U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old Today, 07:38 AM
 
10,793 posts, read 4,359,826 times
Reputation: 27195

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
You write stuff like the above...then turn around and claim you're trying to get more information.... That's a whopper. Double whopper, extra cheesy.
I AM trying to get more information, and have asked a few times, and others have agreed there isn't really a lot more details to explain the jury decision.

Whether it comes across as sincere here, I guess that's up to everyone's interpretation.

I am completely open to saying the jury was correct, she consented to sexual activity. I just have no information as to why they did that, in the fact of this very concerning video.

I DON'T need to know what went on in the hotel room to know - for absolute sure - she was trying to get away from him, and he was dragging her back against her will. THAT much is absolutely clear - he's at least guilty of kidnapping and holding her hostage against her will. And that's what I mean, I don't need further information to know that for sure.

About whether the sexual interaction was consensual, I don't have the information - and it appears no one else here can find it either - that made the jury convinced he was innocent.

He was NOT innocent of kidnapping and illegally detaining her.

(maybe some of the confusion comes from the fact that I am truly seeking new information, and have no trouble acknowledging new information and changing my mind in cases like this.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 07:48 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,610 posts, read 6,550,416 times
Reputation: 12154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I AM trying to get more information, and have asked a few times, and others have agreed there isn't really a lot more details to explain the jury decision.

Whether it comes across as sincere here, I guess that's up to everyone's interpretation.

I am completely open to saying the jury was correct, she consented to sexual activity. I just have no information as to why they did that, in the fact of this very concerning video.

I DON'T need to know what went on in the hotel room to know - for absolute sure - she was trying to get away from him, and he was dragging her back against her will. THAT much is absolutely clear - he's at least guilty of kidnapping and holding her hostage against her will. And that's what I mean, I don't need further information to know that for sure.

About whether the sexual interaction was consensual, I don't have the information - and it appears no one else here can find it either - that made the jury convinced he was innocent.

He was NOT innocent of kidnapping and illegally detaining her.

(maybe some of the confusion comes from the fact that I am truly seeking new information, and have no trouble acknowledging new information and changing my mind in cases like this.)
By law, he is. Cleaves was also charged with kidnapping/unlawful detainment. But he was acquitted of that, too. The jury bought Cleaves' explanation and disregarded the accuser's explanation and, thus, decided that kidnapping/illegal detainment did not occur. No one denies that Cleaves forcibly detained the woman; that's clear as day from the video. But kidnapping/unlawful detainment requires intent to engage in such prohibited activity. Cleaves offered an explanation that showed legal justification for his actions and the jury agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:02 AM
 
9,197 posts, read 5,670,951 times
Reputation: 3909
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I AM trying to get more information, and have asked a few times, and others have agreed there isn't really a lot more details to explain the jury decision.

Whether it comes across as sincere here, I guess that's up to everyone's interpretation.

I am completely open to saying the jury was correct, she consented to sexual activity. I just have no information as to why they did that, in the fact of this very concerning video.

I DON'T need to know what went on in the hotel room to know - for absolute sure - she was trying to get away from him, and he was dragging her back against her will. THAT much is absolutely clear - he's at least guilty of kidnapping and holding her hostage against her will. And that's what I mean, I don't need further information to know that for sure.

About whether the sexual interaction was consensual, I don't have the information - and it appears no one else here can find it either - that made the jury convinced he was innocent.

He was NOT innocent of kidnapping and illegally detaining her.

(maybe some of the confusion comes from the fact that I am truly seeking new information, and have no trouble acknowledging new information and changing my mind in cases like this.)
Kidnapping and hostage taking is a rather dramatic conclusion to the alternative possibility that he was simply trying to get a half naked, irrational drunk woman back inside a hotel room to avoid an embarrassing spectacle.

