Knicks · Article: Derrick Rose Has Plenty Left In The Tank (page 3)
nixluva wrote:Exactly. This isn't Kobe. Thisdk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
On July 4, Sheriff Joe Hoy issued an arrest warrant for Bryant. Bryant flew from Los Angeles back to Eagle, Colorado to surrender to police.didn't happen. This is about monetary compensation for something that was consensual or wasn't three years ago. Rose obviously feels very strongly that he is being accused falsely. It will and should be resolved in court. Settling would appear as an admission of guilt. Rose is a father and is respected in his community. I see nothing wrong with him wanting his day in court to clear his name.
nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
StarksEwing1 wrote:dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why is beyond me since I've been extremely clear in my statements. If someone accused you of being found Guilty when you had been found Liable in a Civil Case you would care about the distinction. Guilty denotes a CRIMINAL judgment and people look at it accordingly. Rose isn't being charged criminally so stop talking about this in that manner. It does matter. I don't like any of this but I also know that I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
The police chose not to investigate. I don't know why but that leaves only the Civil Case. If Rose is found Liable he'll have to pay.
nixluva wrote:neither of us is missing the point. I never said he is guilty of a CRIMINAL charge. Im just talking about morality and doing the right thingStarksEwing1 wrote:dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why is beyond me since I've been extremely clear in my statements. If someone accused you of being found Guilty when you had been found Liable in a Civil Case you would care about the distinction. Guilty denotes a CRIMINAL judgment and people look at it accordingly. Rose isn't being charged criminally so stop talking about this in that manner. It does matter. I don't like any of this but I also know that I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
The police chose not to investigate. I don't know why but that leaves only the Civil Case. If Rose is found Liable he'll have to pay.
StarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:neither of us is missing the point. I never said he is guilty of a CRIMINAL charge. Im just talking about morality and doing the right thingStarksEwing1 wrote:dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why is beyond me since I've been extremely clear in my statements. If someone accused you of being found Guilty when you had been found Liable in a Civil Case you would care about the distinction. Guilty denotes a CRIMINAL judgment and people look at it accordingly. Rose isn't being charged criminally so stop talking about this in that manner. It does matter. I don't like any of this but I also know that I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
The police chose not to investigate. I don't know why but that leaves only the Civil Case. If Rose is found Liable he'll have to pay.
It's not a Black and White situation. This isn't a case of Guilt or Innocence. In a Civil Case the burden of proof is only more likely than not as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. So by the very nature of Civil Cases you can never be sure. Rose's personal life is being exposed and no one would want to be put in this situation where only bits and pieces of the story are presented. You NEVER get the full story and it tends to look worse under these circumstances. So moral judgments can also be off base if you're relying on the limited evidence that is often presented in Civil Cases. I would refrain from making a moral judgment based on this fact.
WP76 wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
Lol. The auto correct moniter is not eager to judge. Was merely responding to the statement regarding "Rape Charges" when speaking on ignorance of post. As there are no rape charges. However, I'm glad your wishing the civil trial results in his favor. So am I, for his sake and for the team. As for his character "being revealed", it already has. It takes one civil suit for people to ignore the character shown all those years in Chicago.
nixluva wrote:When did i make a judgment? I didnt condemn Rose. I simple stated even in a civil case you can be responsible even if its not a criminal charge. I hope Rose didnt do anything wrong. Either way he isnt the victim here nixStarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:neither of us is missing the point. I never said he is guilty of a CRIMINAL charge. Im just talking about morality and doing the right thingStarksEwing1 wrote:dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why is beyond me since I've been extremely clear in my statements. If someone accused you of being found Guilty when you had been found Liable in a Civil Case you would care about the distinction. Guilty denotes a CRIMINAL judgment and people look at it accordingly. Rose isn't being charged criminally so stop talking about this in that manner. It does matter. I don't like any of this but I also know that I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
The police chose not to investigate. I don't know why but that leaves only the Civil Case. If Rose is found Liable he'll have to pay.It's not a Black and White situation. This isn't a case of Guilt or Innocence. In a Civil Case the burden of proof is only more likely than not as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. So by the very nature of Civil Cases you can never be sure. Rose's personal life is being exposed and no one would want to be put in this situation where only bits and pieces of the story are presented. You NEVER get the full story and it tends to look worse under these circumstances. So moral judgments can also be off base if you're relying on the limited evidence that is often presented in Civil Cases. I would refrain from making a moral judgment based on this fact.
StarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:When did i make a judgment? I didnt condemn Rose. I simple stated even in a civil case you can be responsible even if its not a criminal charge. I hope Rose didnt do anything wrong. Either way he isnt the victim here nixStarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:neither of us is missing the point. I never said he is guilty of a CRIMINAL charge. Im just talking about morality and doing the right thingStarksEwing1 wrote:dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why is beyond me since I've been extremely clear in my statements. If someone accused you of being found Guilty when you had been found Liable in a Civil Case you would care about the distinction. Guilty denotes a CRIMINAL judgment and people look at it accordingly. Rose isn't being charged criminally so stop talking about this in that manner. It does matter. I don't like any of this but I also know that I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
The police chose not to investigate. I don't know why but that leaves only the Civil Case. If Rose is found Liable he'll have to pay.It's not a Black and White situation. This isn't a case of Guilt or Innocence. In a Civil Case the burden of proof is only more likely than not as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. So by the very nature of Civil Cases you can never be sure. Rose's personal life is being exposed and no one would want to be put in this situation where only bits and pieces of the story are presented. You NEVER get the full story and it tends to look worse under these circumstances. So moral judgments can also be off base if you're relying on the limited evidence that is often presented in Civil Cases. I would refrain from making a moral judgment based on this fact.
I haven't tried to paint Rose as a victim. You don't know who did what for sure. You can only guess at the leaked info. I'm not making any judgement on what Rose did or didn't do. I know that I lack information to make any legitimate assumption. Clearly I FULLY understand the ramifications for Rose in this Civil Case. I just wanted to clarify the differences between Criminal and Civil cases and to remind everyone that this is about Liability and not Guilt or Innocence. Morally this case is repugnant but that's my personal view and not a legal judgment.
nixluva wrote:im pretty sure most on here know the difference between civil vs criminal cases. I admit im not a big fan of Rose but i wouldnt condemn him unless he was proven to be responsible. However if he was proven responsibile even in a civil case i would want nothing to do with himStarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:When did i make a judgment? I didnt condemn Rose. I simple stated even in a civil case you can be responsible even if its not a criminal charge. I hope Rose didnt do anything wrong. Either way he isnt the victim here nixStarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:neither of us is missing the point. I never said he is guilty of a CRIMINAL charge. Im just talking about morality and doing the right thingStarksEwing1 wrote:dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why is beyond me since I've been extremely clear in my statements. If someone accused you of being found Guilty when you had been found Liable in a Civil Case you would care about the distinction. Guilty denotes a CRIMINAL judgment and people look at it accordingly. Rose isn't being charged criminally so stop talking about this in that manner. It does matter. I don't like any of this but I also know that I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
The police chose not to investigate. I don't know why but that leaves only the Civil Case. If Rose is found Liable he'll have to pay.It's not a Black and White situation. This isn't a case of Guilt or Innocence. In a Civil Case the burden of proof is only more likely than not as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. So by the very nature of Civil Cases you can never be sure. Rose's personal life is being exposed and no one would want to be put in this situation where only bits and pieces of the story are presented. You NEVER get the full story and it tends to look worse under these circumstances. So moral judgments can also be off base if you're relying on the limited evidence that is often presented in Civil Cases. I would refrain from making a moral judgment based on this fact.
