Posted on 04/19/2006 4:37:00 AM PDT by MindBender26
I can't tell you how many times my husband and I did something similar to this....go out on a Friday, realize you are in no state to drive home, call a cab & on the way stop at an ATM to pay for the ride. It's not unusual, I don't think.
I sure wish I had had you as a parent when I was growing up; I can't even imagine the stuff I could have blown by you!
Didn't I also read that the times coincided with wrist watches of some guys that were on the pics at the time the pics were taken?
Yes, the photos were taken by one of the partygoers who gave them to the players' lawyers. The lawyers have been showing them to reporters but not allowing reporters to take away copies of them.
No doubt he was taking the pictures because he thought the whole event was entertaining and wanted to laugh about it later with his fellow louts, probably giving an especially hard time to the lout who was passed out on the floor with his pants down.
If you do this, you're smart, and you live in a shall issue CCW state, you ought to pack heat at that time of night.
He's not exempt...it's just that it's a tough case to make out. You have to prove that he had actual malice against these individuals.
He can say that he was just pursuing the woman's complaint and believed it to be legitimate.
You could go after her...but that would only cost you money and wouldn't get you anything.
The real untold story here is about abusing the rape shield law.
If you falsly accuse someone of rape, you destroy the life of the accused.
Your life should be spent behind bars thinking about that.
And while we are at it......Anyone who falsy accuses a spouse of molesting their children in child custody case, should get life in prison as well.
Yes, I've read that too.
to say he was getting money out to pay the dancer makes zero sense and it's not supported by anything- let's move on
This is a stupid question, but is the Herald-Sun reliable? In the post above, they seem to have circumstantial evidence that the boy could not have called a cab that night. Believe me, a jury consisting of "the community" would find that to be enough reason to throw out the alibi.
This puts a hole in the airtight alibi.
All she could see was $$$$ signs.
Any basis for a civil suit if the burden of proof is more lenient?
However, if he called dispatch from a cell phone there would be a record of the call.
Collusion between dispatchers and drivers to keep 'short haul' jobs off the books and hidden from cab companies is not unheard of. As a matter of fact, it's quite a common practice.
How about a change of venue?
So-called "rape shield laws" are abuse BY DEFINITION.
The common-law defense to a charge of rape is consent. In many cases, it's the only defense available to the accused.
In order to substantiate a defense of consent, it is vital that the defendant be able to place before the fact-finder evidence which would tend to support the propensity of the accuser to consent to sexual intercourse, either with the defendant personally or with strangers in general.
Removing this avenue of defense makes the charge much, much harder to defend against.
Sort of like Richard Jewel(sp), the Olympic Park security guard.
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.