wmcovol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 17,447
- Likes
- 30,605
I know some guys that butch brought in were terrible human beings... Von Pearson being one in particular.... and what used to be the basketball team under Tyndall... but by all the accounts I have heard of AJ he is a good dude... he helped my sister out a few times... never thought he did this... he always seemed to be on the up and up... and a guy that would shoot you straight...Truth is Knox County needs a new DA. That was a witch hunt or revenge.
If that had been my daughter, I'd been too embarrassed to "want justice".
I'd suspect the text messages destroyed reconfirmed there were conversations about the 4 hooking up. And one girl backed out. Fire away.
They were found "not guilty", not "innocent."
There is a difference. It sucks but that's the way it is.
I know some guys that butch brought in were terrible human beings... Von Pearson being one in particular.... and what used to be the basketball team under Tyndall... but by all the accounts I have heard of AJ he is a good dude... he helped my sister out a few times... never thought he did this... he always seemed to be on the up and up... and a guy that would shoot you straight...
Why exactly was Von Pearson a terrible human being? He was similarly accused and charges were never even brought against him once it was investigated. Is there some other reason you think hes a bad guy?
People walk around all day free from worry or jail and are not innocent . They were charged with a crime ,, the court decides if they are or not guilty of the crime . They were found to be not guilty and should be able to recoup any and all money lost having to defend themselves and projected losses they would have made during that time due to be being falsely accused after being proven Not Guilty . Thats just seems fair and reasonable to me .
I thought they were "innocent until proven guilty", which they weren't, so how are they not innocent?
Playing devils advocate here, but you see my point. We can't have it both ways.
We say they are "innocent until proven guilty" before the trial, then after the trial we say they are "not guilty", but not "innocent".
Doesn't pass the logic test, does it? Somehow, we argue that by having the trial itself, they are no longer innocent.
This had nothing to do with a tort. Tort reform will do nothing for a situation like this.
This situation was an alleged violation of a criminal statute. Tort reform is a civil wrong, i.e. think personal injury suits, medical malpractice, shareholder class actions, etc.
Please know what tort reform is and what it means before you espouse its virtues.
And this is why I get irritated when people turn on someone whom is accused of things like this. It was a lot of shady ness to begin with, but like everywhere else now a days this forum immediately seemed to be totally into condemning him.
Well look at it this way, he lost any chance of an NFL career for something that was untrue.