Dolphins give tryout to man who was wrongly jailed for five years

[finomenal]

I'm honestly not trying to get into a 'lawyering' contest with you, but there is no way that you're going to convince me that it is actually 'the other way around' when it comes to rape accusations. Men get the short end of the stick more often than not when this kind of scenario plays out. Even using the lazy lawyer excuse shows that the way the system is set up a guy has the deck stacked against him.

And concerning these two people, at 15 she should still know better than to lie. At 16 he knew that telling the truth was the right thing to do, thus not denying that they had intercourse. I'll admit though,I don't know the details of this case, as you said as well.

As far as him and football goes, I wish him well but I don't see it panning out for him. That's just too long away from the game, but who knows.

Thank you!

 

[finomenal]

He should go after eveything shes got.

Which is nothing, or so we've heard. She blew through all that money without a care. Good for her.

 

[finomenal]

And to top it of, she never even apologized years later:

http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2...rian-banks-of-rape-destroy-his-life/?pid=6771

 

[ckparrothead]

I respect your opinions more than a lot of fans on here, but sadly, I'm shocked. I just can't agree with that statement in any way. I don't see how you could possibly categorize this as "stupid ****" 15 year olds do. Some examples of stupid things fifteen year olds do include things like smoking weed in the school bathroom, shoplifting, etc.

Accusing someone of rape that leads to prison time is certainly not an example of "stupid **** 15 year olds do." It's evil. I don't give a damn that she was 15. Fifteen sounds very young, but if you think about it, that's a sophomore in high school. She's old enough to know that if she tells authorities that a guy raped her, there's a strong chance he goes to prison.

My cousin got stabbed to death by a 15 year old many years ago (Here's a link to the article if anyone would like to read it http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...0_1_plummer-s-life-summers-mother-steak-knife). She knew what the hell she was doing, too. She's not a baby. It's funny how this girl who accused Brian Banks is now broke and on welfare. Good for her. Living it up while he's in prison. Really nice. Stereotypical ghetto hoodrat.

View attachment 8786

BURN. IN. HELL. BITCH.



edited to add: Can someone please tell me why the picture I posted shows up as a link instead of displaying the picture?

Again, I have to say, yes she lied and yes she should have known better. But she didn't put him in jail. She lied, and the justice system put him in jail. She was a 15 year old kid, and yes 15 year old kids do all kinds of stupid **** that the regret years later, including violent crimes that have dire consequences, and including non-violent crimes which have just as dire consequences (let's say, drinking and driving that results in death?). All things they should know better. But it is a fact that at 15 years old your brain isn't as fully developed as it is at 20 years old or so, hence the basis for legal separation of minors and adults.

It was the JUSTICE SYSTEM that should have been able to take a step back and say wait, we're going to put him in prison based solely on the testimony of a 15 year old kid, without any corroborating evidence? It sounds to me like what happened was his lawyer at the time monumentally failed him, and should probably be sued.

 

[finomenal]

Again, I have to say, yes she lied and yes she should have known better. But she didn't put him in jail. She lied, and the justice system put him in jail. She was a 15 year old kid, and yes 15 year old kids do all kinds of stupid **** that the regret years later, including violent crimes that have dire consequences, and including non-violent crimes which have just as dire consequences (let's say, drinking and driving that results in death?). All things they should know better. But it is a fact that at 15 years old your brain isn't as fully developed as it is at 20 years old or so, hence the basis for legal separation of minors and adults.

It was the JUSTICE SYSTEM that should have been able to take a step back and say wait, we're going to put him in prison based solely on the testimony of a 15 year old kid, without any corroborating evidence? It sounds to me like what happened was his lawyer at the time monumentally failed him, and should probably be sued.

I never said she put him in jail. What i said is it lead to the incarceration. There's no incarceration for this alleged crime if there is no one to report it. You're armed with more data than I am, so before you argue the semantics of me saying there's a strong chance he goes to jail, I'll just say that her reporting this to authorities means that there definitely is a chance he goes to jail, however small the percentage of chance based on conviction statistics.

 

[Vertical Limit]

keep that scrub out the building...garbage

edit...i was thinking of tony banks...ha ha...anyways anyone who's been away from the game that damn long i'm not interested in playing for my pro football team...