What if someone was being restrained like this in an attempt to stop them from running out into the street into oncoming traffic ? Would that also qualify as hostage taking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:05 AM
 
10,793 posts, read 4,359,826 times
Reputation: 27195
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Kidnapping and hostage taking is a rather dramatic conclusion to the alternative possibility that he was simply trying to get a half naked, irrational drunk woman back inside a hotel room to avoid an embarrassing spectacle.

What if someone was being restrained like this in an attempt to stop them from running out into the street into oncoming traffic ? Would that also qualify as hostage taking?
No. Someone running into the street, and grabbed by another person and pulled to safety would not be the same thing.

Had this running away happened ONCE, and the next time you see this couple they're dressed and headed to his car or an UBER is on the way, that's one thing.

It happened twice. He was still completely naked.

(honestly, do you not wonder about that?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:25 AM
 
1,176 posts, read 634,040 times
Reputation: 1763
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Yes, the case here was somewhat circumstantial. I know it can be a difficult concept to understand (I'm an attorney, so I've had plenty of time to learn what it is), but essentially circumstantial evidence (in the legal sense) is any kind of evidence where a trier of fact (i.e. a jury or judge) has to infer that something happened based on evidence that doesn't not directly show that something happened. For instance, someone breaks into a closed bank and escapes with $50,000 in cash. An eye witness claims to have seen a 5'10" man running from the direction of bank and driving off in a red Ford Mustang, but did not see the man committing any crime specifically. The police--acting on the eye witness' account--arrest 20 minutes later a man in a red Ford Mustang. The man appears to be sweating and out of breath, which leads police to believe that he is the perp; the money is never located. Without the money or other direct evidence tying the man to the bank robbery (i.e. video footage or eye witness testimony where someone actually saw the man stealing the goods), any attempt to tie the man to the crime is based entirely on inference. Specifically, that the man was in a red Ford Mustang and sweating, so some may infer that the man was sweating from running and engaging in the bank heist.

In this case, I write that it is based on somewhat circumstantial evidence because you did have an eyewitness account of what happened (i.e. the accuser, who claimed to have been raped by Cleaves). On its face, that is not a purely circumstantial account as you have eye witness testimony (i.e. direct evidence) from someone who experienced the alleged crime herself. When the jury decided to disregard the accuser's testimony, however, the case in essence became one based on circumstantial evidence, in which the jury had to infer that a rape took place based on video and testimony that does not show a crime.
Oh. Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:14 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 757,751 times
Reputation: 7201
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post

It happened twice. He was still completely naked.

(honestly, do you not wonder about that?)

I do wonder about that---but also wonder why she was naked or just wearing her underwear. I didn't hear that it was torn off of her. By the time the police came she was wearing her clothes, at least her pants.

Another thing I wonder about is her boyfriend. Don't understand why she drove with Cleaves while the boyfriend supposedly drove another friend home---most cars can seat more than two people. She actually texted him after meeting him and leaving the bar And then he wasn't available on his cell phone for her to contact him---what's up with that? Your girlfriend is riding with a strange man---a star athlete who just may feel entitled to help himself to any woman he wants--you don't even make yourself accessible?

As far as I am concerned, they are all losers. I have no interest in or love for athletes (but I do believe that they are entitled to their day in court). I have disdain for people who drink and drive and that was the case with Cleaves and probably the boyfriend as well. Although I'm female, I also know that women have been known to lie. The defense attorney said: "Blind trust is not reasonable doubt in this case,” said Manley, suggesting to the jury that the alleged victim was a “belligerent, obnoxious, defiant drunk” who told police she wouldn’t speak with them without her boyfriend or mother." Could it be that this was a plot set up to extort money from Cleaves?


