Since when is PED use worse then rape?

RynoHawk":3l3d8dch said:

Even though what you stated is great, my point was more to the Holier-then-thou attitude that people have. It's pretty apparent that he was guilty- she is fricken prego with HIS baby. I think the main issue is that everything is subjective... Thanks for the reply

Click to expand...

therealjohncarlson":2wpnaml8 said:

RynoHawk":2wpnaml8 said:

Even though what you stated is great, my point was more to the Holier-then-thou attitude that people have. It's pretty apparent that he was guilty- she is fricken prego with HIS baby. I think the main issue is that everything is subjective... Thanks for the reply

Click to expand...

I havent read about the case but it seems like your leaving something out. If the case was as clear-cut as you make it seem I have a hard time believing he was let go

Click to expand...

Alkasquawlik":rcd9e9gl said:

I don't think Cox ever denied having sex with the woman (correct me if I'm wrong). It was a case of consensual sex vs rape, and clearly the courts found him not guilty. Not sure how that even correlates to PED use..

Click to expand...

RynoHawk":1qgf6i4s said:

Alkasquawlik":1qgf6i4s said:

I don't think Cox ever denied having sex with the woman (correct me if I'm wrong). It was a case of consensual sex vs rape, and clearly the courts found him not guilty. Not sure how that even correlates to PED use..

Click to expand...

It has NOTHING to do with PED use. It is more in the direction of attitudes and perceived that we are a cheeting "Horrible" no good team and can be called out my opposing teams coach yet can retain a rapist(suposed) on their team. I guess I'm reaching but like I said in the first post, I'm venting.... and I need something else to talk about besides Aaron H.

Click to expand...

mikeak":1x04r2ss said:

therealjohncarlson":1x04r2ss said:

RynoHawk":1x04r2ss said:

Even though what you stated is great, my point was more to the Holier-then-thou attitude that people have. It's pretty apparent that he was guilty- she is fricken prego with HIS baby. I think the main issue is that everything is subjective... Thanks for the reply

Click to expand...

I havent read about the case but it seems like your leaving something out. If the case was as clear-cut as you make it seem I have a hard time believing he was let go

Click to expand...

The defense somehow managed to convince the jury that the DNA test on the at the time unborn child was flawed and was aquitted. I don't really understand how that was proven / why a new one couldn't be done etc etc

They settled in the civil case

Click to expand...

bellingerga":2x09q3cj said:

I think people are really just missing the point or just people are dull in general. He's not saying the two are anything alike, just that one is being blown way out of proportion, while the much worse act is being largely ignored.

Click to expand...

Basis4day":1gs42n0g said:

It's not entirely that simple. Let me try and explain the facts, i don't necessarily agree the jury's interpretation.

Cox was accused of rape in a criminal matter. An investigation was conducted including which included a paternity test. The Defense could have sought to exclude the paternity test. If they did, they were unsuccessful. The paternity test was admitted into evidence. The defense doesn't want a new test because it would likely come back positive and show some form of sexual contact between Cox and the victim. The prosecution wouldn't want a new test because the results favored their case. Rather than move to exclude the evidence, the defense chose to convince the jury that the collection process was improper. The jury was still allowed to hear the evidence and still chose to acquit. Cox's own attorney admitted that his client was a liar (i believe in reference to sexual contact with the accuser), but the DNA, if reliable, could only prove sexual contact occurred. It couldn't prove a rape had occurred. It's not the job of the defense to explain all the facts of the case, only to show that the prosecution's allegations could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense was able to paint the accuser as sexually promiscuous based on testimony from Demaryous Thomas that the accuser had performed sexual acts with another woman willingly before leaving the apartment the same night. (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20097030)

The Jury initially chose not to discuss the case. The foreman later changed his mind:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 2450,d.cGE

Again. By no means am i trying to justify the actions of Cox. I'm only trying to explain the rational for an acquittal.

Click to expand...

mikeak":2zsnbmj7 said:

Basis4day":2zsnbmj7 said:

It's not entirely that simple. Let me try and explain the facts, i don't necessarily agree the jury's interpretation.

