It's May 14, 2024, 08:27:44 PM
This just sounds like some college prick stuff. I'm sure he did it, I'm sure it was covered up, and in a court of law I'm sure nothing would have came out of it. College standards are different than legal standards for sexual assault. In a college setting, and this might be why she won, you don't have to prove without a reasonable doubt, but instead only prove that more than likely it's sexual assault. But in the court of law you have to prove without a reasonable doubt someone is guilty. So if a court saw this and said, hey, more than likely this happened in the university did nothing, then she would win the case. But the same evidence and everything can be put in front of a court of law, and the judge could find Peyton not guilty because there needs to be more evidence to punish Peyton so bad that they'd lock him up.
i def think different (in a bad way) about Peyton after re-reading this story but at the same time it's all some hater writers looking for attention by re-hashing this shitthen again it's fair game because he's a public figure so....shrug
If that is the case this is irresponsible journalism
Quote from: M Dogg™ on February 13, 2016, 08:13:14 PMThis just sounds like some college prick stuff. I'm sure he did it, I'm sure it was covered up, and in a court of law I'm sure nothing would have came out of it. College standards are different than legal standards for sexual assault. In a college setting, and this might be why she won, you don't have to prove without a reasonable doubt, but instead only prove that more than likely it's sexual assault. But in the court of law you have to prove without a reasonable doubt someone is guilty. So if a court saw this and said, hey, more than likely this happened in the university did nothing, then she would win the case. But the same evidence and everything can be put in front of a court of law, and the judge could find Peyton not guilty because there needs to be more evidence to punish Peyton so bad that they'd lock him up.I just hate how garbage like this gets called assault. It's a slap in the face to all the weapon that are pinned down and physically hurt during real sex assaults. It's a 27 year old blonde woman with dozens worth of incidents according to her hanging around a guys locker room.I don't know why it's simply not a rule in universities that no opposite sex trainers are allowed in athletes locker rooms. It's asking for trouble.
Quote from: Shallow on February 13, 2016, 08:54:28 PMQuote from: M Dogg™ on February 13, 2016, 08:13:14 PMThis just sounds like some college prick stuff. I'm sure he did it, I'm sure it was covered up, and in a court of law I'm sure nothing would have came out of it. College standards are different than legal standards for sexual assault. In a college setting, and this might be why she won, you don't have to prove without a reasonable doubt, but instead only prove that more than likely it's sexual assault. But in the court of law you have to prove without a reasonable doubt someone is guilty. So if a court saw this and said, hey, more than likely this happened in the university did nothing, then she would win the case. But the same evidence and everything can be put in front of a court of law, and the judge could find Peyton not guilty because there needs to be more evidence to punish Peyton so bad that they'd lock him up.I just hate how garbage like this gets called assault. It's a slap in the face to all the weapon that are pinned down and physically hurt during real sex assaults. It's a 27 year old blonde woman with dozens worth of incidents according to her hanging around a guys locker room.I don't know why it's simply not a rule in universities that no opposite sex trainers are allowed in athletes locker rooms. It's asking for trouble.After reading more into it, it looks like they had a confidentiality agreement, which Peyton himself broke. So basically this is being brought up because Peyton mentioned it somewhere.Overall, this would be assault. Like I said, in a court of law, to put someone in jail over it, you need hard proof, proof that doesn't always exist. Like Kobe in Colorado, who knows what happens in that room but if something illegal did happen you can't prove it because there was no rape kit, there was no video and there was no eye witnesses. In this case, genital on the head is assault. But there is no video, the eye witnesses have a conflict of interest and there was no rape. But all the evidence says more than likely this happened, and even Peyton took a settlement instead of going through the college process, which would have found more than likely he did something. So looking at everything, lets just say this, if Peyton was anyone else, he might have caught a case. But instead it looks like his dad had this covered up. At the same time, he brought it back up, and he now going to have to suffer the backlash. In the 90's, this was boys being boys. Bringing this back up now, this is clearly assault and he'll get judged for it.On top of that, the "Asking for trouble" thing doesn't cut it. If Peyton is an adult, even at 19, then he needs to act like one. "Asking for trouble" is not a defense. That's a strawman argument that does no one any good.