Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

Teej said:

If there's a way for Kraft to invest a boatload of money to some cause related to the charges, without admitting guilt, that's how it'll end.

It'll be a miscarriage of justice IMO if other perps are wearing orange jumpsuits picking up trash for the same crime while he's loving life in his rich man's world.

Click to expand...

IMO your two paragraphs conflict with each other. Do you mean in the first paragraph that "that's how it'll end" or "should end" if he gives money and admits nothing? I agree with your second paragraph. However, the wealthy are called privileged for a reason, totally unfair.

Brewskies said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I would say most countries who make it illegal don't exactly have the best record when it comes to women's rights versus those who do legalize it.

Antdawg said:

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.

Click to expand...

It did. That’s my point. Oj got lucky that fuhrman drew the case.

Defendants have rights, no matter who they are. If you're against that, you're against America.

Click to expand...

I am 100% in support of defendants rights and have said absolutely nothing contrary to that.

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.

Click to expand...

Of course it’s skating in a technicality.
He committed the crime. Who’s fault it is has no relevance. A guilty man walked because of something other than guilt or innocence.

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.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between whether or not you committed a crime and whether or not you can be legally convicted.
Committing a crime and having the iron clad proof thrown out due to a procedural error is absolutely getting lucky on a technicality.
This is far different than someone being set up or having evidence manipulated to make them appear guilty when they are not.
I’m not sure how anyone could argue that someone getting caught red handed is very fortunate when a procedural error let’s them walk.

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.

Click to expand...

Regardless of how you want to characterize the crime, he certainly committed it and if the police screwed up (which I doubt) and he gets off, it’s on a technicality.

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.

Click to expand...

I don’t hate kraft at all. All of my comments are about the topic they are addressed toward, not any bias toward kraft.
I would have the exact same opinions about this if it were kraft, Tom Brady, or my brother.

Antdawg said:

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but I would say most countries who make it illegal don't exactly have the best record when it comes to women's rights versus those who do legalize it.

Click to expand...

And you think that making it legal will improve the record about women's right? Making it legal will cause being out of sight and mind and increase human trafficking of children for sex along with adult women.

AndyJohnson said:

A guilty man walked because of something other than guilt or innocence.

Click to expand...

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. No one is "guilty" unless they plea guilty or are found guilty in a court of law. You could kill 200 people, but if you're not found guilty for it in a court of law, under the Constitution of the United States, you are not "guilty". You cannot juxtapose your own internal feelings about a matter with the legal system findings of any one defendant. You can have your opinion, but he or she isn't "guilty" until they plea guilty or a court finds them so. Until then, they are innocent. That's the United States of America. Love it or leave it.

The title of this thread is misleading it makes it sound like Kraft is going to take the offered deal.

Plus is every thread on this topic going to end up a discussion of whether prostitution should be legal? What is this place the internet or something?

Antdawg said:

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. No one is "guilty" unless they plea guilty or are found guilty in a court of law. You could kill 200 people, but if you're not found guilty for it in a court of law, under the Constitution of the United States, you are not "guilty". You cannot juxtapose your own internal feelings about a matter with the legal system findings of any one defendant. You can have your opinion, but he or she isn't "guilty" until they plea guilty or a court finds them so. Until then, they are innocent. That's the United States of America. Love it or leave it.

Click to expand...

This just equivocates on the word 'guilty' it has different meanings. You can be guilty of murder without being found guilty of murder in a trial or whatever. If you go to a deserted island with no government, and murder someone there, you are still guilty of murder.

Brewskies said:

And you think that making it legal will improve the record about women's right? Making it legal will cause being out of sight and mind and increase human trafficking of children for sex along with adult women.

Click to expand...

On the first question, my answer is no, as I don't think it moves the needle either direction in terms of "women's rights". About your next assertion...not if it is regulated properly, just about like any other industry.

threads like this make me love the "ignore" features. I miss so much BS. lol

neuronet said:

This just equivocates on the word 'guilty' it has different meanings. You can be guilty of murder without being found guilty of murder in a trial or whatever. If you go to a deserted island with no government, and murder someone there, you are still guilty of murder.

Click to expand...

In the context of a legal discussion about Bob Kraft's upcoming solicitation case, the only relevancy of the word "guilty" is as it pertains to what the court finds or what he pleas to. Otherwise, it's akin to a Saints fan saying they should've been in the Superbowl.

AndyJohnson said:

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.

Click to expand...

The fact you are resorting to personal insults speaks volumes to your entire position, which is you are wrong.