Yes because it hasn't worked out well with Jimmy Wilson right?

There's 2nd, 3rd string linebackers with less talent than this kid. He will definitely end up in someone's final day roster.

 

[ckparrothead]

Yes because it hasn't worked out well with Jimmy Wilson right?

There's 2nd, 3rd string linebackers with less talent than this kid. He will definitely end up in someone's final day roster.

I would bet against that.

 

[WitheringPlant]

Again, I have to say, yes she lied and yes she should have known better. But she didn't put him in jail. She lied, and the justice system put him in jail. She was a 15 year old kid, and yes 15 year old kids do all kinds of stupid **** that the regret years later, including violent crimes that have dire consequences, and including non-violent crimes which have just as dire consequences (let's say, drinking and driving that results in death?). All things they should know better. But it is a fact that at 15 years old your brain isn't as fully developed as it is at 20 years old or so, hence the basis for legal separation of minors and adults.

It was the JUSTICE SYSTEM that should have been able to take a step back and say wait, we're going to put him in prison based solely on the testimony of a 15 year old kid, without any corroborating evidence? It sounds to me like what happened was his lawyer at the time monumentally failed him, and should probably be sued.

What corroborating evidence do you think is available in a typical rape case? Rape cases are almost always based on two pieces of evidence: victim testimony and a medical examination. That is what makes them so difficult to prove. If you're going to argue a justice system should not allow a rape conviction based solely on the testimony of a 15 year old kid, you must necessarily accept that you're cutting off any hope of justice for 15 year old rape victims.

I have yet to see an article mention whether or not a medical examination was conducted. For that matter, I have yet to see an article give any sort of timeline as to when the alleged rape occurred and when the alleged victim came forth. If there was any significant gap between these events, a medical examination would have provided little to no use. Unfortunately, just as rapes are under-reported, when reported they are often delayed. Should a justice system refuse to allow a rape conviction that is reported too late for a medical examination? Once again, that is cutting off an awful lot of victims.

Our justice system has plenty of issues. Trust me, I understand this more than most. It is too easy, however, to throw the blame on the justice system when the wrong result occurs. The fact of the matter is, none of us know enough about the case to know what went wrong. The media only reports a broad story of events - the recovery, after all, is much more appealing. Likewise, most people do not care enough about the case to go combing through California records.

Did the public defender mess up? Perhaps. Perhaps not. From what I have read, the plea deal was for 18 months. For some reason, the conviction ended up being 5 years. Why did this happen? Who messed up? I don't know (see: lack of easily accessible information). Would 18 months have been a good deal in the face of a possible 9 year sentence? With the case files, or at least significantly more detail, I would be inclined to defer to the public defender on that one. It would have to be pretty damning for a malpractice suit to be appropriate.

I know it is fun the play lawyer and speculate about who did what wrong. I also realize your initial point was to combat such knee-reaction. Unfortunately, I think you ended up falling into the same trap as everyone else. Without significantly more detail, not to mention a fair amount of time in the library, it is just about impossible to make any sort of reasonable conclusion about the case.

 

[phinking]

Did the woman who lied about the rape end up in jail like she should be? You shouldn't be able to take away a guy's freedom for 5 years with a false accusation without getting some sort of punishment.

No she hasn't been arrested. In fact she sued and reached a settlement from the school of 1.5 million which they are going to sue to get back.

 

[Bigjbizzle2]

Who knows he might still have some talent so a tryout isn't going to hurt

 

[ckparrothead]

What corroborating evidence do you think is available in a typical rape case? Rape cases are almost always based on two pieces of evidence: victim testimony and a medical examination. That is what makes them so difficult to prove. If you're going to argue a justice system should not allow a rape conviction based solely on the testimony of a 15 year old kid, you must necessarily accept that you're cutting off any hope of justice for 15 year old rape victims.

While you are correct that rape cases are usually tried based in large part (but not all) on victim testimony and medical examination, you're under-selling the amount of corroborating evidence that goes into a rape case. There is an expectation, right or wrong, that a woman being raped is probably going to physically struggle against her attacker. That leaves marks, on both the victim and the accused. The presence of such marks (pictures) and any forensic examinations of them (skin under the fingernails, etc) would greatly bolster the claim of rape by the victim. There is also testimony from people that were with the victim and/or accused before or after the crime that can lay scenes. And then, there's the key element of EVERY rape trial that you missed...character examination. The #1 defense for any man accused of rape is character assassination of the victim. She's a slut, she's a liar, she's a money grubber, etc. That's one of the reasons cited by rape victims who don't report and/or refuse to testify, they don't want to go through all that (and considering what they've already just been through, can you blame them?). Similarly, the prosecution can attempt to paint the accused as a man with a history of violence and/or misogyny. There's a lot more to it than a simple he-said/she-said.

And that's been my point all along. There are people right here in this thread that have tried to put forth the idea that rape accusations are all about he-said/she-said and they always believe the woman not the man, the justice system is geared against the accused in rape allegations, and so this Brian Banks thing is common. You just got done AGREEING with me about how difficult it is to convict someone of rape based on the nature of how rape trials often play out. So then you AGREE with me that the characterization in this thread that I just described is dead wrong.

I have yet to see an article mention whether or not a medical examination was conducted. For that matter, I have yet to see an article give any sort of timeline as to when the alleged rape occurred and when the alleged victim came forth. If there was any significant gap between these events, a medical examination would have provided little to no use. Unfortunately, just as rapes are under-reported, when reported they are often delayed. Should a justice system refuse to allow a rape conviction that is reported too late for a medical examination? Once again, that is cutting off an awful lot of victims.

Our justice system has plenty of issues. Trust me, I understand this more than most. It is too easy, however, to throw the blame on the justice system when the wrong result occurs. The fact of the matter is, none of us know enough about the case to know what went wrong. The media only reports a broad story of events - the recovery, after all, is much more appealing. Likewise, most people do not care enough about the case to go combing through California records.

Did the public defender mess up? Perhaps. Perhaps not. From what I have read, the plea deal was for 18 months. For some reason, the conviction ended up being 5 years. Why did this happen? Who messed up? I don't know (see: lack of easily accessible information). Would 18 months have been a good deal in the face of a possible 9 year sentence? With the case files, or at least significantly more detail, I would be inclined to defer to the public defender on that one. It would have to be pretty damning for a malpractice suit to be appropriate.

I know it is fun the play lawyer and speculate about who did what wrong. I also realize your initial point was to combat such knee-reaction. Unfortunately, I think you ended up falling into the same trap as everyone else. Without significantly more detail, not to mention a fair amount of time in the library, it is just about impossible to make any sort of reasonable conclusion about the case.

I think you're tilting at windmills, here.

I never claimed to know exactly how and where the justice system failed Brian Banks. But it did. That's what we know. Well, unless the victim's recanting is a lie, a possibility which I myself have already brought up. I have brought up possibilities for exactly how and by what mechanism the justice system failed Brian Banks. As you say, there is a dearth of detail in this case as far as some guy on a computer a hundred miles away being able to figure out how and where exactly the justice system failed Brian Banks, who to blame and how to fix it, etc.

Pretend you're a medical examiner. You have a body on the slab. Is that cadaver still alive just because you haven't figured out yet the cause of death? No. That body is dead. You know that much. You just don't know the details of how. Similarly, our court system gave Brian Banks a plate of injustice. We don't know who cooked it (yet), but we damn well know what restaurant it was served in.

Further, it seems you've taken up a defense of the legal system in general, as if I am saying it's all screwed up. Well first off, yes I do have criticisms, one of which I consistently raised was the non-testing of rape kits. However, you're making the same mistake another poster did when he starts going off on a chest-thumping rant about Amurrrica and how awesome our justice system is compared with those around the world. This is not a point I made, or even tried to make, and so you're really erecting a straw man argument.

 

[schwayne32]

He was wrongly accused, i think it wouldn't hurt to give him a shot.

