Punt God in trouble

2004AG · Post by **2004AG** » August 29th, 2022, 6:33 pm

ViAggie wrote:
2004AG wrote: ↑
August 28th, 2022, 10:08 am

USU78 wrote:
trevordude wrote: ↑
August 27th, 2022, 7:10 pm

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑
August 27th, 2022, 6:17 pm

AggiePT wrote: ↑
August 27th, 2022, 6:06 pm
Punt God officially released from Bills today.

Why is this a civil lawsuit? Not criminal?
SDS folks say prosecutor still looking at it. No statute of limitations problems ... yet
It takes them a year “to look at it” ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pretty bad, it looks like a cover up no doubt, and I'm always willing to give the PD the benefit of the doubt, especially in SD where they don't typically allow you to eeF around before you find out if you know what I'm saying.

That’s why I’m getting at. It certainly looks like a cover up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FromLItoLogan · Post by **FromLItoLogan** » December 7th, 2022, 4:57 pm

Update on the SDSU rape case. I'm shocked. They have so much evidence.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... atform=amp

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » December 7th, 2022, 5:00 pm

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑
December 7th, 2022, 4:57 pm
Update on the SDSU rape case. I'm shocked. They have so much evidence.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... atform=amp

Unbelievable

aggieguy13 · Post by **aggieguy13** » December 7th, 2022, 5:13 pm

Did the investigators confront him man-to-man to ask if he had done it?

Imakeitrain · Post by **Imakeitrain** » December 7th, 2022, 5:29 pm

It's interesting to see in our justice system how "Prosecutors can only file charges when they ethically believe they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt." is applied to some people. Whereas sometimes it seems prosecutors will make it a point to overcharge things they know they cannot sustain.

It's as if some prosecutors are fully willing to ruin lives to further their own political ambitions and others are willing to only take the easy cases so that they can tell everyone how much of a winner they are. IDK.

That being said I do not know nearly enough to know what happened here. Does it usually take this long? I know of plenty of stories of rapists who are quickly arrested. Yet in this case they delayed seemingly to not press charges.

Either way due process is due process.

Slim80 · Post by **Slim80** » December 7th, 2022, 5:32 pm

aggieguy13 wrote: ↑
December 7th, 2022, 5:13 pm
Did the investigators confront him man-to-man to ask if he had done it?

I see what you did there!

trevordude · Post by **trevordude** » December 7th, 2022, 6:02 pm

Just like Deshaun Watson, the defense seems to be "that didn't happen". And I understand from a legal guilty/innocent view it must be proven to be considered guilty, but it sure is hard to believe nothing happened.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 7th, 2022, 6:28 pm

Unhappily in he said she said cases you can be 100% certain you have the right guy, the one who did it, but that certainty isn't enough.

FloridaAggie13 · Post by **FloridaAggie13** » December 7th, 2022, 7:42 pm

Let the girl's father handle it from here.

Hoot · Post by **Hoot** » December 7th, 2022, 10:01 pm

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑
December 7th, 2022, 7:42 pm
Let the girl's father handle it from here.

JSHarvey · Post by **JSHarvey** » December 8th, 2022, 8:59 am

trevordude wrote: ↑
August 27th, 2022, 7:10 pm

FromLItoLogan wrote: ↑
August 27th, 2022, 6:17 pm

AggiePT wrote: ↑
August 27th, 2022, 6:06 pm
Punt God officially released from Bills today.

Why is this a civil lawsuit? Not criminal?

Typically the reason prosecutions don't proceed is if the prosecutors don't think they can prove the case.

Civil suits have much lower standards of evidence, hence why cases that don't get prosecuted can still end up with civil cases filed.

thrashsoundly · Post by **thrashsoundly** » December 8th, 2022, 9:26 am

Right - it seems like prosecutors move forward with charges unless they feel like they can win the case regardless of whether or not the incident happened. This seems a lot like what happened here at USU and largely why many victims decide to not come forward. Even if they do everything right, the system fails them in the end.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 8th, 2022, 9:33 am

The human condition makes it inevitable: even the best system for uncovering TRVTH is still just a human invention. Perfection isn't achievable. It's not a question of failure or betrayal.

FloridaAggie13 · Post by **FloridaAggie13** » December 8th, 2022, 9:44 am

The proof that the incident occurred is 100%. What isn't 100% provable was consent, most likely due to inebriation of the victim.

Even so, it says a lot about the character of said 'Punt God' and company to pull a train on a drunk girl.

She will probably clean up on the civil suit - recall OJ Simpson for example.

I stand by my assertion to let dad handle the problem.