Cox was accused of rape in a criminal matter. An investigation was conducted including which included a paternity test. The Defense could have sought to exclude the paternity test. If they did, they were unsuccessful. The paternity test was admitted into evidence. The defense doesn't want a new test because it would likely come back positive and show some form of sexual contact between Cox and the victim. The prosecution wouldn't want a new test because the results favored their case. Rather than move to exclude the evidence, the defense chose to convince the jury that the collection process was improper. The jury was still allowed to hear the evidence and still chose to acquit. Cox's own attorney admitted that his client was a liar (i believe in reference to sexual contact with the accuser), but the DNA, if reliable, could only prove sexual contact occurred. It couldn't prove a rape had occurred. It's not the job of the defense to explain all the facts of the case, only to show that the prosecution's allegations could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense was able to paint the accuser as sexually promiscuous based on testimony from Demaryous Thomas that the accuser had performed sexual acts with another woman willingly before leaving the apartment the same night. (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20097030)

The Jury initially chose not to discuss the case. The foreman later changed his mind:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 2450,d.cGE

Again. By no means am i trying to justify the actions of Cox. I'm only trying to explain the rational for an acquittal.

Click to expand...

Thanks a bunch for laying it out

I get how the point is not to prove sexual contact but to prove rape which is very different. Get it completely. Which is why it wouldn't make sense for Cox to lie about not having sexual contact with her as the DNA test if the jury believed it was done right would prove this to be a lie. If the jury believes you lied about one thing I would think (not a lawyer) that they are likelier to believe you lied about something else.....

You state that the defense attorney said Cox lied about not having sexual contact. Did he do that in court and is that because of trying to play things two ways. 1) Try to get the jury to dismiss the dna test but if they don't 2) admit the sexual contact and now make the focus be on the district attorney to focus on the rape and not sue the lie against the defendant

Makes sense?

EDIT: read the links after posting so yes looks like the above. The decision sure seems baffling from an outside perspective. He lies aobut having sexual contact, she was passed out (not sure if they got him to admit that she was passed out / he saw her passed out to verify this). As far as I understand it in most states it would be rape to have someone have sex with a person passed out..........

REGARDLESS - he went free and shoud have the right to a job. Principly that is how life needs to work. This is different than people cheating within the sport

Click to expand...

"Steinberg’s close lasted a bit more than 30 minutes. He pitched the jury on how no one was a credible witness _ not the victim, not Che, not even Thomas _ in the night in question when Cox, a former Broncos cornerback, allegedly had intercourse with a woman without the woman’s knowledge or consent.

Steinberg also cited examples of why the victim did not pass out, as she claimed, but knew what was going on that night more than she had let on. Steinberg wondered how she could walk two blocks from the nightclub to the car, and how she could walk up three flights of stairs to Cox’s apartment if she was in such a disoriented state.

“This was a couple party girls, let’s call it what it is,” Steinberg said in his close."

Click to expand...

Basis4day":cfw1xbeb said:

The defense argued that she was asleep rather than completely passed out as she claimed:

"Steinberg’s close lasted a bit more than 30 minutes. He pitched the jury on how no one was a credible witness _ not the victim, not Che, not even Thomas _ in the night in question when Cox, a former Broncos cornerback, allegedly had intercourse with a woman without the woman’s knowledge or consent.

Steinberg also cited examples of why the victim did not pass out, as she claimed, but knew what was going on that night more than she had let on. Steinberg wondered how she could walk two blocks from the nightclub to the car, and how she could walk up three flights of stairs to Cox’s apartment if she was in such a disoriented state.

“This was a couple party girls, let’s call it what it is,” Steinberg said in his close."

Click to expand...

If it helps to understand a verdict, you need to remember that a jury must decide the facts of a case as presented. They don't have the same access to statements or reports from the news like you or i.

Click to expand...

mikeak":3rpytzum said:

Basis4day":3rpytzum said:

The defense argued that she was asleep rather than completely passed out as she claimed:

"Steinberg’s close lasted a bit more than 30 minutes. He pitched the jury on how no one was a credible witness _ not the victim, not Che, not even Thomas _ in the night in question when Cox, a former Broncos cornerback, allegedly had intercourse with a woman without the woman’s knowledge or consent.

Steinberg also cited examples of why the victim did not pass out, as she claimed, but knew what was going on that night more than she had let on. Steinberg wondered how she could walk two blocks from the nightclub to the car, and how she could walk up three flights of stairs to Cox’s apartment if she was in such a disoriented state.

“This was a couple party girls, let’s call it what it is,” Steinberg said in his close."

Click to expand...

If it helps to understand a verdict, you need to remember that a jury must decide the facts of a case as presented. They don't have the same access to statements or reports from the news like you or i.

Click to expand...

I understand - thanks for that extra outline. Clearly you can put some doubt in how drunk she was if she walked away etc. Not going to argue the number of times I walked somewhere severly drunk - the defense attorney clearly did the best job and I don't have all the facts presented in the case. Appreciate the inside view and thoughts on this

Click to expand...