Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[supafly]

Be ready for every road game blaring like stroke me and anything by nxs

Be Ready?

CAN’T WAIT

 

[Triumph]

If he is found guilty it is equally damaging as pleading out. The only way for him to win is to beat it. Which news has broken he is not taking the deal. There are plenty of articles with a simple google search that talk about the cops tenious position. Whether they obtained proper warrants for recording.. why they chose not to record audio. How kraft paid at the front desk not the actual women he interacted with. I appreciate that you like a good back and forth but I don’t see any reason to suggest he will lose in court. You are free to believe whatever you like. In fact I am not even sure what you are arguing? Do you think he gets convicted? I think he walks, as in not guilty. Or the cops drop the charges.

Kraft is already guilty.

He was seen leaving a business that is now shut down for breaking laws. He was stopped driving down the road and produced his driver's license.

Beating the formal charges is great. Kraft won't have a police record, but thats never going to change the fact that Kraft was at Orchid and everyone knows what went on there

Furthermore, if Kraft skates on this that only verifies that with enough money you can buy your way out of anything.

It's going to be another OJ trial where everything that the police and prosecutors have ever done is on the table.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

In your opinion...ok
I think it should be legal and I don’t see much rationale against it

What is reason you’re against it?

Politically, I'm pretty libertarian but I can see the merit of the arguments against it:
-this isn't something we, as a society, want to encourage women to do;
-STD's;
-NIMBY for brothels.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Politically, I'm pretty libertarian but I can see the merit of the arguments against it:
-this isn't something we, as a society, want to encourage women to do;
-STD's;
-NIMBY for brothels.

If it were legal, it would be both men and women participating in the business.

It would end the perception that it’s something to look down upon in America, end the control of pimps and allow business minded people to run these services and help end human trafficking in our country

 

[PatriotsReign]

Read the article I posted earlier in the thread.

An excerpt.

Except all that data is based on the current culture of illegal prostitution, drug addiction and pimping

If it were legal, male and female professionals wouldn’t be as addicted to drugs, owned by pimps or looked down upon as they are now

It’s going to exist whether it’s legal or illegal, so we need to decide which is better for society

 

[The Brandon Five]

If it were legal, it would be both men and women participating in the business.

It would end the perception that it’s something to look down upon in America, end the control of pimps and allow business minded people to run these services and help end human trafficking in our country

From the article:

There are those who mistakenly believe that legalizing prostitution will actually reduce crime and provide women the rights, and freedom and protection they need to safely work in prostitution. The reality is, in places where prostitution is legal, there is an exponential increase in the exploitation and trafficking of women. In a study of prostitution and trafficking in 150 countries, it was concluded that on average, countries with legalized prostitution had greater inflows of human trafficking.[5]

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

If it were legal, it would be both men and women participating in the business.

It would end the perception that it’s something to look down upon in America, end the control of pimps and allow business minded people to run these services and help end human trafficking in our country

The main issue for me is what happens to these women when they get too old for it (and it seems like this profession ages them quickly)? Chances are, they're going to wind up needing some form of public assistance to make it through the rest of their sordid life.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Except all that data is based on the current culture of illegal prostitution, drug addiction and pimping

If it were legal, male and female professionals wouldn’t be as addicted to drugs, owned by pimps or looked down upon as they are now

It’s going to exist whether it’s legal or illegal, so we need to decide which is better for society

Again, you are mistaken. I used to think this as well.

Further proving this, legalized Prostitution in Nevada has led to an increase (not decrease) in the state’s illegal sex trade. In fact, Nevada has the highest rates of illegal sex trade in the country, adjusted for population. It is 63% higher than the next highest state of New York and double that of Florida.[6]This dismantles the myth that full decriminalization will decrease unregulated prostitution or sex trafficking. Wherever prostitution is legal, the demand for commercial sex skyrockets, which provides a great incentive to pimps and sex traffickers to push more women into the marketplace to sell.

 

[Ring 6]

Again, you are mistaken. I used to think this as well.

Exactly.
Legalization is not a panacea. That’s just lazy thinking.

 

[nabwong]

Kraft is a fighter. He proved that during Deflategate and Spygate.

He’s a schmuck.

 

[Triumph]

I would not want to work in the male prostitute business.

8 hours of that 5 days a week. 30 minutes for lunch and no breaks. Moreover, Saturday and Sunday are peak days, so guess what, you can forget having weekends off right now. If the Pats are on at 1:00 pm or 4:00 pm too bad.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Exactly.
Legalization is not a panacea. That’s just lazy thinking.

It’s worse than that. It’s gasoline on a fire.

 

[venecol]

When you are caught red handed you hope to luck into a technicality. He did it. He is guilty. The only hope left for him is to find some kind of procedural error that prohibits them from deninstrating his obvious guilt in court so he can get away with it.
Mark fuhrman being a racist and planting evidence was a stroke of great luck for oj Simpson because he was guilty as hell but he lucked into a technicality that he used to shield his guilt.

So your premise is, if cops plant evidence and by doing so catch Joe Schmoe and charge him of something, then he is guilty; but if he defends himself by saying that they planted evidence so the evidence needs to be thrown out, you just "lucked into a technicality?"

Boy that is rich. For someone that believes in laws you sure have a very curious way of looking at them when the law breakers are the cops. You do realize that planting evidence is against the law don't you?