NVAggie · Post by **NVAggie** » December 8th, 2022, 9:45 am

I think it is better to let a guilty person go free than to imprison an innocent person. Our entire system is based on that principle. It is best for everyone to realize that they shouldn't put themselves into a situation where evidence is lacking and it is one's word vs. anothers.

Bullnamed_gus · Post by **Bullnamed_gus** » December 8th, 2022, 9:50 am

I guess I’m confused about everything. Didn’t he admit to at least having consensual with the girl, who is 17? I thought in the initial report that wasn’t a disputed argument, the disputed facts were if it was consensual or not?

Post by **Aglicious** » December 8th, 2022, 10:06 am

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 9:44 am
The proof that the incident occurred is 100%. What isn't 100% provable was consent, most likely due to inebriation of the victim.

Even so, it says a lot about the character of said 'Punt God' and company to pull a train on a drunk girl.

She will probably clean up on the civil suit - recall OJ Simpson for example.

I stand by my assertion to let dad handle the problem.

This is really what it came down to according to the prosecution. There is no doubt that the incident occurred, their was a boat load of physical and electronic evidence but since the victim was inebriated they knew they were facing an uphill battle where the same arguments and points would have been brought up just as they have in other similar cases to defend the accused.

What I don't understand is if she was a 17-yr old high school girl, then why isn't this still a criminal case from that standpoint? Pretty sure the age of consent in Cali is still 18 so wouldn't the consent argument be thrown out the door?

FloridaAggie13 · Post by **FloridaAggie13** » December 8th, 2022, 10:14 am

Aglicious wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 10:06 am

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 9:44 am
The proof that the incident occurred is 100%. What isn't 100% provable was consent, most likely due to inebriation of the victim.

Even so, it says a lot about the character of said 'Punt God' and company to pull a train on a drunk girl.

She will probably clean up on the civil suit - recall OJ Simpson for example.

I stand by my assertion to let dad handle the problem.
This is really what it came down to according to the prosecution. There is no doubt that the incident occurred, their was a boat load of physical and electronic evidence but since the victim was inebriated they knew they were facing an uphill battle where the same arguments and points would have been brought up just as they have in other similar cases to defend the accused.

What I don't understand is if she was a 17-yr old high school girl, then why isn't this still a criminal case from that standpoint? Pretty sure the age of consent in Cali is still 18 so wouldn't the consent argument be thrown out the door?

Age of consent in California is indeed 18. I'm not sure how this isn't being prosecuted unless defense is claiming the victim hid her age. Again, something that they could conjure out of thin air with the girl being drunk.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 8th, 2022, 10:16 am

Bullnamed_gus wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 9:50 am
I guess I’m confused about everything. Didn’t he admit to at least having consensual with the girl, who is 17? I thought in the initial report that wasn’t a disputed argument, the disputed facts were if it was consensual or not?

They don't believe that in California.

hickaggie · Post by **hickaggie** » December 8th, 2022, 4:27 pm

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 10:14 am

Aglicious wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 10:06 am

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 9:44 am
The proof that the incident occurred is 100%. What isn't 100% provable was consent, most likely due to inebriation of the victim.

Even so, it says a lot about the character of said 'Punt God' and company to pull a train on a drunk girl.

She will probably clean up on the civil suit - recall OJ Simpson for example.

I stand by my assertion to let dad handle the problem.
This is really what it came down to according to the prosecution. There is no doubt that the incident occurred, their was a boat load of physical and electronic evidence but since the victim was inebriated they knew they were facing an uphill battle where the same arguments and points would have been brought up just as they have in other similar cases to defend the accused.

What I don't understand is if she was a 17-yr old high school girl, then why isn't this still a criminal case from that standpoint? Pretty sure the age of consent in Cali is still 18 so wouldn't the consent argument be thrown out the door?
Age of consent in California is indeed 18. I'm not sure how this isn't being prosecuted unless defense is claiming the victim hid her age. Again, something that they could conjure out of thin air with the girl being drunk.

In Cali it looks to be the difference between Misdemeanor and a felony rape charge without the consent. Huge difference. Also knowledge of age issue. If its consensual and she reasonably held herself to be 18 then that's an affirmative defense in most states. Not sure about California.

StanfordAggie · Post by **StanfordAggie** » December 12th, 2022, 2:18 am

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 9:44 am
The proof that the incident occurred is 100%. What isn't 100% provable was consent, most likely due to inebriation of the victim.

I don't know the law in California, but in most states, there is a presumption that a victim is unable to give consent if they are intoxicated. Of course, proving that a victim was too intoxicated to give consent can be a challenge.

