such term. sorry but in law words are important

It is a term.
Its the burden of proof required to find someone guilty.

 

[A Diakos]

^^^^appreciate this is football forum, but this thread should be locked until player is named, and there are confirmed details available…don't speculate and guess like the media does….you're all talking out of your backsides not knowing any facts…wait for them first

 

[Lethality]

No. I'm posting examples of women who have been assaulted in the past and who get blamed due to their actions. I'm saying I see women in similar situations all the time and it never springs to my mind that the situation is calling for me to assault them. My point is - the blame lies with the perpetrator, always. Women should be allowed to walk the streets at night in whatever state they want - they should be able to catch cabs with footy players, they should be able to jog through the park with headphones in and not be assaulted. And if they are - we shouldn't be questioning their motives, but those of the attacker.

Nobody said they weren't allowed to do these things, the issue is that they're often dumb decisions. I just think everyone's so hypersensitive about women and to a lesser extent victims of crime in general that we can't even have a discussion about personal safety anymore lest we be accused of victim-blaming.

 

[Biscut]

Read what I was responding to.

I outline it in the post above. Ffs...I was saying there is no such thing as being innocent, only not "guilty beyond reasonable doubt"

I shouldnt really need quotation marks for you to realize what I was saying

'no such thing as being innocent' is that what you really think???? Don't think you should comment on all things criminal then.

 

[tige19]

People flying off the handle for no
good reason, the whole story has just broken, no charges have been laid as yet and we have no idea of the true circumstances. I'm pretty confident our club will handle it well, we deal with adversity better than anyother footy club on this planet.

Imagine this happen a month back? If you can take a positive out of it, at least this crap has popped up 6 months before season 2016 which allows plenty of time for Essendon to take the headlines again.

 

[beta_condition]

'no such thing as being innocent' is that what you really think???? Don't think you should comment on all things criminal then.

In the court of law there isn't

 

[eldorado]

...

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Nobody said they weren't allowed to do these things, the issue is that they're often dumb decisions.

They shouldn't be dumb decisions though, that's the battle. That's what needs to change.

 

[tige19]

thanks Griz and thanks Abasi
sorry if I am being finnicky El... just a bit upset

Jump on Netflix and watch a Disney movie, they always cheer me up

 

[MistyAvalon]

It is a term.
Its the burden of proof required to find someone guilty.

different law school to mine then

 

[MistyAvalon]

They shouldn't be dumb decisions though, that's the battle. That's what needs to change.

you are writing some really good stuff

 

[Vampire013]

This thread is going to be very closely moderated.

If you want to throw mud, or start a shit fight, you're going to have a bad time.


Equally, if you're going to try and persecute the victim, you won't last here very long.[/QUOTE]


I suggest one of the moderators go on Bay 13 and close a thread about this topic.
Plenty of idiots there making some pretty sick jokes & lol-ing
I understand banter and jokes about player or team performance, but this is not funny.
It is a serious matter for the player involved and the alleged victim.

 

[Biscut]

In the court of law there isn't

You are correct. But Eldorado is confused. No such thing as 'not guilty beyong reasonable doubt'.

 

[tige19]

Channel 7 just reported 2 players and a Premiership star.. I'm confused

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Channel 7 just reported 2 players and a Premiership star.. I'm confused

Club and AFL have both disputed that. Dare say 7 are just running the story from 6 pm.

http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/haw...r-alleged-sexual-assault-20151016-gkbcas.html - talks in there how the club disputed those claims.

 

[Gralin]

Channel 7 just reported 2 players and a Premiership star.. I'm confused

You know how these things work what rates higher, premiership star or afl listed player?

 

[Dipper]

I don't follow this at all. Someone said if they get off , ir means they are innocent.

I said no, it just means they have not been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

It depends what you mean, if you're talking about whether someone is actually innocent or guilty of committing a crime then of course any verdict or lack of doesn't change that.


But I'm inferring that you're more talking about the legal status and in that case you're wrong. I think you mentioned in another post that a court can't find someone innocent, well it's true but only in so much as the person is already deemed innocent in the eyes of the law, so a not guilty verdict just maintains that status quo, they don't have to find the person innocent because they already were, in fact they never weren't. We're all deemed to be innocent of everything until such a point that we're found guilty.

You may say it's semantics but many people, for many hundreds of years have deemed this to be an important, if not fundamental pillar of English Law and far preferable to the implications of living under legal systems based on Napoleonic Law.

Anyway hopefully not coming over as a smartarse because I enjoy your work but I do think it's quite an important point.

 

[RelaxMax]

You know how these things work what rates higher, premiership star or afl listed player?

WE do
Let not facts get in the way of an opportunity to generate more ratings