Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[Kontradiction]

You are doing what every one else did and creating an argument and attributing it to me.
See, if I said what you argue I said I would be wrong. But I didn’t say it.
That’s the difference.
I couldn’t be right or wrong in this case because I drew no conclusion against a tide of arguments that jumped to what turned out to be correct. Had they been wrong, that would not have made me right because I didn’t draw a conclusion, which is the only sensible thing to do when you don’t have facts.

Guessing whether the prosecution or defense is right based upon what they say is just bias.

I’m not doing anything of the sort...

How am I a loser in this?
You think that saying a judge issued a warrant so until it is ruled otherwise I’ll trust it was done legally is “losing” when it turns out it wasn’t? I guess you are against that whole innocent until proven guilty thing too.

If you trusted/assumed/whatever you want to call it that it was done legally and then it wasn’t, you trusted/assumed/whatever you want to call it wrong. If you trusted wrong, you ARE wrong. Come on, man. Cat’s out of the bag. Don’t make me rub your nose in this. Again. I want to help you change.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

What did we learn here? A billionaire can buy his way out of a soliciting sex charge. Fantastic. I feel nothing but disappointment about this stuff. People can celebrate him getting of a technicality, but I think it is just sad.

One man's technicality is another man's protection of Constitutional rights and a check on police overreach....

 

[Kontradiction]

What did we learn here? A billionaire can buy his way out of a soliciting sex charge. Fantastic. I feel nothing but disappointment about this stuff. People can celebrate him getting of a technicality, but I think it is just sad.

Kraft is entitled to a defense. That’s the great thing about living in America vs. living in North Korea. He was entitled to one, he got one, now it looks as if he’s getting off. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly nothing to be disappointed about unless you were simply rooting against him because he’s been able to amass a ridiculous level of wealth.

 

[Brewskies]

Money talks.

Case closed

Next

 

[Ring 6]

I’m not doing anything of the sort...



If you trusted/assumed/whatever you want to call it that it was done legally and then it wasn’t, you trusted/assumed/whatever you want to call it wrong. If you trusted wrong, you ARE wrong. Come on, man. Cat’s out of the bag. Don’t make me rub your nose in this. Again. I want to help you change.

Of course you get it wrong again. Nice condescension though.

 

[Steve102]

Evidence doesn't really matter to Goodell. The Elliot suspension made that clear.

I agree. I think he'll go after Kraft on the grounds of the whole seedy business is detrimental to the game.

The NFL Commissioner has had the authority to punish players for “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of football”

 

[venecol]

What did we learn here? A billionaire can buy his way out of a soliciting sex charge. Fantastic. I feel nothing but disappointment about this stuff. People can celebrate him getting of a technicality, but I think it is just sad.

You're missing the bigger picture here. This isn't about Kraft, but about our 4th Amendment rights. Thank God Kraft was involved and had the resources to fight this overreach by the SA or this would have been swept under the rug. I'm sure you are not alright with the cops watching videos of your female relatives undressing to get a massage.

I wonder what the fools who took the SA deal are thinking now, lol.

 

[Kontradiction]

Of course you get it wrong again. Nice condescension though.

There’s nothing wrong to get. Those are your own words. Bolded for emphasis. You trusted that it was done legally. It wasn’t done legally. You trusted wrong. Therefore, you were wrong. This is a thought process that a five year old can put together. Here, say it with me one time and be free: “I.... was.... wrong.” It shouldn’t be this hard to admit that you were wrong unless you’re on the spectrum or something. But I’d like to give you more credit than that.

 

[Ring 6]

What did we learn here? A billionaire can buy his way out of a soliciting sex charge. Fantastic. I feel nothing but disappointment about this stuff. People can celebrate him getting of a technicality, but I think it is just sad.

Not really. We learned that if law enforcement is trying to catch you committing a crime there are procedures to follow and if they aren’t followed the evidence is corrupt.
A public defender could have filed this challenge.