I haven't tried to paint Rose as a victim. You don't know who did what for sure. You can only guess at the leaked info. I'm not making any judgement on what Rose did or didn't do. I know that I lack information to make any legitimate assumption. Clearly I FULLY understand the ramifications for Rose in this Civil Case. I just wanted to clarify the differences between Criminal and Civil cases and to remind everyone that this is about Liability and not Guilt or Innocence. Morally this case is repugnant but that's my personal view and not a legal judgment.
nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why is beyond me since I've been extremely clear in my statements. If someone accused you of being found Guilty when you had been found Liable in a Civil Case you would care about the distinction. Guilty denotes a CRIMINAL judgment and people look at it accordingly. Rose isn't being charged criminally so stop talking about this in that manner. It does matter. I don't like any of this but I also know that I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
The police chose not to investigate. I don't know why but that leaves only the Civil Case. If Rose is found Liable he'll have to pay.
liable or guilty, i don't really care. you're using legalese in a straw man kind of way. he allegedly did something wrong to someone else and will likely have to pay for it, preferably settling out of court before october 4th.
what i do care about is the distraction a prolonged court battle will be. that is unfair to the people paying his salary and unfair to the knicks fans who want a player to play without distractions and who who want that player to not be a distraction to his coworkers either. make no mistake this WILL be a distraction.
StarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:im pretty sure most on here know the difference between civil vs criminal cases. I admit im not a big fan of Rose but i wouldnt condemn him unless he was proven to be responsible. However if he was proven responsibile even in a civil case i would want nothing to do with himStarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:When did i make a judgment? I didnt condemn Rose. I simple stated even in a civil case you can be responsible even if its not a criminal charge. I hope Rose didnt do anything wrong. Either way he isnt the victim here nixStarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:neither of us is missing the point. I never said he is guilty of a CRIMINAL charge. Im just talking about morality and doing the right thingStarksEwing1 wrote:dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why is beyond me since I've been extremely clear in my statements. If someone accused you of being found Guilty when you had been found Liable in a Civil Case you would care about the distinction. Guilty denotes a CRIMINAL judgment and people look at it accordingly. Rose isn't being charged criminally so stop talking about this in that manner. It does matter. I don't like any of this but I also know that I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
The police chose not to investigate. I don't know why but that leaves only the Civil Case. If Rose is found Liable he'll have to pay.It's not a Black and White situation. This isn't a case of Guilt or Innocence. In a Civil Case the burden of proof is only more likely than not as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. So by the very nature of Civil Cases you can never be sure. Rose's personal life is being exposed and no one would want to be put in this situation where only bits and pieces of the story are presented. You NEVER get the full story and it tends to look worse under these circumstances. So moral judgments can also be off base if you're relying on the limited evidence that is often presented in Civil Cases. I would refrain from making a moral judgment based on this fact.
I haven't tried to paint Rose as a victim. You don't know who did what for sure. You can only guess at the leaked info. I'm not making any judgement on what Rose did or didn't do. I know that I lack information to make any legitimate assumption. Clearly I FULLY understand the ramifications for Rose in this Civil Case. I just wanted to clarify the differences between Criminal and Civil cases and to remind everyone that this is about Liability and not Guilt or Innocence. Morally this case is repugnant but that's my personal view and not a legal judgment.
From statements being made it was NOT clear everyone knew the difference. That's why I posted. You seem to have a problem seeing what has actually been written in this thread. If Rose is found LIABLE then he will have to pay! You're free to feel however you like.
