[lex24]

1.  Did you read the SI article (relaying experience of one woman who is not a plaintiff)?

2.  Do you believe all 22 women are just making up the accusations of unwanted sexual-related activities by Watson?  Even half of them?

I could believe one or two or even 5 doing that.  But 22?  C'mon, man . . .

Wasn't referring to the article at all. The list is long and distinguished of those who've made stuff up and perjured themselves with false accusations. See Jussie Smollett, Shari Papini, and most of the bureaucrats in DC.

It's no wonder women won't report sexual assaults and, when reported, prosecutors won't prosecute.  They end up with someone like cardcrimson on the jury.  It only takes one to let a rapist walk free.

C'mon, man.  That's out of line.

No.  Casting aspersions on all those women is out of line.  I've known a couple of women who were sexually assaulted and didn't report it because they expected cops and prosecutors to doubt their claims.  That is a MUCH larger problem than any false accusations.

There are a lot of really disgusting comments in this thread.  I think less of some of you now.  It's disheartening to see this sort of thing from Stanford alums.

Not a Stanford alum.  My only comment was to correct a statement that the standard for a Grand Jury indictment is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” it is “probable cause.”

I also don’t see the “disgusting” comments you suggest. (Care to be specific?) But I do see you doing what is so common these days - taking someones statement and twisting it into the worst possible interpretation.  It is one reason that it’s become darn near impossible to discuss issues.

---

It’s not hard to get a Grand Jury to indite.  As once was said “you can indite a ham sandwich.” Further, the standard to indite at the Federal level and, In most jurisdictions (including Texas) is “probable cause” not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

It is indeed often easy to indite somebody. However, there is no point in doing so if you can't possibly convict them. Prosecutors know this, and sometimes so do Grand Juries. As others point out, Watson may not be criminally responsible and still be liable for damage in civil court. He may even not have civil liability and still be morally reprehensible. If being reprehensible is a disqualifying attribute, probably 20% of the NFL is in that category IMHO.

I neither said nor suggested that the decision to not indite exonerates Watson civilly or for that matter morally.  I did correct your legal analysis.  The standard is “ probable cause” which is a significantly easier standard to meet than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

[lex24]

1.  Did you read the SI article (relaying experience of one woman who is not a plaintiff)?

2.  Do you believe all 22 women are just making up the accusations of unwanted sexual-related activities by Watson?  Even half of them?

I could believe one or two or even 5 doing that.  But 22?  C'mon, man . . .

Wasn't referring to the article at all. The list is long and distinguished of those who've made stuff up and perjured themselves with false accusations. See Jussie Smollett, Shari Papini, and most of the bureaucrats in DC.

It's no wonder women won't report sexual assaults and, when reported, prosecutors won't prosecute.  They end up with someone like cardcrimson on the jury.  It only takes one to let a rapist walk free.

C'mon, man.  That's out of line.

No.  Casting aspersions on all those women is out of line.  I've known a couple of women who were sexually assaulted and didn't report it because they expected cops and prosecutors to doubt their claims.  That is a MUCH larger problem than any false accusations.

There are a lot of really disgusting comments in this thread.  I think less of some of you now.  It's disheartening to see this sort of thing from Stanford alums.

Not a Stanford alum.  My only comment was to correct a statement that the standard for a Grand Jury indictment is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” it is “probable cause.”

I also don’t see the “disgusting” comments you suggest. (Care to be specific?) But I do see you doing what is so common these days - taking someones statement and twisting it into the worst possible interpretation.  It is one reason that it’s become darn near impossible to discuss issues.

---

It’s not hard to get a Grand Jury to indite.  As once was said “you can indite a ham sandwich.” Further, the standard to indite at the Federal level and, In most jurisdictions (including Texas) is “probable cause” not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

It is indeed often easy to indite somebody. However, there is no point in doing so if you can't possibly convict them. Prosecutors know this, and sometimes so do Grand Juries. As others point out, Watson may not be criminally responsible and still be liable for damage in civil court. He may even not have civil liability and still be morally reprehensible. If being reprehensible is a disqualifying attribute, probably 20% of the NFL is in that category IMHO.

I neither said nor suggested that the decision to not indite exonerates Watson civilly or for that matter morally.  I did correct your legal analysis.  The standard is “ probable cause” which is a significantly easier standard to meet than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”