 

[WitheringPlant]

While you are correct that rape cases are usually tried based in large part (but not all) on victim testimony and medical examination, you're under-selling the amount of corroborating evidence that goes into a rape case. There is an expectation, right or wrong, that a woman being raped is probably going to physically struggle against her attacker. That leaves marks, on both the victim and the accused. The presence of such marks (pictures) and any forensic examinations of them (skin under the fingernails, etc) would greatly bolster the claim of rape by the victim. There is also testimony from people that were with the victim and/or accused before or after the crime that can lay scenes. And then, there's the key element of EVERY rape trial that you missed...character examination. The #1 defense for any man accused of rape is character assassination of the victim. She's a slut, she's a liar, she's a money grubber, etc. That's one of the reasons cited by rape victims who don't report and/or refuse to testify, they don't want to go through all that (and considering what they've already just been through, can you blame them?). Similarly, the prosecution can attempt to paint the accused as a man with a history of violence and/or misogyny. There's a lot more to it than a simple he-said/she-said.

And that's been my point all along. There are people right here in this thread that have tried to put forth the idea that rape accusations are all about he-said/she-said and they always believe the woman not the man, the justice system is geared against the accused in rape allegations, and so this Brian Banks thing is common. You just got done AGREEING with me about how difficult it is to convict someone of rape based on the nature of how rape trials often play out. So then you AGREE with me that the characterization in this thread that I just described is dead wrong.

Look, I'm not just making stuff up here. I've clerked in a sexual assault division, I've watched trials, and I've had to pour through case law.

First off, medical examination = forensic examination. Sorry for any confusion there.

As for character examination, I'm sorry, but you have completely butchered the rules of evidence. Character evidence is impermissible to prove specific action in accordance with said character. It is far from the "key" element in "every" rape trial.
Can the defendant introduce evidence that victim is a slut? No - rape shield.
Can the defendant introduce evidence that the victim is a liar? Yes (assuming she is a witness), but only by general reputation and opinion, not specific conduct. So yes, defendant can take the stand and argue the victim has a reputation for dishonesty. This is hardly the crux in any case.
Can the defendant introduce evidence that the victim is a money grubber? No - impermissible character inference.
Can the victim introduce evidence that the defendant has a history of violence? MAYBE if trying to explain why she didn't struggle, but otherwise - no.
Can the victim introduce evidence that the defendant has a history of rape? Only if there was a conviction - otherwise there is no chance that's getting in.
Can the victim introduce evidence that the defendant is a misogynist? No - impermissible character inference, and likely to be far more prejudicial than probative.

Do attorney's try to sneak in character evidence anyway? Yes, but it is certainly not the key element of a rape case, and shouldn't be the necessary "corroborative" evidence you say was missing.

I agree that the notion then men get the short end of the stick when it comes to rape accusations in ludicrous. Unless the victim comes forward quickly, however, it often does come down to he said-she said. A rape kit is great if done in time. If not, you're pretty much stuck relying on the victim's testimony. You might throw in, as you said, some other "setting the scene" testimony, but its the victim's credibility that wins or loses the day.

The foundation of our disagreement comes down to this question: should rape convictions be allowed solely on the testimony of the victim? You seem to think no. Due to the nature of rape, and the dearth of evidence that often accompanies it, I think its a necessity.

I think you're tilting at windmills, here.

I never claimed to know exactly how and where the justice system failed Brian Banks. But it did. That's what we know. Well, unless the victim's recanting is a lie, a possibility which I myself have already brought up. I have brought up possibilities for exactly how and by what mechanism the justice system failed Brian Banks. As you say, there is a dearth of detail in this case as far as some guy on a computer a hundred miles away being able to figure out how and where exactly the justice system failed Brian Banks, who to blame and how to fix it, etc.

Pretend you're a medical examiner. You have a body on the slab. Is that cadaver still alive just because you haven't figured out yet the cause of death? No. That body is dead. You know that much. You just don't know the details of how. Similarly, our court system gave Brian Banks a plate of injustice. We don't know who cooked it (yet), but we damn well know what restaurant it was served in.

Further, it seems you've taken up a defense of the legal system in general, as if I am saying it's all screwed up. Well first off, yes I do have criticisms, one of which I consistently raised was the non-testing of rape kits. However, you're making the same mistake another poster did when he starts going off on a chest-thumping rant about Amurrrica and how awesome our justice system is compared with those around the world. This is not a point I made, or even tried to make, and so you're really erecting a straw man argument.

