you making my point, we literally don't know anything about the evidence, just the charges. I actually think you don't understand the legal system. they don't make evidence public knowledge, we are not the ones trying this case. IF this goes to trial TSJ has a very f-ing serious situation on his hands.
I'm not saying being charged implies anything except that have been charged by DA. Maybe you have history with this maybe not, but its not a walk in the park. If TSJ is innocent he needs to beat the charge. In cases of rape, literally, the victim testimony is massive particularly if backed by witnesses. I've read loads of crap on this board and stayed quiet for a good bit but there are serious ripples of this and it very much appears to me that people are downplaying the severity of all of this because want him to suit up against Maryland.
and despite what you think I very much want TSJ to be innocent and play the remainder of the season.
Look man, I don’t want to go in circles about legal technicalities pertaining to this case … IANAL, and I have tried not to opine to much on that. Is the below not our disagreement here? If not, you’re just being argumentative and trying to come across as the smartest guy in the room.
I do not believe a charge, in and of itself, should immediately halt a person’s life. And I believe organizations like the DIA should start with the presumption that TSJ is innocent. They could then of course use the evidence available to decide if that presumption is rational. For example, Ray Rice was legally innocent until convicted, but there was video evidence that he slammed his wife down in an elevator … that’s a perfectly reasonable “trigger” to remove the presumption of innocence. On the flip side, I believe an organization can rationally decide the evidence (so far) for the charge is so weak as to allow for the legal process to play out before reprimanding the individual … and I think this case warrants that. I don’t care what organizations have done in recent history - I’m just stating my opinion. If your organization’s individual adamantly maintains his innocence and the available charge details do NOT look convincing, I do NOT believe he should be temporarily punished for as-of-yet unknown evidence that MIGHT make it look worse.
At the end of the day, I really don’t have that strong of an opinion on what the DIA should ACT on, given our culture’s climate and legal realities on which I’m not an expert - and I have said previously that I’m glad I don’t have to make this decision. I’m merely giving my personal moral opinion, and I’m taking issue with some who seem to be talking down to others as if they’re just “not getting it” because they prefer an approach where Illinois has TJ’s back for now.
To end on a lighter note, this resembles a debate on the Oxford Comma … no objectively right answer, as it’s a stylistic choice that removes OR adds ambiguity depending on context, but one side is acting way more smug about their subjective opinion being like “more informed,” lol.
