AJ Johnson/Michael Williams Case (merged)

#726
#726
California has defined just when "yes means yes'' on college campuses. Signed into law Sunday, it changes the definition of sexual consent to require "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" by each party to engage in sexual activity. VPC

I brought this up in another post, but going to do it again here. I have no idea what happened in this case and certainly not going to donate money. This legislation is getting pushed in every other state. The more these type cases pop up, the more likely it is that we'll see the same legislation here. The question I have is how you prove mutual consent. Do you have a consent form signed as soon as you meet someone? That ain't going to work. Do you wait until the clothes come off? Excuse me one minute, can you sign this before we go on? yeah ... Maybe you just keep a camera rolling the whole time? Pervert.

Has anyone else on campus seen the girls demonstrating with "yes means yes"? Do you think it's possible cases like this could be used to force this legislation through? How far do you think some people might go?

I'm not making assumptions about either person in this case.
 
#727
#727
crparker21 said:
So you assume she is telling the truth and aj is guilty? The system should automatically be setup where the person that loses the case pays for both lawyers. I'm not saying either are right, but assuming either are with no evidence is just crazy.
Click to expand...

You think that a civilian witness in a criminal case should have to cover the substantial costs of prosecution should the government lose?
 
Last edited:
#728
#728
fade route said:
How about a fund for the victim to help pay for her expenses? Seems more appropriate imo.
Click to expand...

How about we see who is telling the truth first. If she is lying and doing this just to get attention or money. Then what does she deserve?

People really need to stop assuming either way. I personally get a little tired of people just assuming guilt because a woman makes an accusation.

That is the whole reason some of these woman do it to begin with, because as soon as they do. Here comes the sympathy and the attention...next comes the money.

I am not saying she is lying either..just that before everyone assumes one way or the other let's get some actual facts, instead of the rumor after rumor..

Hell everyone was saying Bowles was her boy friend and convinced her to make accusation..according to his testimony, he was not and only gave her a ride home and she made no indication to him that anything happened, was not even visibly upset..

Just an example of how wrong the rumor mill is..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#729
#729
If nothing else this gives me a great idea. If kiffin, saban, meyer or any other coach we absolutely hate is ever indicted for something like this we need to start a go fund me for the "victim" so we can bury their ass. Can you imagine the national news if kiffy got indicted and we raised like 100,000 for the victim?
 
#732
#732
utvolpj said:
Can you cite the last trial where a defendant was denied representation?
Click to expand...

Define representation? An overworked/ low paid/ underfunded/ resource deprived individual with a suit and tie that stands beside you at a trial while you get the book thrown at you? If that is your definition of representation, then no I can't think of a case where it has been denied. But let's not pretend like a guy with a title and a briefcase is anything more than a symbolic figure to make everyone feel like the Constitution is being served.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#736
#736
SamRebel35 said:
Define representation? An overworked/ low paid/ underfunded/ resource deprived individual with a suit and tie that stands beside you at a trial while you get the book thrown at you? If that is your definition of representation, then no I can't think of a case where it has been denied. But let's not pretend like a guy with a title and a briefcase is anything more than a symbolic figure to make everyone feel like the Constitution is being served.
Click to expand...

I rarely agree with your views but this is dead on. A public defender exists solely to cut plea bargains. They are in bed with the DA and absolutely despise having to go to trial where they have to do more than cop a plea to sell some poor bastard down the river. If you are facing a felony and only have a public defender you are super screwed. Hello inmate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#738
#738
SamRebel35 said:
Define representation? An overworked/ low paid/ underfunded/ resource deprived individual with a suit and tie that stands beside you at a trial while you get the book thrown at you? If that is your definition of representation, then no I can't think of a case where it has been denied. But let's not pretend like a guy with a title and a briefcase is anything more than a symbolic figure to make everyone feel like the Constitution is being served.
Click to expand...
The word you were looking for was "no".
 
#739
#739
titansvolsfaninga said:
So you are assuming that he is guilty?
Click to expand...

I included supposedly..so until a jury convicts him or doesn't it isn't my place to place guilt.

Personally though I doubt any females claim without hard proof. This whole situation is fishy to say the least (no pun intended).
 
#740
#740
FLVOL_79 said:
I included supposedly..so until a jury convicts him or doesn't it isn't my place to place guilt.

Personally though I doubt any females claim without hard proof. This whole situation is fishy to say the least (no pun intended).
Click to expand...

So, unless the female has video proof, she's lying? Give me a freakin' break.

Edited for typo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#743
#743
SamRebel35 said:
Correct. An empty suit with a briefcase standing next to the defendant means it is definitely a fair trial. Constitutional rights still in tact.
Click to expand...

That "empty suit" is still a lawyer as recognized by the state of TN and given at no charge. Pony up if that's your thing
 
#744
#744
oregonvol said:
The weird thing to me here with everyone who repeats over and over again that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich (and yet has never posted any evidence of any such thing) is that clearly the NFL doesn't share their viewpoint. If the NFL knew for certain that Johnson would be indicted, why invite him to the combine while his case is with the grand jury? Why wait and pull his invite afterward? Do they not understand, like all the unbiased experts on VN, that grand jury results are predetermined and all indictments meaningless?
Click to expand...


According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.
 
#746
#746
utvolpj said:
That "empty suit" is still a lawyer as recognized by the state of TN and given at no charge. Pony up if that's your thing
Click to expand...

Not my thing. Just don't understand the moral argument against it. If one donates to the fund, they aren't doing so to help free a rapist. They would be doing so to ensure that a man is getting an actual fair trial, not just a "fair trial" by the government's definition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top