 

[Ring 6]

There’s nothing wrong to get. Those are your own words. Bolded for emphasis. You trusted that it was done legally.

No you are leaving out the most important part. I trusted that a warrant legal obtained was legal, UNTIL EVIDENCE COMES OUT TO PROVE OTHERWISE.

It wasn’t done legally. You trusted wrong.

No. It is not wrong to assume things were done properly before there is any evidence saying they weren’t.
You are exactly doing what I said and arguing as if I reviewed all of the evidence and asserted that everything was done properly. I did no such thing.
Are you telling me that the concept of innocent until proven guilty is wrong?

Therefore, you were wrong. This is a thought process that a five year old can put together.

Appropriate because you are thinking like a 5 year old. Making up what you want to think I said doesn’t make it right.

Here, say it with me one time and be free: “I.... was.... wrong.” It shouldn’t be this hard to admit that you were wrong unless you’re on the spectrum or something. But I’d like to give you more credit than that.

And here come the low class insults. Typical.

At this point you are arguing with yourself.
You have created an alternate reality where you attribute things to be that I never said and then argue them as if I said them.

 

[Nunchucks]

You're missing the bigger picture here. This isn't about Kraft, but about our 4th Amendment rights. Thank God Kraft was involved and had the resources to fight this overreach by the SA or this would have been swept under the rug. I'm sure you are not alright with the cops watching videos of your female relatives undressing to get a massage.

I wonder what the fools who took the SA deal are thinking now, lol.

I am not missing the bigger point and I get that the police were absolutely wrong. But, Kraft broke the law and used his money to get out of it. That also happened. I can hold those two conflicting thoughts in my head.

 

[venecol]

There’s nothing wrong to get. Those are your own words. Bolded for emphasis. You trusted that it was done legally. It wasn’t done legally. You trusted wrong. Therefore, you were wrong. This is a thought process that a five year old can put together. Here, say it with me one time and be free: “I.... was.... wrong.” It shouldn’t be this hard to admit that you were wrong unless you’re on the spectrum or something. But I’d like to give you more credit than that.

He will never admit it, forget about it. He was wrong on so many levels. Every time someone brought up an article questioning the whole operation he would then question the source, or the publication, or the poster. He was rah rah rah about how the cops had it all right, first on the trafficking (it was still being investigated, NOPE). He even said cops didn't need a valid reason to stop johns because they had witnessed a crime. Wrong again, traffic stop thrown out.

I think everyone here universally accepts that Andy Johnson was wrong about everything despite his childish protest to the contrary. I won't bother arguing with him because at the end of the day the law prevailed for our protection.

 

[Kontradiction]

No you are leaving out the most important part. I trusted that a warrant legal obtained was legal, UNTIL EVIDENCE COMES OUT TO PROVE OTHERWISE.




No. It is not wrong to assume things were done properly before there is any evidence saying they weren’t.
You are exactly doing what I said and arguing as if I reviewed all of the evidence and asserted that everything was done properly. I did no such thing.
Are you telling me that the concept of innocent until proven guilty is wrong?



Appropriate because you are thinking like a 5 year old. Making up what you want to think I said doesn’t make it right.



And here come the low class insults. Typical.

At this point you are arguing with yourself.
You have created an alternate reality where you attribute things to be that I never said and then argue them as if I said them.

Yawn. You realize that including “until evidence comes out to prove otherwise” doesn’t change your stance, yes? That you’re still assuming that it was done legally, that you still assumed wrong, that you were still wrong? Of course you do. You’re embarrassing yourself here, Andy. Say it with me one time: “I... was... wrong.” It’s really not that hard.

 

[Sicilian]

One man's technicality is another man's protection of Constitutional rights and a check on police overreach....

Bingo. I don't know Kraft personally, and I'm not the type to shed a lot of tears for multi-billionaires (they can pay someone to shed some for them). But there needs to be a limit on what police are allowed to do in the investigation of a crime, or it stops becoming police work and borders on vigilantism. And if you keep inching the line further away because the crime you're investigating seems "icky", it eventually gets blurred. Then when they do this again to someone who DOESN'T have Bob Kraft's resources, the precedent has been set and the accused has no shot.

