- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:19 pm to stonedbegonias
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/31/21 at 7:53 pm
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:22 pm to stonedbegonias
quote:
Good God, they're talking about Mett and Hill fwiw.
Well, no wonder....Hill plead to a misdemeanor and lesser offense than sexual battery, so I sure didn't think he was talking about Hill.
However, Hill isn't a favorite of mine. I'm not the coach and I don't write the rules. He plead to carnal knowledge. A guilty plea is an admission. Don't know what the DA had or didn't have on him nor was there a trial with the facts presented. There was no video on this one. I wouldn't have him on the team, myself, just on the basis of the plea. That's my opinion and that's been hashed out already.
I still think what teabag did was sexual battery as defined under the law and I've seen that video, so there's no question as to what happened. I'm not at all worried about my glass house. I'm not the coach and teabag isn't on anyone's team to my knowledge. The players on our team and what some have done are irrelevant to this discussion, anyway. Has nothing to do with my opinion in this discussion.
If gb thinks teabag should walk because of Hill an Mett, so be it. I disagree. I think the DA is going to fold, though, but it won't be because he's looking at LSU's roster. That would be stupid.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:40 pm to Gris Gris
Never said he should walk.. Don't think he should walk.. Was only making a point... People do dumb stuff. They should pay the consequences reasonable to what they did. I feel like if what those players did was not enough to warrant a sex offender tag, then neither was what this dumb dude did.. That is all. But I guess people need a bogeyman sometimes.. 
Posted on 3/21/12 at 1:25 am to getback
Come on man. Doing dumb shite shouldn't involve your testicals and a passed out person's face. Doing dumb shite is riding around drunk or with some weed. What he did is atrocious. Anyone whom doesn't think so needs to reasses their life. It's not like he was friend with the guy and did it as a prank. He doesn't know that guy from shite. You should be able to pass out ( albeit at a fast food joint) without waking up with the taste of taint on your tongue.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 6:23 am to Thunder Tiger
quote:
Whether the DA decides to pursue that crime and/or to the fullest extent is an entirely different issue. But more than one person in this thread stated or suggested that this was not a sexual crime, when it clearly is under the law.
My point entirely. yes, it meets the elements of the crime that is named "sexual battery" by our legislature, but i contend that the act was not sexual in nature. I do not believe that this a-hole is a sexual predator, based on what he did, and i think it would be unfair of us to make him wear the label "sex offender" and register as such for the rest of his life.
I believe he should pay a price, and he already has paid substantially. But I think the penalty of "sex offender" is much too great for the crime. i don't always post in threads, but when i do, you should get the frick over it.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 7:41 am to piratedude
By the letter of the law, it's actually sexual battery.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 7:53 am to piratedude
quote:
he already has paid substantially
He hasn't paid shite yet. What he did was an incredibly stupid thing. And the fact that he's a little older and supposed to be more mature, makes it that much worse.
I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were the victim's father. I seriously freaking doubt it.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 8:04 am to RealityTiger
quote:
He hasn't paid shite yet.
Lost his job, has his name and face plastered in the national media as the teabagger? he's damn sure paid, and will pay more.
quote:
What he did was an incredibly stupid thing.
I agree.
I never denied that he committed a crime. Nor have I denied that it meets the elements of the crime defined by our legislature as "sexual battery." clearly, the video shows it.
my entire contention is that it wasn't sexual in nature, and it would be overkill to make the a-hole carry the label of "sex offender" the rest of his life. it was disgusting,nasty, gross and all the other adjectives you can think of, but, imho, it wasn't sexual.
This post was edited on 3/21/12 at 8:08 am
Posted on 3/21/12 at 8:07 am to RealityTiger
quote:
And the fact that he's a little older and supposed to be more mature
what result would you want if the teabagger was 18 and the victim's roommate? brother? cousin? Still make him register as a sex offender for the rest of his life?
Posted on 3/21/12 at 8:13 am to tickfawtiger
quote:
Laws are carefully crafted to defend society at large from CRIMINALS
Seriously?
Posted on 3/21/12 at 8:14 am to piratedude
quote:
my entire contention is that it wasn't sexual in nature, and it would be overkill to make the a-hole carry the label of "sex offender" the rest of his life. it was disgusting,nasty, gross and all the other adjectives you can think of, but, imho, it wasn't sexual.
Explain how you would prove that it was not sexual. Genitals to the face with hips thrusts repeatedly without the consent of the victim? You have no case. If they want the sexual offender label, It will easily happen.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 9:09 am to piratedude
quote:
Lost his job, has his name and face plastered in the national media as the teabagger? he's damn sure paid, and will pay more.
poor guy. he's much worse than the guys who's face was teabagged on the national media
Posted on 3/21/12 at 9:12 am to CP3LSU25
quote:
Off with his nuts
fify
Posted on 3/21/12 at 10:40 am to The Ramp
Sure it has been said but the D.A. will let him plead to lesser charge and place him on probation for a couple of years (no sex offender tag) plus a big fine. Then if he messes up again he's toast.
The D.A. is aware that there are still civil suits to come forward from the passed out kid. This isn't over by a long shot.
The D.A. is aware that there are still civil suits to come forward from the passed out kid. This isn't over by a long shot.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 10:54 am to tigerbru17
quote:
Explain how you would prove that it was not sexual.
Read my posts. hell, read the paragraph before the one you quoted. the video is evidence that the act meets the elements of the crime defined by our legislature as "sexual battery." I wouldn't try to convince anyone it does not meet the elements.
my point is that, the legislature's definition not withstanding, I don't think what i saw was sexual, and I would like the DA not to pursue branding this a-hole as a sex offender.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 10:59 am to piratedude
quote:
my point is that, the legislature's definition not withstanding, I don't think what i saw was sexual
Not all sexual battery cases are sexual in nature and the law doesn't limit the speculated intent to sexual gratification. There are lots of times when the act is about power and not sex. This seems pretty obvious.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 11:03 am to piratedude
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/23/21 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 3/21/12 at 11:14 am to Thunder Tiger
quote:
It was sexual in nature precisely because it involved the genitals, thus the title of the crime "sexual" battery
it is my opinion that there are things you can do with your genitals that aren't sexual in nature, and it is my opinion that this a-hole's acts using his genitals was not sexual in nature, and it is further my opinion that the DA should not and will not seek a conviction that labels the a-hole a sex offender.
quote:
So, I'll invite you to get the frick over it again because you are simply wrong.
I'm not always wrong, but when I am, I deny it.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 11:26 am to piratedude
quote:
my entire contention is that it wasn't sexual in nature, and it would be overkill to make the a-hole carry the label of "sex offender" the rest of his life. it was disgusting,nasty, gross and all the other adjectives you can think of, but, imho, it wasn't sexual.
Psychologists and psychiatrists have told us that, in many cases, rape is not about sex, but about power. Nevertheless, rapists should carry the label of sex offender. I don't know what activities other than sex you associate with sticking your cock and balls in someone's face, but to me, sticking your cock and balls in someone's face is sexual conduct, and one who commits it without the consent of the victim is a sex offender and should be labeled as such.
quote:
Lost his job, has his name and face plastered in the national media as the teabagger? he's damn sure paid, and will pay more
He hasn't paid. People who commit crimes get fired from their jobs and get their names in the paper all the time, but that doesn't suffice as payment for their crimes, nor should it with this guy.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News