TSJ Thread
illinihawk16
- Chicago
How do you know Loyalty doesn't??Surprised Loyalty doesn't have eyes in the court room
Surprised the prelim is going with a pending motion to bar Stateās DNA report. But in my admittedly uninformed review of TJās motion, even assuming the report gets in if thereās nothing pointing to TJ maybe thereās not enough evidence for the charges to survive a prelim hearing.
IANAL - Wondering why the charge in the alternative was upgraded from a misdemeanor to a felony? That does not sound like a case that is going to go away any time soon. Hoping that TJ prevails in this preliminary hearing and the judge kicks the case. Still haven't heard of any solid evidence to support the charge. It goes without saying, but if this lingers, it is going to cost him millions....
IlliniKat91
- Chicago, IL
We'd need a lawyer to weigh in, but perhaps it's a scare tactic? If the prosecution ups the charge, it may be a way to get the defense to blink and ask for a plea deal instead of pushing it to trial.
pruman91
- Paducah, Ky
nothing the DA has done or will do in the future surprises me anymore............desperate times calls for desperate measures.......DA is out of her league.................JMHO.........................
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
What I can tell you is that upgrading to the aggravated charge requires a showing that "the victim is overcome by force or fear".
I just don't see that, even accepting the alleged facts as true, that's been my bugaboo with the case the whole time.
The other thing about the aggravated charge is like the rape charge it would require registration as a sex offender.
I just don't see that, even accepting the alleged facts as true, that's been my bugaboo with the case the whole time.
The other thing about the aggravated charge is like the rape charge it would require registration as a sex offender.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Dang it.
Homecoming 2019
- Chicago
Definitely not ideal for his draft stock, but sounds like it was expected
was this expected to go to a jury trial? How will this impact where he is selected in the draft?
Iām the sketch artist
I suspect the second it starts impacting his stock with GMs he will be advised to seek a plea to a misdemeanor.
illinihawk16
- Chicago
Yep, sounds like it was a pretty low bar to clear for the DA and they cleared it.
Just feels like anyone can make up whatever they want about you and you're guilty until you spend an astronomical amount of money to prove that you're not....
Well....File this one under the "That really sucks!" category. May be wishful thinking or seeing things through my 3-D Orange and Blue colored glasses, but I still don't see him as having committed this crime. The story doesn't make sense, and it doesn't seem to fit his character.
frozenrope9190
- Aurora, IL
Crud.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Please delete if necessary, but I have avoided asking this "Elephant in the Room" question for a while now. However, with a new son who recently turned 4 months old ... I frankly want to prepare him for the world he will grow up in. And, of COURSE, IANAL! With that said, here is my question that I truly am trying to ask in the most respectful and nuanced way possible...
Am I to understand that in the eyes of this Kansas law, a man could have "unspoken consent" to be touching a woman sexually up until a point where she can determine that a successive "next sexual act" was not consensual and have grounds to allege sexual assault? Again, not talking "morally" here ... just legally. I believe in the documents for this case, the alleged victim claimed she had "given" consent for the alleged perpetrator to be touching her buttocks and then the alleged perpetrator apparently interpreted their sexual-in-nature interaction up to that point to be of a nature that he could touch her frontal private parts. And because she was only okay with the former and not the latter, this constituted sexual assault.
I mean, can we be real for a second here? If beginning to put your hands down the front of a woman's pants without formal verbal consent is potentially sexual assault, the vast majority of sexual interaction between men and women the age of TSJ could be considered potential "rape" if the woman retracts consent after the man takes it to that next step. Is a male in that situation just simply and unequivocally risking a VERY dicey situation if he does not obtain verbal consent first? And what if the woman gives verbal consent but later decides she was not okay with it? Is that a "He Said, She Said" case even though his DNA WILL be found? Did he need it in writing??
I know the situation described would be INCREDIBLY rare, and in most cases it is clear if two people are engaging in consensual sexual acts. Maybe the risk is just with a stranger? Because I can guarantee you that most guys I know do not stop and ask, haha. And I have never considered "going with the flow" of the sexual interaction to really be "RAPE." I have avoided asking this to not appear totally delusional or disrespectful toward the sensitivity of the case, but man ... I guess I really don't understand where the legal line here is drawn. Any thoughtful and respectful responses are REALLY appreciated, so thank you!
EDIT: I also want to be VERY CLEAR that I get that the basic objective of these laws is to stop an unambiguously bad thing - for someone to perform a sexual act toward a woman that she did not want. And there should absolutely be rigid laws to stop that. I merely want to understand what the legal expectation of men would be to prevent this type of legal trouble in the rare circumstance where there is a disconnect between parties.
With that said, here is my question that I truly am trying to ask in the most respectful and nuanced way possible...Am I to understand that in the eyes of this Kansas law, a man could have "unspoken consent" to be touching a woman sexually up until a point where she can determine that a successive "next sexual act" was not consensual and have grounds to allege sexual assault? Again, not talking "morally" here ... just legally. I believe in the documents for this case, the alleged victim claimed she had "given" consent for the alleged perpetrator to be touching her buttocks and then the alleged perpetrator apparently interpreted their sexual-in-nature interaction up to that point to be of a nature that he could touch her frontal private parts. And because she was only okay with the former and not the latter, this constituted sexual assault.
I mean, can we be real for a second here? If beginning to put your hands down the front of a woman's pants without formal verbal consent is potentially sexual assault, the vast majority of sexual interaction between men and women the age of TSJ could be considered potential "rape" if the woman retracts consent after the man takes it to that next step. Is a male in that situation just simply and unequivocally risking a VERY dicey situation if he does not obtain verbal consent first? And what if the woman gives verbal consent but later decides she was not okay with it? Is that a "He Said, She Said" case even though his DNA WILL be found? Did he need it in writing??
I know the situation described would be INCREDIBLY rare, and in most cases it is clear if two people are engaging in consensual sexual acts. Maybe the risk is just with a stranger? Because I can guarantee you that most guys I know do not stop and ask, haha. And I have never considered "going with the flow" of the sexual interaction to really be "RAPE." I have avoided asking this to not appear totally delusional or disrespectful toward the sensitivity of the case, but man ... I guess I really don't understand where the legal line here is drawn. Any thoughtful and respectful responses are REALLY appreciated, so thank you!
EDIT: I also want to be VERY CLEAR that I get that the basic objective of these laws is to stop an unambiguously bad thing - for someone to perform a sexual act toward a woman that she did not want. And there should absolutely be rigid laws to stop that. I merely want to understand what the legal expectation of men would be to prevent this type of legal trouble in the rare circumstance where there is a disconnect between parties.
Last edited: