Anyone want to comment on Carmel High School Boys basketball team? (Indianapolis: assault, company)

[magnasty]

The Duke issue was based on someone openly accusing those folks involved and the school assuming that the accuser was credible. The "people' who jumped to conclusions were the school. So if they were concerned about the vision you described, it is on them. They canned the season for the team "before" the investigation was completed. Don't forget, it was discovered that there was underage drinking by many of the team members at the party where this all started.

Of course it is not up to these thugs to exonerate themselves....I never insinuated otherwise. However, does it not seem quite odd that this is well into the third month and no charges have been filed or the prosecutor has not come out and said there will be none filed? Any effective prosecutor has to make a decision either way.

Ben Rothelisberger was accused of sexual assault by a woman on March 5. Two weeks ago the investigation ended. I guess the people involved in this investigation must be much smarter than the Carmel law enforcement officers and local prosecutor. Either that or there are some very influential people involved in this case.

The fact that this is stringing along is why people speak of so-called class warfare and preferential treatment. In short, everything surrounding this so far perpetuates that thought process for many people and that is undeniable.

My guess is that they are waiting for these thugs to graduate from high school so the entire student body won't be affected by the outcome of the investigation.

[Drover]

1) In the Duke issue, the reaction from the public was exactly the same: "They're spoiled rich kids with an overactive sense of entitlement, so they must have done it!"

2) Since each case is different and handled differently, it's hardly dispositive that the Rothlesberger case was closed in X weeks and this one is still open. It could be that there was nothing to the Rothleisberger case and this one has more merit. Or it could be that the DA in the Rothleisberger case was hasty and the DA in this case is more deliberate. And wouldn't your logic cut both ways? If it's so obvious these kids did something criminal, why haven't charges been brought yet? Oh yeah, that's right -- because someone is being bought off by the rich parents of these spoiled rich kids, or something along those lines. Which leads me to...

3) The class-warfare rhetoric appeared in this thread within two days after it started, so I'm not buying the "that's because this is stringing along" explanation. More likely it's because it fits the presumed narratives of the jealous class-warfare warriors.

I'm not saying these kids are innocent. I don't know if they are or not. But then again, neither do you, and neither does anyone else in this thread. I'm just trying to bring some reason into the picture here, which -- not surprisingly -- is being resisted mightily by those who are ready to dispense with due process and string these kids up.

[magnasty]

In the Duke case, the school made that decision. Perhaps they succumbed to public pressure, but the difference was nothing had been proven. In this case, there has been an acknowledged assault....one that has said to be sexual in nature. That is a huge difference.

No one is trying to dispense with due process. The problem is so far, due process has failed.

Whether they are guilty or innocent, due process should not take three months in a case like this. The school has acknowledged that there was illegal activity (assault) taking place on the bus. If this was not the case, why suspend them?

What you fail to understand is that the Carmel prosecutor, based on her ineptitude, is allowing those you describe has having "class-warfare rhetoric" to postulate.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by magnasty

No one is trying to dispense with due process. The problem is so far, due process has failed.

The fact that you fail to recognize the irony of this statement says all I need to know about you and your capacity for reason.

[magnasty]

Originally Posted by Drover

The fact that you fail to recognize the irony of this statement says all I need to know about you and your capacity for reason.

So now we result to sophomoric, juvenile insults in the middle of what I considered to be a reasonable debate. Sad.

[Drover]

Whereas I don't consider it reasonable to be calling people "thugs" without actually knowing what happened, or proclaiming that due process has "failed" because it hasn't produced one's preferred outcome even while the investigation is still ongoing. So as I alluded, it appears you and I have different ideas of what constitutes reason. As such, it appears we don't have much left to discuss.

[magnasty]

Originally Posted by Drover

Whereas I don't consider it reasonable to be calling people "thugs" without actually knowing what happened, or proclaiming that due process has "failed" because it hasn't produced one's preferred outcome even while the investigation is still ongoing. So as I alluded, it appears you and I have different ideas of what constitutes reason. As such, it appears we don't have much left to discuss.

If someone were to be accused of raping your mother, wife or daughter or sexually assaulting your son, you would call them much worse than thugs. Let's not get hung up on that.

I am not sure how you determined what my "preferred outcome" is. Cite the post. As I have said, guilty or innocence it should not take three months after having acknowledged an assault. With that in mind, I do know what happened....it is public knowledge.

However, I have always been of the opinion that reasonable minds can disagree. I once told my son that some people result to personal attacks or insults either when they lose the capacity to discuss/debate an issue or when they feel that their opinion should be valued over any other.

[Drover]

Either that or they play rhetorical games like "cite the post." Though I suppose it could be that your scroll function actually doesn't work.

[Ravekid]

Originally Posted by Drover

The Duke issue is comparable to this one in this fashion: people jumped to conclusions without having all the facts because the narrative they assume to be true fits their class-warfare vision of spoiled rich kids poised to get away with some heinous act. The class envy dripping from this thread is palpable.

Duke isn't comparable. At Duke, you had a drunken, passed out victim found by a patrol officer. She claims rape, then claims something else, then claims something else, then claims something else. This is verified by the investigating patrol officers radio traffic, which he said something to the extent of 'Something's not right. She keeps changing her story, it just doesn't add up.' Right at the onset, the Duke rape was a hoax, a false and malicious claim that a Democrat prosecutor/DA ran with, because of the rich-white/poor-black issue. Then the liberals faculty on Duke showed just how blind they really are to justice when they issued a signed letter demanding the kids be kicked out of school. Duke was political at the onset, I just don't see that being the case with Carmel. The Carmel issue has become political, and both sides are going to claim political favoritism regardless of what happens. It also seems that there are a lot more witnesses siding with the victims in this case, not the accuser. There is even one news report that claimed an unidentified woman, who claimed to be the mother of one of the suspects, said there is more to the story. She didn't deny reports of what happened, only stated there was additional info. Telling if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Drover

Furthermore, it's not up to the "thugs" to exonerate themselves. It's up to the people accusing them of being "thugs" to produce proof, or at least convincing evidence that they are, in fact, "thugs."

Anytime someone picks on someone else, without justification, that makes the person a thug, punk, whatever. It is laughable to think that _nothing happened_. Obviously something happened, and I don't care if it was pulling their pants down, or forcing them to drink fruit juice, a thug is a thug.

[magnasty]

Originally Posted by Drover

Either that or they play rhetorical games like "cite the post." Though I suppose it could be that your scroll function actually doesn't work.

There is no rhetorical game. You brought up the issue, I was simply asking you to substantiate it with objective evidence (facts).

I do find it interesting that you duck and dodge my questions after resulting to personal attacks.

Scroll function...now that's rich.