I take comfort in being one of the few here that have actually gotten you to admit that you were clearly wrong in the past. By any measure not a small feat.

Antdawg said:

You keep saying this, but it doesn't make it true. No one is "guilty" unless they plea guilty or are found guilty in a court of law. You could kill 200 people, but if you're not found guilty for it in a court of law, under the Constitution of the United States, you are not "guilty".

Click to expand...

Of course you are guilty of killing the people. Whether you are found guilty in a court of law is a different matter. Words have more than one meaning and usage.
But I changed by terminology to “committed the crime” so there is no confusion.

You cannot juxtapose your own internal feelings about a matter with the legal system findings of any one defendant. You can have your opinion, but he or she isn't "guilty" until they plea guilty or a court finds them so. Until then, they are innocent. That's the United States of America. Love it or leave it.

Click to expand...

Of course I can.
If I punch you in the face I am guilty of punching you in the face. If I never get prosecuted for it, I still punched you in the face and broke the law. Being guilty and being convicted and punished are not the same thing.
By the way, no one is ever found innocent in these United States of America. They are found not guilty. There is a significant difference between the 2.

Antdawg said:

In the context of a legal discussion about Bob Kraft's upcoming solicitation case, the only relevancy of the word "guilty" is as it pertains to what the court finds or what he pleas to. Otherwise, it's akin to a Saints fan saying they should've been in the Superbowl.

Click to expand...

That’s not true.
Words have meanings and usages. You can’t decide they don’t.

venecol said:

The fact you are resorting to personal insults speaks volumes to your entire position, which is you are wrong.

Click to expand...

It’s actualy not a personal attack it’s a fact that what you claim I said is absolutely not what I said and the intellect required to understand that is a very low bar.

I take comfort in being one of the few here that have actually gotten you to admit that you were clearly wrong in the past. By any measure not a small feat.

Click to expand...

I will readily admit whenever I am wrong.
If I was factually wrong I would admit it. Trying to get someone to admit an opinion is wrong is silly.
So you didn’t “get me to admit” I was wrong (and I have no clue what example you are referring to) but if what you are talking about happened then you showed me a fact that I was not aware of or misunderstood. There would be no need to “get me to admit” if facts showed I was wrong. I’d do so readily.

1960Pats 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.

Click to expand...

It was suggested he planted the glove which made the “If it don’t fit you must acquit” mantra possible.

neuronet said:

The title of this thread is misleading it makes it sound like Kraft is going to take the offered deal.

Plus is every thread on this topic going to end up a discussion of whether prostitution should be legal? What is this place the internet or something?

Click to expand...

I fixed the thread title but did not think it was misleading since the thread was posted before Kraft even had a chance to respond. It basically indicated what the state of Florida was going to do - drop the charges if Kraft says he would have been found guilty.

1960Pats 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.

Click to expand...

If memory serves....

Mark Furhman was asked, under oath, at the trial if he ever used the n-word. He vehemently denied ever having had done so.

Then, later at trial, a cassette tape came out (I believe from a disgruntled ex girlfriend) of him using the n-word repeatedly. Not only did this destroy his credibility, but I am sure you can imagine the reaction of the mostly-black jury to the prosecution's star investigator throwing around the n-word.

I don't know that he planted evidence, but the defense certainly implied that he did (specifically with the infamous black glove). With his credibility completely shot, police malfeasance was probably a pretty easy sell to the mostly-black jury in what was already a racially-charged atmosphere.

Antdawg said:

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.

Click to expand...

IIRC, Ito didn't make Furhman unavailable for cross examination. Fuhrman took the stand after his lies were exposed and he took the 5th.

Antdawg said:

In the context of a legal discussion about Bob Kraft's upcoming solicitation case, the only relevancy of the word "guilty" is as it pertains to what the court finds or what he pleas to. Otherwise, it's akin to a Saints fan saying they should've been in the Superbowl.

Click to expand...

You're arguing semantics. When I say I believe Kraft is guilty, I am clearly not stating he has been found guilty in a court of law. So yes, the context matters but I am not going to shy away from using the word "guilty".

venecol said:

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?

Click to expand...

You are trying to create a false equivalency between "planting evidence" and "evidence being found inadmissible."

While some believe the video evidence against Kraft may be ruled inadmissible, that is light years away from "planting evidence." There have been exactly zero accusations that the evidence here was planted.

If the video evidence is ruled inadmissible (even though they got a warrant for it before placing it) then sorry not sorry, but that's the textbook definition getting off on a technicality.