Alleged rape victim files lawsuit against three SDSU football players (live, bills)

[hitman619]

I think we all knew SDPD wouldn’t be pressing charges against Lowlifes. She shouldn’t of filed a Ciivil Lawsuit until the Criminal one was wrapped up.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

They should have waited until homeboy was pulling in millions as an active player so there was something to chase. Who knows what happens now except she's going to be emotionally wrecked.

[oddstray]

Originally Posted by hitman619

I think we all knew SDPD wouldn’t be pressing charges against Lowlifes. She shouldn’t of filed a Ciivil Lawsuit until the Criminal one was wrapped up.

Why ever not? The DA isn't pressing charges only because he doesn't think he'll win in a criminal trial. Civil cases don't need the same level of proof as criminal cases.

[joosoon]

She was underage but they still don't think they could win a conviction? There must be some significant holes in the evidence or else it's a procedural thing and these guys are just going to get lucky.

[Rakin]

So what if she provided a fake over 21 ID to get in the party and your son had sex with her when she was 17 11 months?

And why would the school be responsible for an off Campus Offense that may have happened no where near the school?

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Rakin

So what if she provided a fake over 21 ID to get in the party and your son had sex with her when she was 17 11 months?

I could be wrong, but "not knowing" isn't a viable defense to statutory rape and 17+ 364 days is still a minor in the eyes of the law. Not saying it should happen, but I wouldn't think that getting a conviction for that needs an overwhelming amount of evidence. But then again, who knows. Nobody here is privy to the intimate details of the investigation.

[hitman619]

Originally Posted by oddstray

Why ever not? The DA isn't pressing charges only because he doesn't think he'll win in a criminal trial. Civil cases don't need the same level of proof as criminal cases.

Because it comes off as looking bad when you go trial. Like you're more worried about money than justice



Brian explains it pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHLWRyq2KnQ

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Rakin

So what if she provided a fake over 21 ID to get in the party and your son had sex with her when she was 17 11 months?

From one of the above links: "The suit alleges that Araiza, then 21, raped the teen in a side yard of the residence before bringing her inside to a bedroom, where a group of men took turns raping her. Leonard and Ewaliko were part of that group, the suit said."

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by joosoon

I could be wrong, but "not knowing" isn't a viable defense to statutory rape and 17+ 364 days is still a minor in the eyes of the law. Not saying it should happen, but I wouldn't think that getting a conviction for that needs an overwhelming amount of evidence. But then again, who knows. Nobody here is privy to the intimate details of the investigation.

The lawyer interviewed on the news claimed a lot more witnesses came forward and it changed the decision.

Who knows.

[CA4Now]

In issuing its statement, the San Diego County district attorney’s office included this: “The conclusions reached in this review are specific to this incident and should not discourage any victim from coming forward and reporting a crime to law enforcement.”

There is good reason for concern, say activists and advocates, who fear the decision not to prosecute will give pause to victims of sexual assault who are considering coming forward.

Speaker and activist Brenda Tracy — who in 1998 reported a gang rape by college football players in Oregon — said Wednesday’s decision “absolutely” has a chilling effect.

“People are looking at this and going, ‘Why, why, why should I put myself through this?’” she said.

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...sexual-assault