 

[Kontradiction]

He will never admit it, forget about it. He was wrong on so many levels. Every time someone brought up an article questioning the whole operation he would then question the source, or the publication, or the poster. He was rah rah rah about how the cops had it all right, first on the trafficking (it was still being investigated, NOPE). He even said cops didn't need a valid reason to stop johns because they had witnessed a crime. Wrong again, traffic stop thrown out.

I think everyone here universally accepts that Andy Johnson was wrong about everything despite his childish protest to the contrary. I won't bother arguing with him because at the end of the day the law prevailed for our protection.

No, but that’s what also makes him such an easy target to bully on here. On top of being such a huge character flaw that keeps you from being, or staying, promoted (thus resulting in some sort of career based upon grunt work which allows one to spend all day, every day on message boards, arguing with people), it also presents an inherent weakness in the debater that’s easy to pick apart.

 

[Drewski]

Bingo. I don't know Kraft personally, and I'm not the type to shed a lot of tears for multi-billionaires (they can pay someone to shed some for them). But there needs to be a limit on what police are allowed to do in the investigation of a crime, or it stops becoming police work and borders on vigilantism. And if you keep inching the line further away because the crime you're investigating seems "icky", it eventually gets blurred. Then when they do this again to someone who DOESN'T have Bob Kraft's resources, the precedent has been set and the accused has no shot.

While the apparatus of the Criminal Justice system was a little different in the case (shady DA vs questionable cop "behavior") it's almost like the Duke Lacrosse story taught us nothing. Those guys would have disappeared into the anonymity of our prison system without the resources they had. While I don't shed a tear for them (or Robert) as you say, it does prove once again there are two systems of justice in this country (as sad as that is to type).

This blind faith by some that "cops are always the good guys in white hats" should have died in the "Law and Order, Silent Majority" late 60s/early 70s, but it hasn't, and with the proliferation of camera phones, we see it more than ever that the mere concept isn't built on reality, but rather a hopeful projection.

Police/DAs are not infallible. They are made up of people with flaws just like the general population. But in a system where there are rules to be followed, those short comings count.

 

[Froob]

One man's technicality is another man's protection of Constitutional rights and a check on police overreach....

Yeah it's ****ty a poor person probably gets screwed here, but I think we all outta be rooting for Bob here with the police over reach..that's bad for everyone.

 

[patman52]

5. True sex trafficking would be illimated with the legalization of prostitution. The same forces that kept Prohibition going for 12 long years., organized criminals, law enforcement, and self aggrandizing politicians; are the same forces that are keep prostitution and MJ a crime Now we add the private prison lobby. Not much business for them if we stop sending people to them for victimless crimes.


OK rant over[/QUOTE]

I am with you on the other points, even in countries where it is legal, sex trafficking is still a huge issue. Women are coerced to staying with a pimp/house manger under threats of harm to themselves or other loved ones. It would help the ones being exploited to get help however.

 

[Ring 6]

Yawn. You realize that including “until evidence comes out to prove otherwise” doesn’t change your stance, yes? That you’re still assuming that it was done legally, that you still assumed wrong, that you were still wrong? Of course you do. You’re embarrassing yourself here, Andy. Say it with me one time: “I... was... wrong.” It’s really not that hard.

Just not true. I was not wrong to wait for the case to play out before making a conclusion.
Twist it however you want.

I’ll stand by the belief that the American concept of innocent until proven guilty is not wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

No, but that’s what also makes him such an easy target to bully on here..

That attitude right there explains what is wrong with you.
At least you admit that you have no interest in an honest reasonable discussion but simply attempt to bully.
This is why you and I have never, and will never get along. I am trying to have a reasonable, forthright, honest discussion and you are “targeting people to bully”.
Very sad