nixluva wrote:excuse me but i dont have a problem seeing what is being written. I dont act like i know more than anyone because i feel that insults the intelligece of others.StarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:im pretty sure most on here know the difference between civil vs criminal cases. I admit im not a big fan of Rose but i wouldnt condemn him unless he was proven to be responsible. However if he was proven responsibile even in a civil case i would want nothing to do with himStarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:When did i make a judgment? I didnt condemn Rose. I simple stated even in a civil case you can be responsible even if its not a criminal charge. I hope Rose didnt do anything wrong. Either way he isnt the victim here nixStarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:neither of us is missing the point. I never said he is guilty of a CRIMINAL charge. Im just talking about morality and doing the right thingStarksEwing1 wrote:dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why is beyond me since I've been extremely clear in my statements. If someone accused you of being found Guilty when you had been found Liable in a Civil Case you would care about the distinction. Guilty denotes a CRIMINAL judgment and people look at it accordingly. Rose isn't being charged criminally so stop talking about this in that manner. It does matter. I don't like any of this but I also know that I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
The police chose not to investigate. I don't know why but that leaves only the Civil Case. If Rose is found Liable he'll have to pay.It's not a Black and White situation. This isn't a case of Guilt or Innocence. In a Civil Case the burden of proof is only more likely than not as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. So by the very nature of Civil Cases you can never be sure. Rose's personal life is being exposed and no one would want to be put in this situation where only bits and pieces of the story are presented. You NEVER get the full story and it tends to look worse under these circumstances. So moral judgments can also be off base if you're relying on the limited evidence that is often presented in Civil Cases. I would refrain from making a moral judgment based on this fact.
I haven't tried to paint Rose as a victim. You don't know who did what for sure. You can only guess at the leaked info. I'm not making any judgement on what Rose did or didn't do. I know that I lack information to make any legitimate assumption. Clearly I FULLY understand the ramifications for Rose in this Civil Case. I just wanted to clarify the differences between Criminal and Civil cases and to remind everyone that this is about Liability and not Guilt or Innocence. Morally this case is repugnant but that's my personal view and not a legal judgment.
From statements being made it was NOT clear everyone knew the difference. That's why I posted. You seem to have a problem seeing what has actually been written in this thread. If Rose is found LIABLE then he will have to pay! You're free to feel however you like.
nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:blkexec wrote:either way Rose isnt as important as KP or melo. If Rose gets hurt(likely) we still have jennings. However in order to go anywhere this year we need KP and melo healthy the whole wayStarksEwing1 wrote:blkexec wrote:i understand your point BUT there is a big difference between doing normal everyday things and being a nba point guard after so many injuries...it takes it toll as a player. Now i think Rose will still be effective but him lasting a whole season is a question mark. Im not being negative at all just trying to be objective. I hope he lasts the whole yearStarksEwing1 wrote:EnySpree wrote:The only concern we should have with Rose is none.....There is injury concern for sure. Its not being negative just being honest from his history1. He's not a bum. Even if he's lost a step, that still makes him a top 10 point guard. He's on Teague, Conley level. 16/5 production possibly more which would make him a top 5-8 pg.
2. He's a injury risk but that's why we signed Brandon Jennings. Nothing else to say with that. The Knicks covered their bases.
3. His rape trial most likely will be postponed til after the season. He won't miss any games because of it.
Have you or anybody else had multiple serious injuries back to back? Ever wonder why someone like myself, who's had multiple injuries back to back, is not as concerned as others with Rose. Maybe thats why I'm more optimistic than most, because I've experience this before. And we've seen others like Westbrook come back from a similar injury. We have to stop looking at his last injury, because it wasn't related to his knee. From what I can tell, his knee has been holding up for multiple years now. So why the concern all of a sudden? Rose is not the main guy anymore....And he doesn't have to prove himself offensively like in the past. He doesn't have to play major minutes anymore.....He doesn't have to carry the team....And his knees has been healthy for over 2 years or more (whenever he had his last knee surgery). He's only 27.
I'm 43....had multiple surgeries back to back (mid and late 30's).....It's been 2-3 years since the last surgery and I'm still killing at 43.....Rose will be fine at 28. Some people have the genetics and others don't. I believe Rose is not only physically healed (he's already proved that last year).....But he's now working on mental healing. His goal is not to score 20+.....It's to play all 82 games of the regular season injury free. And if you look at the games played, each year it's more and more games of being injury free. Last year was 60 something games.....Which is very encouraging for fans and more importantly himself. This year will be less impactful on his body, because of the system and talent around him. I'm not worried about Rose now or in the future (in this system and around this talent).
