ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Just now, Packerraymond said: There's always a chance of new evidence emerging. Hurts nothing to put it in there and covers you from backlash if it does. Then we come back to the original point. No sense in going in circles any more. Agree to disagree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 Eh, I'm gonna trust the Badgers and Coach Chryst on this one. They have more information than we do and, LIS before, I see this as a "stupidity" suspension more than anything. All reports about Danny Davis is that he's a good kid that comes from a good background and is a really good teammate. Not that it excuses the stupidity of that moment but I can see why PC and UW came to the decision that they did. Again, we don't have all the facts about Danny Davis and his involvement in it all. We don't know when the pictures were taken during that night nor do we even know if he was the one taking the pictures. So, until the facts come out, I'm alright with it. Obviously, like others have said, if more facts come out that he was more involved than let on, he's booted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/college/uw/2018/08/23/attorneys-challenge-facts-case-against-uws-quintez-cephus/1071537002/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, beekay414 said: https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/college/uw/2018/08/23/attorneys-challenge-facts-case-against-uws-quintez-cephus/1071537002/ Seems like they don't want this video presented to the public yet so we won't be able to see for ourselves. If they really have all that video though and it's as described it sounds as though they'll have a good defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 2 hours ago, beekay414 said: https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/college/uw/2018/08/23/attorneys-challenge-facts-case-against-uws-quintez-cephus/1071537002/ We'll see what the blood work says. That's going to tell us more than video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: We'll see what the blood work says. That's going to tell us more than video. That blood would be from April correct? Why are we still waiting for results? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: That blood would be from April correct? Why are we still waiting for results? Forensics takes a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 13 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: That blood would be from April correct? Why are we still waiting for results? Yep but every BioA/diagnostic lab on the planet would have a validated method for basic toxicology, including alcohol, validated with at least 4 months sample stability so it might have just come down to when they could run the sample. Or they might have run it and the prosecution just hasn't released the BAC as part of the complaint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Or they might have run it and the prosecution just hasn't released the BAC as part of the complaint. Why wouldn't they? Just curious. Could it be because it doesn't reflect what they are claiming? Or are there other reasons not to release it? Edited August 23, 2018 by beekay414 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, beekay414 said: Why wouldn't they? Just curious. Could it be because it doesn't reflect what they are claiming? Or are there other reasons not to release it? Have Cephus devote his defense to that argument, then wait until the last second to drop the hammer? Edited August 23, 2018 by ramssuperbowl99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: Have Cephus devote his defense to that defense, then wait until the last second to drop the hammer? Oh damn, that would be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Just now, beekay414 said: Oh damn, that would be... Also by the way, Cephus' argument is not going to be that the woman wasn't drunk. It's going to be that they weren't too drunk to consent. They could be arguing that if she was able to walk at all, she was able to consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Also by the way, Cephus' argument is not going to be that the woman wasn't drunk. It's going to be that they weren't too drunk to consent. They could be arguing that if she was able to walk at all, she was able to consent. Isn't there a law out there that being any type of drunk automatically means no consent? Or is that just a SJW movement (and I don't mean the SJW thing in a negative way)? Also, if that's what he's going for, I really dislike him for putting us in the position because he wanted to get laid. Edited August 23, 2018 by beekay414 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Just now, beekay414 said: Isn't there a law out there that being any type of drunk automatically means no consent? Or is that just a SJW movement (and I don't mean the SJW thing in a negative way)? No, the law is that you have be so drunk that you are mentally incapacitated to the point where no reasonable person would think you can consent. It's not 100% black and white, and the cesspools on the internet spread nonsense like being legally intoxicated (0.08 BAC) means you can't consent. In practice, these are people who passed out/blacked out, vomiting, or completely unable to speak in complete sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: No, the law is that you have be so drunk that you are mentally incapacitated to the point where no reasonable person would think you can consent. It's not 100% black and white, and the cesspools on the internet spread nonsense like being legally intoxicated (0.08 BAC) means you can't consent. In practice, these are people who passed out/blacked out, vomiting, or completely unable to speak in complete sentences. Yeah, I figured as much. I've just seen a ton of "drunk = no consent" **** lately is all. Basically, the law is Brock Turner victim level drunk and not "I was lit" drunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.