Posted on 12/07/2013 5:44:32 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
So where do you draw the line? I have already demonstrated you were mistaken about the level of the girl’s intoxication....my primary concern is with the acceptance of immoral behavior.
Where do you draw the line was all I asked, and suddenly you start calling me names. Why not just address my question? Aren’t you too concerned with the moral standards?
I realize fornication has been around for thousands of years, and bad behavior will happen regardless of rules....my question is whether a team should hold young men accountable. And if not, if this is “expected” because these kids have lots of willing partners, then where DO we say “no”? Or do we never say no?
The vitriol isn’t necessary.
The guy will get caught with his pants down soon enough. Just because he is a football player possible heisman trophy winner and number 1 football team. Wonder what happened if the law did something differently with OJ Simpson when he was in the same predictments back in college.
I will remember a former Wisconsin Badger running back, had problems in Madison with the law, won the heisman trophy and went on to play professional football and never amounted to anything. I will let you figure out whom this players name by yourself.
honestly I believe Winston is guilty as sin, but the law messed up the case from the beginning.
The question we should be asking is this: Is any conduct short of provable rape to be considered acceptable conduct for a college athlete?
I hate to be a gloomy Gus but the judicial branch of government, uncluding local and state, is often overlooked but it is concerned primarily with protecting its own self interests just like the legislative and executive.
Pretty much the point I made in post #1....what astounds me is the seemingly careless attitude some have regarding Winston’s actions. As if what HE did were no big deal.
I do not argue he ought to be prosecuted. I think he ought to be disciplined by his team’s authorities, however.
You are a master conflator.
You have been proven WRONG WRONG WRONG on the girl being drunk. You have proven that she might have been technically legally impaired for purposes of driving a motor vehicle, but that has not a damned thing to do with THIS subject. Not a thing. If you can’t see that, then you are not up to the standards intellectualy needed.
Second, the idea of condoning a behavior has nothing to do with this. When you condone something, it indicates that you have “standing” somehow. You have no standing on whether or not Winston should play, and yet, you claim to. You don’t. I don’t condone the behavior, but it’s not my place to police college athletes.
But all of that misses the point. You still are stuck in a template that some athlete took advantage of a pure flower and is getting away with it so FSU can make money. Your template is just bull of bullsh-t. She probably wanted a cleat threesome, and got it….now has remorse. Should we ruin Winston’s career over that? I say not. That’s far from condoning the activity .
Again, take your pharisee robes elsewhere…..you can’t see the issue for your own self righteousness….
What is she picked him up? And then changed her mind? Should be be considered a rapist?
Huh? Huh? Yep, that’s the likely scenario.
What is your point?
The discussion of how much FSU makes on football.
Man, you ban that and you would really cut down on available sex. Plus you would make criminals of teen through 30 something hetero males.
yes, it appears they make 43 mill on football and 100 mill plus on athletics. Out of that, they have to pay for all of the non rev sports ,etc.
And the girl was apparently NOT drunk for purposes of inhabitions…only drunk for purposes of a trial involving DUI - which is NOT what this is about.
I love it when teetotalers talk about drinking as if they know something about it.
Drunk college girl, drinking college guy, sex. Yeah, policing that is gonna work.
Let's ramp it up: college girl who brags about chasing cleats while she's perfectly sober successfully nabs and screws the starting quarterback, and apparently at least one other dude. Then with buyers remorse, she claims to be so drunk she was taken advantage of, and yet, she was only barely over the DUI limit maybe. IMO, it's nothing to brag about, but nothing to police at all….
It’s noted in the police report that in addition to saying she was drunk (or possibly drugged) that the girl told a different story to some people, saying she had suffered a blow to the head and that is what caused memory loss, disorientation, etc.
No head trauma was noted during the medical exam and the police didn’t see any evidence of it talking to the girl.
Blood and urine tests (and blood retests at a University of Fl lab, yes in Gainesville) don’t show results for any drugs.
If you’re the prosecutor you’ve now got an accuser who has given two different accounts of why she had blackouts, etc and zero medical evidence to support any of it.
There are other issues with the case, major issues, and a belief in conspiracy by the police or the State’s Attorney isn’t necessary to see why Winston wasn’t charged.
So where do you draw the line?
I never said that that should be a criminal offence. What I said was that the team should hold him accountable his coaches should hold him accountable.
0.10 is not drunk the only reason it was changed to 0.08 was to make the rabbit dogs at MADD happy. A healthy person is quite functional at 0.10. 0.10 equals about 3 or 4 beers over about 1 or 2 hours. This girl knew what she was doing and this guy did not rape her.
Is anyone else skeptical concerning this? Follow the MONEY - including looking at the alleged "victim".
Winston appeared much too unperturbed all along not to have known that the fix was in.
See post 57. I am sorry if I wasn’t clear enough about the prosecutorial aspect of this story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.