I hate that athletes are treated like royalty, but it's a fact that many women want to have sex with them, just like groupies back in my day 50 years ago, wanted to have sex with rock stars. She claims that she told him after he started to kiss her that she didn't want to because she had a boyfriend, but this is contradictory since the boyfriend was at the bar, so the defendant could have known about this (but could have felt she would be okay cheating on her boyfriend since he is a famous athlete, so ther's that). But in other testimony she stated that she was okay with kissing, especially since he donates lots of money to her employer. As one juror explained: "Juror Michael Lambert said the verdict was swift because he and others on the panel didn't believe Cleaves' accuser. "Her testimony was consistent lies," Lambert said, adding that jurors thought the woman forgot key parts of her story too often."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:18 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,610 posts, read 6,550,416 times
Reputation: 12154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzcat22 View Post
I do wonder about that---but also wonder why she was naked or just wearing her underwear. I didn't hear that it was torn off of her. By the time the police came she was wearing her clothes, at least her pants.



Another thing I wonder about is her boyfriend. Don't understand why she drove with Cleaves while the boyfriend supposedly drove another friend home---most cars can seat more than two people. And then he wasn't available on his cell phone for her to contact him---what's up with that? Your girlfriend is riding with a strange man---a star athlete who just may feel entitled to help himself to any woman he wants--you don't even make yourself accessible?


As far as I am concerned, they are all losers. I have no interest in or love for athletes (but I do believe that they are entitled to their day in court). I have disdain for people who drink and drive and that was the case with Cleaves and probably the boyfriend as well. Although I'm female, I also know that women have been known to lie. The defense attorney said: "Blind trust is not reasonable doubt in this case,” said Manley, suggesting to the jury that the alleged victim was a “belligerent, obnoxious, defiant drunk” who told police she wouldn’t speak with them without her boyfriend or mother." Could it be that this was a plot set up to extort money from Cleaves?
The fact that it happened twice does give me some pause. But, then again, if we were dealing with an unstable person, it is perfectly reasonable that she refused to put clothes back on and the entire time between the first and second episode was used to try to talk some sense into her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:31 AM
 
13,859 posts, read 7,559,116 times
Reputation: 12613
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
The fact that it happened twice does give me some pause. But, then again, if we were dealing with an unstable person, it is perfectly reasonable that she refused to put clothes back on and the entire time between the first and second episode was used to try to talk some sense into her.
Both of them were naked from the waist down both times she tried to leave. All he was wearing was a pair of white socks and she only wore a bra. There was a 13 minute gap between the two attempts to get away. Plenty of time for him to put on pants, or at least underwear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:58 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,610 posts, read 6,550,416 times
Reputation: 12154
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne View Post
Both of them were naked from the waist down both times she tried to leave. All he was wearing was a pair of white socks and she only wore a bra. There was a 13 minute gap between the two attempts to get away. Plenty of time for him to put on pants, or at least underwear.
Sure, that's one way of looking at it. '

Another way is that it was completely reasonable to not get dressed if you're dealing with an unstable, manic (again, just a hypothetical) woman who continues to try to leave the room without clothes.

Ultimately, numerous assumptions can be made/hypotheticals posted. And they don't all point to something sinister or criminal, unlike what some would have you to believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:19 AM
 
13,116 posts, read 4,032,749 times
Reputation: 3934
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
By law, he is. Cleaves was also charged with kidnapping/unlawful detainment. But he was acquitted of that, too. The jury bought Cleaves' explanation and disregarded the accuser's explanation and, thus, decided that kidnapping/illegal detainment did not occur. No one denies that Cleaves forcibly detained the woman; that's clear as day from the video. But kidnapping/unlawful detainment requires intent to engage in such prohibited activity. Cleaves offered an explanation that showed legal justification for his actions and the jury agreed.
And that's where I think the jury shows a bias in favor of the defendant and were never going to convict him of anything let alone of the more serious charge of rape no matter what as in their mind he could do no wrong. Had there been video of the rape, they would've concluded, "Why that was just rough consensual sex". This was just an "OJ Simpson" jury.

To be honest, my objection isn't so much he was acquitted but the preferential treatment he received. If he was an average Joe, even a white "privileged" one, he would've been convicted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top