It should also be pointed out that sexual assault cases are some of the most difficult cases to prosecute if you are a DA. Usually there are no witnesses other than the victim and the accused, which makes it extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no consent was given. Often one or both parties had been drinking, which makes it even harder to get a reliable account of what happened. It's also not uncommon for a victim to send text messages or e-mails to the accused downplaying the incident after the fact. Usually the victim will say that she was terrified and just telling her attacker what he wanted to hear, but obviously a good defense attorney can have a field day with that sort of thing. And even when a DA has a perfect case, sometimes it will fall apart because the victim doesn't want to relive the trauma or just stops responding to texts and calls without explanation more generally.

My point is that I don't think it's fair to scream "coverup" because no charges were filed in this case. DA's are elected, California is very liberal, and SDSU isn't exactly Alabama. I have a hard time believing that any DA is going to risk the wrath of voters by letting rapists walk free to protect a football team that can't fill up its brand-new stadium more than halfway. There are a million things that can go wrong in a rape case. It is very possible that the police or the DA's office bungled this one somewhere along the line. But I find it difficult to believe that it was a deliberate coverup. This case could have fallen apart for dozens of different reasons.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » December 12th, 2022, 9:50 am

StanfordAggie wrote: ↑
December 12th, 2022, 2:18 am

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 9:44 am
The proof that the incident occurred is 100%. What isn't 100% provable was consent, most likely due to inebriation of the victim.
I don't know the law in California, but in most states, there is a presumption that a victim is unable to give consent if they are intoxicated. Of course, proving that a victim was too intoxicated to give consent can be a challenge.

It should also be pointed out that sexual assault cases are some of the most difficult cases to prosecute if you are a DA. Usually there are no witnesses other than the victim and the accused, which makes it extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no consent was given. Often one or both parties had been drinking, which makes it even harder to get a reliable account of what happened. It's also not uncommon for a victim to send text messages or e-mails to the accused downplaying the incident after the fact. Usually the victim will say that she was terrified and just telling her attacker what he wanted to hear, but obviously a good defense attorney can have a field day with that sort of thing. And even when a DA has a perfect case, sometimes it will fall apart because the victim doesn't want to relive the trauma or just stops responding to texts and calls without explanation more generally.

My point is that I don't think it's fair to scream "coverup" because no charges were filed in this case. DA's are elected, California is very liberal, and SDSU isn't exactly Alabama. I have a hard time believing that any DA is going to risk the wrath of voters by letting rapists walk free to protect a football team that can't fill up its brand-new stadium more than halfway. There are a million things that can go wrong in a rape case. It is very possible that the police or the DA's office bungled this one somewhere along the line. But I find it difficult to believe that it was a deliberate coverup. This case could have fallen apart for dozens of different reasons.

This would be a fair commentary on the USU football incident as well.

hickaggie · Post by **hickaggie** » December 13th, 2022, 2:10 pm

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 12th, 2022, 9:50 am

StanfordAggie wrote: ↑
December 12th, 2022, 2:18 am

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 9:44 am
The proof that the incident occurred is 100%. What isn't 100% provable was consent, most likely due to inebriation of the victim.
I don't know the law in California, but in most states, there is a presumption that a victim is unable to give consent if they are intoxicated. Of course, proving that a victim was too intoxicated to give consent can be a challenge.

It should also be pointed out that sexual assault cases are some of the most difficult cases to prosecute if you are a DA. Usually there are no witnesses other than the victim and the accused, which makes it extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no consent was given. Often one or both parties had been drinking, which makes it even harder to get a reliable account of what happened. It's also not uncommon for a victim to send text messages or e-mails to the accused downplaying the incident after the fact. Usually the victim will say that she was terrified and just telling her attacker what he wanted to hear, but obviously a good defense attorney can have a field day with that sort of thing. And even when a DA has a perfect case, sometimes it will fall apart because the victim doesn't want to relive the trauma or just stops responding to texts and calls without explanation more generally.

My point is that I don't think it's fair to scream "coverup" because no charges were filed in this case. DA's are elected, California is very liberal, and SDSU isn't exactly Alabama. I have a hard time believing that any DA is going to risk the wrath of voters by letting rapists walk free to protect a football team that can't fill up its brand-new stadium more than halfway. There are a million things that can go wrong in a rape case. It is very possible that the police or the DA's office bungled this one somewhere along the line. But I find it difficult to believe that it was a deliberate coverup. This case could have fallen apart for dozens of different reasons.
This would be a fair commentary on the USU football incident as well.