He has the potential to get injured just like everybody else. Basketball is a brutle sport, especially if you don't take care of yourself. I believe Rose has reached that point of maturity, and he will become a normal player again. One more knee injury might be it for him, and I'm sure that was on his mind last year. Hopefully this year he's now mentally healed, which is the key to injury recovery.
If I didn't have experience with basketball injuries, I would be skeptical as well. And I agree with your comparison of me and rose the NBA player. I'm not under the same pressure and stress to carry an NBA team like rose. But I am an expert in basketball injuries and recovery. One thing I find out is that injuries and stress are very much related. And rose has been through a lot of stress playing in his home town and still running with his boys chasing girls. My injury occurred during a very stressful time in my marriage. So if my philosophy is correct (its all a big guess...no one knows the future) I think his maturity has improved due to this rape case....his stress to carry a team is reduced......and he's away from his hometown family and friends pressure in NYC. Its like when God gives you a second chance, usually u take advantage of that. At 28 is the time when everything starts to click.....so I believe rose will be fi e this year....
The million dollar question is what's rose value if he plays this year like an all star player? That's the only thing I can't answer.....will he sign a discount contract? And what is a discount?
+1 and i really don't like the notion of this being rose's team and letting rose be rose. he should be less self-serving and find a way to adjust his game while serving the knicks' franchise player, kp6. that is his path to redemption. of course, the federal court may have something to say about that if rose refuses to settle a quite sordid sexual assault charge.
Why don't you get up to speed? Rose has CLEARLY stated that he intends to be more of a distributor with all the talent around him. I've shown that he's done it before and I have no doubt that Rose can do it again. As for being aggressive, Rose has to still be the player he has been in terms of driving the ball. This was a MAJOR weakness for this team so having Rose will change this team's aggressiveness for the better!
This is about Rose helping to make things easier for everyone. He can do that in Hornacek's schemes and I trust JH to be able to help Rose and all of our guards perform at a high level. In JH's schemes everyone is involved so I think your fears are overstated.
And I intend to go on a diet. Been saying that a while. Jokes aside, let us be clear. The place where Rose's intentions and the Knicks aspirations coincide is where he returns to MVP form. They differ where the Knicks want a lock down defender who can stick with the Westbrook and Curry. In that regard, a guy who relied on ultra athleticism may have to change his game to remember fundamentals. Maybe he will have to pass more because his maybe his first step isnt as fast as it was. Or maybe he comes in guns blazing like the Derrick Rose of old. But let's not kid ourselves. If that Rose shows up, we won't be talking about pass first.
I want Rose to split the gaps innthe floor and force defenses to respect the spacing. I want him to act like he Highlander'd Avery Bradley and hawk the ball on defense. Gimme that, and good things will come.
dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
Wrong again. Skipped law school on your way to your knowitallism, I guess? There are allegations of a civil wrong. For which the accuser wants recompense. This is about money, not morality. Anyone can sue anyone for anything in America. Some might say that is the beauty of the American legal system. You do not need to prove anything to start a case.
Your kind of logic reminds me of the south in the 50s and 60s. Guy gets arrested, you vote guilty cause, 'you dont know what he did, but probably did something...why not this'. But you try and validate your use of the word guilty where it is just wrong. Plain wrong. Guilty carries a stigma with it that doesnt come from civil court. And we protect people from that stigma with the Bill of Rights. But, your half assed logic wants to skip all that. Cause it feels like guilty to you.
You want to skip the right to confront your accuser -- this plaintiff didn't want that. Or a jury of your peers. Or a fair trial. Remember this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lac...? This was about innocent and guilty. Rose's case is not that.