I just pray some poor soul doesn't end up having you in a jury pool.

 

[Ring 6]

So your premise is, if cops plant evidence and by doing so catch Joe Schmoe and charge him of something, then he is guilty; but if he defends himself by saying that they planted evidence so the evidence needs to be thrown out, you just "lucked into a technicality?"

Honestly can you read? You misrepresent everything. Is it on purpose or do you just struggle to comprehend what people say?

IF YOU COMMITTED A CRIME your hope is to get lucky and skate on a technicality. News for you. OJ DID IT. The fact that fuhrman planted evidence and had a racist history in addition to the rest of the race card issues allowed OJ to luck out on technicalities and get away with a brutal crime he obviously committed.

Boy that is rich. For someone that believes in laws you sure have a very curious way of looking at them when the law breakers are the cops. You do realize that planting evidence is against the law don't you?

I just pray some poor soul doesn't end up having you in a jury pool.

It must be interesting to entirely create something, tell someone else that is what they said, when they actually said basically the opposite and then use that to act as if you are right.
If you have to lie about what I said in order to argue against it, you are actually agreeing with me. You don’t appear to be intelligent enough to understand that though.

 

[venecol]

Honestly can you read? You misrepresent everything. Is it on purpose or do you just struggle to comprehend what people say?

IF YOU COMMITTED A CRIME your hope is to get lucky and skate on a technicality. News for you. OJ DID IT. The fact that fuhrman planted evidence and had a racist history in addition to the rest of the race card issues allowed OJ to luck out on technicalities and get away with a brutal crime he obviously committed.


It must be interesting to entirely create something, tell someone else that is what they said, when they actually said basically the opposite and then use that to act as if you are right.
If you have to lie about what I said in order to argue against it, you are actually agreeing with me. You don’t appear to be intelligent enough to understand that though.

Clearly you are delusional, your words speak for themselves no matter how much you want to turn them around to suit your narrative. I understand you perfectly you just don't like it when people call you out.

 

[Ring 6]

Clearly you are delusional, your words speak for themselves no matter how much you want to turn them around to suit your narrative. I understand you perfectly you just don't like it when people call you out.

Only a blithering idiot could take a comment that says WHEN A PERSON IS GUILTY their hope is for a procedural error to get the evidence thrown out, and conclude I think planting evidence is fine.

In the example it certainly was very lucky for a clearly guilty OJ that someone planted evidence because if they hadn’t he would have been convicted. Again, read very slowly, everything I said was based upon the premise that in fact they really committed the crime. When that is the case, you are very lucky to find a technicality. Common sense dude.

Again, think about what is your with your argument when it forces you to lie about what I said.

 

[Antdawg]

The fact that fuhrman planted evidence and had a racist history

The fact that Fuhrman planted evidence is a crime and SHOULD HAVE severely compromised what would have likely been an open and shut case against OJ. Defendants have rights, no matter who they are. If you're against that, you're against America. That is not OJ skating on a technicality. That is not OJ's fault. It's the fault of the state for being STUPID and letting someone who very likely did commit a heinous crime off because of their own stupidity and illegality.

That we're even talking about a murder trial in the same thread with a solicitation for prostitution charge speaks for itself, but in the end, if Bob Kraft's legal team buries this case by pointing out illegality or sheer stupidity on the state's part, the state deserves to lose. The only difference here is Kraft didn't harm anybody, didn't hurt anybody and was no danger to the people around him in any way. If the charges are dismissed, that only amplifies the level of clusterf*ck on the state's part. At least the state was trying to put away a murderer in OJ's case. Kraft got a blowjob from a willing parcipant, lmao.

This is stupid. Not even sure why I'm wasting my time. This all stems from your hatred of Bob Kraft for something Brady doesn't even care about anymore. Brady was seen HUGGING Kraft after the Oscars, AFTER this incident occurred. Grow up.

 

[1960Pats]

Only a blithering idiot could take a comment that says WHEN A PERSON IS GUILTY their hope is for a procedural error to get the evidence thrown out, and conclude I think planting evidence is fine.

In the example it certainly was very lucky for a clearly guilty OJ that someone planted evidence because if they hadn’t he would have been convicted. Again, read very slowly, everything I said was based upon the premise that in fact they really committed the crime. When that is the case, you are very lucky to find a technicality. Common sense dude.

Again, think about what is your with your argument when it forces you to lie about what I said.

I don't remember evidence being planted by Mark Furhman in the OJ case. I thought that his "crime" was using the "N" word in the past.

 

[Antdawg]

I don't remember evidence being planted by Mark Furhman in the OJ case. I thought that his "crime" was using the "N" word in the past.

Fuhrman had been caught lying under Oath about his use of racial slurs in the past and so when OJ's defense team questioned him after this was established about planting evidence, Fuhrman evoked the 5th Amendment, refusing to answer the question. Ito didn't tell the jury Fuhrman did this, but he did make Fuhrman unavailable for any further cross-examination which destroyed Fuhrman's credibility in the jury's eyes.

 

[Brewskies]

In your opinion...ok
I think it should be legal and I don’t see much rationale against it

What is reason you’re against it?

I want equality between men and women, prostitution doesn't achieve that goal. Women are being belittled allowing prostitution as a legal profession.