My issue was more with you willy-nilly throwing the blame on the public defender, even going so far as to allege malpractice. I'm not sure you understand how strong of a statement that is, particularly based on the piecemeal story given by the news.

As for the court system being the one serving up injustice - this really comes down to what I've already said. Do I find a court per se at fault for convicting on the testimony of 15 year old girl? No. As I've said, I think that possibility is necessary for a just legal system. I'd want more detail before hanging the fault on the court system.

Your argument was don't blame the girl, blame the system. Obviously, I think this is wrong.

 

[Charlie Rivers]

Every time I think of this wrongly accused guy, I remember that scene in Cape Fear where the De Niro character is pumping up in his cell block with vengeance (for the itch) in his gut.

In the real world (on the field) this guy is going to knock out any opposing player out of the county -- like a runaway locomotive annihilating anything in its way. My one wish is that this guy, in aqua and orange, can utterly demolish the Jets all by his lonesome; making Wake look like a puppy dog in comparison. The anger, the eagerness to prove his worth, the Hard Knocks show showcasing his story: Man, this guy is going to run out of the starting gates like a bat out of hell. And then all hell (for those on the other side of the ball) will break loose.

Also, can you imagine how fired up, Ray Lewis style, he is going to make the rest of our players!? We are going to blast out of that tunnel like mad animals on the hunt.

 

[walt]

Look, I'm not just making stuff up here. I've clerked in a sexual assault division, I've watched trials, and I've had to pour through case law.

First off, medical examination = forensic examination. Sorry for any confusion there.

As for character examination, I'm sorry, but you have completely butchered the rules of evidence. Character evidence is impermissible to prove specific action in accordance with said character. It is far from the "key" element in "every" rape trial.
Can the defendant introduce evidence that victim is a slut? No - rape shield.
Can the defendant introduce evidence that the victim is a liar? Yes (assuming she is a witness), but only by general reputation and opinion, not specific conduct. So yes, defendant can take the stand and argue the victim has a reputation for dishonesty. This is hardly the crux in any case.
Can the defendant introduce evidence that the victim is a money grubber? No - impermissible character inference.
Can the victim introduce evidence that the defendant has a history of violence? MAYBE if trying to explain why she didn't struggle, but otherwise - no.
Can the victim introduce evidence that the defendant has a history of rape? Only if there was a conviction - otherwise there is no chance that's getting in.
Can the victim introduce evidence that the defendant is a misogynist? No - impermissible character inference, and likely to be far more prejudicial than probative.

Do attorney's try to sneak in character evidence anyway? Yes, but it is certainly not the key element of a rape case, and shouldn't be the necessary "corroborative" evidence you say was missing.

I agree that the notion then men get the short end of the stick when it comes to rape accusations in ludicrous. Unless the victim comes forward quickly, however, it often does come down to he said-she said. A rape kit is great if done in time. If not, you're pretty much stuck relying on the victim's testimony. You might throw in, as you said, some other "setting the scene" testimony, but its the victim's credibility that wins or loses the day.

The foundation of our disagreement comes down to this question: should rape convictions be allowed solely on the testimony of the victim? You seem to think no. Due to the nature of rape, and the dearth of evidence that often accompanies it, I think its a necessity.


My issue was more with you willy-nilly throwing the blame on the public defender, even going so far as to allege malpractice. I'm not sure you understand how strong of a statement that is, particularly based on the piecemeal story given by the news.

As for the court system being the one serving up injustice - this really comes down to what I've already said. Do I find a court per se at fault for convicting on the testimony of 15 year old girl? No. As I've said, I think that possibility is necessary for a just legal system. I'd want more detail before hanging the fault on the court system.

Your argument was don't blame the girl, blame the system. Obviously, I think this is wrong.

So, you don't believe in the concept that guilt needs to be established beyond a reasonable doubt? Because when the only evidence is the testimony of the alleged victim, then reasonable doubt should exist by definition.

BTW, if you think that the only evidence that should be needed to convict is the testimony of the alleged victim, then you are handing all women a license to put any men they choose in jail at any time, as long as they can put on a good act on the stand.