Posted on 08/04/2004 10:56:48 AM PDT by GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY
According to Harvey Levin ("Celebrity Justice") from sources connected with both sides in Eagle, Colorado:
1) Kobe accepts a plea bargain for a non-sex crime misdemeanor such as Third-Degree assault. (misdemeanor, Kobe might get probation, wouldn't have to register as sex offender).
2) Kobe settles the civil case. Pays a financial settlement. Gives letter of apology saying, "that even though Kobe Bryant belived that he was doing nothing wrong, that she felt she had been assaulted in the hotel room, and for that he was sorry."
No plea deals struck, but parties talking about it.
A critical point you missed is the 'aurora lights' part. Without stimulation from the lights, the sperm from mr X could not have possibly jumped from her panties to her inner thighs....
;)
Me too, but you know lawyers, right Torie?:-}
Are you unfamiliar with how the human bodies work?
Do you need somebody to draw you a picture? She never objected in the beginning; for some reason, she finally asked him to stop and he did.
are you saying that a man can shove is penis in a woman and then ask for permission then?
You really have major issues with men, don't you? or are you saying that every guy gets to shove it in without it really, really being rape?
I certainly will as long as you post on this thread or anyone I am on.
Thanks for proving my point.
Try reading up on what subject? The incidence of women who engage in sex immediately after being raped?
It matters not how common or uncommon you or I think it is, it destroys some evidence and devalues other evidence. That's a fact.
Even if he pleads, he will still be a sex offender.
Bryant's not going for that, IMO.
LOL........thanks for that laugh!
Levin seemed to think as part of the plea agreement to a simple assault, it would be a non-sex crime and Kobe wouldn't have to register. I don't know enough about Colorado law to tell you otherwise, but deviod of a statute on point, if you are convicted of a non-sex crime, why should you be required to register? You are not a sex offender per se.
And what "facts" are you rteferring to?
Do you really think woman think logically after being raped? Do you really think they are thinking about preserving evidence?
If so, try spending more time reading books by women who have been raped and less time in front of Court TV.
Post by a person who is involved enough in a case to be able to disparge and hate Sharon Rocha!!!
So you are proud that you are ignorant in this case and it means that you have a more fullfilling life than others around here. Well what one does if interested in a topic when one is around people who know more than them is be quiet and try to learn.
That would be a good strategy for you here as opposed to stepping up and saying you have such a fullfilling life that you are relatively ignorant on this topic but you want to give orders.
Do not post to me. I have told you three times now to stop.
It's important not to assume that the time bargaining started is the same as the time one "commentator" chose to start publicly speculating on it. As the transcripts indicate, there's been discussions going on since the beginning.
The common situation is that the defense is seeking a crime that doesn't involve registering as a sex offender, and the people won't agree to that as long as they think they have a chance of a conviction.
The second factor here is that you have a prosecutor running for re-election for whom being seen as a "defender of the purity of our womenfolk" would guarantee half the vote. As long as he was in the mix, that issue was always in play. With him gone, after an interval long enough for him to disclaim responsibility, I suspect it'll settle
I'm reminded of a settlement agreement a prosecutor friend of mine was involved in years ago. It involved a guy who was running a string of what the cops described as "the ugliest hookers they'd ever seen". The evidence was weak, and the guy was willing to agree to a plea to a misdemeanor that didn't involve registration. The problem was that every crime that could possibly involve the circumstances was a sex crime and therefor required registration. My friend was charged with researching something the guy could plead to, and finally found a California statute (which has since been repealed) that was adopted in the days of the traveling "geek" shows and made it illegal to exhibit a deformity for hire.
The guy bought it and entered a guilty plea, probably the only conviction under the statute in 50 years.
Do you expect me to learn from the people like Howlin and you? BWAAAAAAAAAAWAWAWWWWWWWWWW!
As long as you continue to post ABOUT me to other posters, and as long as you post misinformation on these threads, I will.
I admit it seems it might be difficult for you. But you really should try to learn something about an issue you want to discuss.
That's not correct. Colorado requires a conviction to a sexual offense before a person must register. The article is confusing, however, in that it inidcates the plea would be to third degree assault.. a non-sex misdemeanor. There is a third degree sexual assualt crime in Colorado - a misdemeanor with 2 year max sentence.
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.