Can't imagine the alleged victim wanted him charged. They jumped the gun on the lawsuit. Should have waited on the statute of limitations until he had put away some cash and then got an NDA. Now they have to convince the NFL to take him back.

hickaggie · Post by **hickaggie** » December 13th, 2022, 2:12 pm

hickaggie wrote: ↑
December 13th, 2022, 2:10 pm

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 12th, 2022, 9:50 am

StanfordAggie wrote: ↑
December 12th, 2022, 2:18 am

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 9:44 am
The proof that the incident occurred is 100%. What isn't 100% provable was consent, most likely due to inebriation of the victim.
I don't know the law in California, but in most states, there is a presumption that a victim is unable to give consent if they are intoxicated. Of course, proving that a victim was too intoxicated to give consent can be a challenge.

It should also be pointed out that sexual assault cases are some of the most difficult cases to prosecute if you are a DA. Usually there are no witnesses other than the victim and the accused, which makes it extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no consent was given. Often one or both parties had been drinking, which makes it even harder to get a reliable account of what happened. It's also not uncommon for a victim to send text messages or e-mails to the accused downplaying the incident after the fact. Usually the victim will say that she was terrified and just telling her attacker what he wanted to hear, but obviously a good defense attorney can have a field day with that sort of thing. And even when a DA has a perfect case, sometimes it will fall apart because the victim doesn't want to relive the trauma or just stops responding to texts and calls without explanation more generally.

My point is that I don't think it's fair to scream "coverup" because no charges were filed in this case. DA's are elected, California is very liberal, and SDSU isn't exactly Alabama. I have a hard time believing that any DA is going to risk the wrath of voters by letting rapists walk free to protect a football team that can't fill up its brand-new stadium more than halfway. There are a million things that can go wrong in a rape case. It is very possible that the police or the DA's office bungled this one somewhere along the line. But I find it difficult to believe that it was a deliberate coverup. This case could have fallen apart for dozens of different reasons.
This would be a fair commentary on the USU football incident as well.
Can't imagine the alleged victim wanted him charged. They jumped the gun on the lawsuit. Should have waited on the statute of limitations until he had put away some cash and then got an NDA. Now they have to convince the NFL to take him back. Maybe they needed to file it to include SDSU (does it even include them?)

StanfordAggie · Post by **StanfordAggie** » December 14th, 2022, 12:20 am

hickaggie wrote: ↑
December 13th, 2022, 2:10 pm

USU78 wrote: ↑
December 12th, 2022, 9:50 am

StanfordAggie wrote: ↑
December 12th, 2022, 2:18 am

FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑
December 8th, 2022, 9:44 am
The proof that the incident occurred is 100%. What isn't 100% provable was consent, most likely due to inebriation of the victim.
I don't know the law in California, but in most states, there is a presumption that a victim is unable to give consent if they are intoxicated. Of course, proving that a victim was too intoxicated to give consent can be a challenge.

It should also be pointed out that sexual assault cases are some of the most difficult cases to prosecute if you are a DA. Usually there are no witnesses other than the victim and the accused, which makes it extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no consent was given. Often one or both parties had been drinking, which makes it even harder to get a reliable account of what happened. It's also not uncommon for a victim to send text messages or e-mails to the accused downplaying the incident after the fact. Usually the victim will say that she was terrified and just telling her attacker what he wanted to hear, but obviously a good defense attorney can have a field day with that sort of thing. And even when a DA has a perfect case, sometimes it will fall apart because the victim doesn't want to relive the trauma or just stops responding to texts and calls without explanation more generally.

My point is that I don't think it's fair to scream "coverup" because no charges were filed in this case. DA's are elected, California is very liberal, and SDSU isn't exactly Alabama. I have a hard time believing that any DA is going to risk the wrath of voters by letting rapists walk free to protect a football team that can't fill up its brand-new stadium more than halfway. There are a million things that can go wrong in a rape case. It is very possible that the police or the DA's office bungled this one somewhere along the line. But I find it difficult to believe that it was a deliberate coverup. This case could have fallen apart for dozens of different reasons.
This would be a fair commentary on the USU football incident as well.
Can't imagine the alleged victim wanted him charged. They jumped the gun on the lawsuit. Should have waited on the statute of limitations until he had put away some cash and then got an NDA. Now they have to convince the NFL to take him back.

Yeah, I didn't want to say that because I worried it would feed the popular and false narrative that many rape allegations are false. But that thought crossed my mind as well. It is possible that she decided that she would rather have money than have him locked up, and she and her attorney were worried that an acquittal in the criminal case could hurt the civil case, so she stopped cooperating with the criminal case. To be clear, I have absolutely no evidence that this is the case, and I am certainly not trying to suggest that the entire allegation is a shakedown. I'm just tossing this out there as a possibility to illustrate the point that you can't conclude that there was a conspiracy to protect the SDSU football team just because no criminal charges were filed.

Upcoming Events

Event Results