mcgufcm, on 27 January 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:
So as an attorney, I want to make sure I understand his argument: if the victim of sexual assault is intoxicated to the point of being unconscious and unable to recollect what happened, then there is no harm but for post hoc harm, and if there is no video of the incident, there is, in fact, no harm at all.
That sound about right? How is that distinguishable from, oh, I don't know... date rape?
That sound about right? How is that distinguishable from, oh, I don't know... date rape?
My thoughts exactly!
Also:
Quote
Downing, who is free on $10,000 bond, "has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. He has been fired from his job and suffers continual harassment by the public and media," the attorneys wrote.
No, your client has been watched in action by millions of people across the country (or world) thanks to YouTube (and the idiot Bama fan who thought it was funny enough to film and proud to put it on the 'net).
As for his job: If he feels he has a grievance, let him take it up with Hibbet's personnel/management and/or lawyers...it has zero to do with the criminal charges in NOLA.

Help
Bookmark
Del.icio.us
Digg
Email
Facebook
Google
Mixx
Reddit
StumbleUpon