With all sincerity, if you don't know the facts or the law, don't post crap like this. The court of public opinion is far less forgiving than the judicial system. Don't skip the fact finding and jump from allegation to liability - like you do in your slip and fall analogy. Especially here where impressionable minds might read what you say as halfway intelligent, when you are speaking out of turn on something you do not understand. I apologize if I am calling you out, but your verdict is already in and you are trying to back it up. Let the system do its job.
I do not know if he is liable or not. But, I do know that if he is liable, he writes a check and it is over. Cause this is not about the stigma of guilt. It is about money.
StarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:excuse me but i dont have a problem seeing what is being written. I dont act like i know more than anyone because i feel that insults the intelligece of others.StarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:im pretty sure most on here know the difference between civil vs criminal cases. I admit im not a big fan of Rose but i wouldnt condemn him unless he was proven to be responsible. However if he was proven responsibile even in a civil case i would want nothing to do with himStarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:When did i make a judgment? I didnt condemn Rose. I simple stated even in a civil case you can be responsible even if its not a criminal charge. I hope Rose didnt do anything wrong. Either way he isnt the victim here nixStarksEwing1 wrote:nixluva wrote:neither of us is missing the point. I never said he is guilty of a CRIMINAL charge. Im just talking about morality and doing the right thingStarksEwing1 wrote:dk7th wrote:Agreed. Just because he isnt guilty of a crime doesnt mean he did nothing wrong. I mean if he was still a Bull would some still be behind him?nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
You guys are totally missing the point. Why is beyond me since I've been extremely clear in my statements. If someone accused you of being found Guilty when you had been found Liable in a Civil Case you would care about the distinction. Guilty denotes a CRIMINAL judgment and people look at it accordingly. Rose isn't being charged criminally so stop talking about this in that manner. It does matter. I don't like any of this but I also know that I don't have all the facts and neither do you.
The police chose not to investigate. I don't know why but that leaves only the Civil Case. If Rose is found Liable he'll have to pay.It's not a Black and White situation. This isn't a case of Guilt or Innocence. In a Civil Case the burden of proof is only more likely than not as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. So by the very nature of Civil Cases you can never be sure. Rose's personal life is being exposed and no one would want to be put in this situation where only bits and pieces of the story are presented. You NEVER get the full story and it tends to look worse under these circumstances. So moral judgments can also be off base if you're relying on the limited evidence that is often presented in Civil Cases. I would refrain from making a moral judgment based on this fact.
I haven't tried to paint Rose as a victim. You don't know who did what for sure. You can only guess at the leaked info. I'm not making any judgement on what Rose did or didn't do. I know that I lack information to make any legitimate assumption. Clearly I FULLY understand the ramifications for Rose in this Civil Case. I just wanted to clarify the differences between Criminal and Civil cases and to remind everyone that this is about Liability and not Guilt or Innocence. Morally this case is repugnant but that's my personal view and not a legal judgment.
From statements being made it was NOT clear everyone knew the difference. That's why I posted. You seem to have a problem seeing what has actually been written in this thread. If Rose is found LIABLE then he will have to pay! You're free to feel however you like.
It's simple. No insult to intelligence. Just simple facts and knowledge. If someone speaks in terms of Guilt or Innocence regarding this Civil Case then they don't know what they're talking about. This isn't personal attacks, just facts.
EwingsGlass wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:dk7th wrote:nixluva wrote:StarksEwing1 wrote:WP76 wrote:Yeah that guy jumped the gun without reading your post. I agree with you about the Roethlisberger analogy although that was a higher profile case. Hopefully he isn't guilty of anything that happened but if he is then I wouldn't want him on the knicks because I couldn't cheer for him at allHofstraBBall wrote:WP76 wrote:To me, Rose is potentially like Ben Roethlisberger. I liked the Steelers until it became public knowledge that he was a predator of teenage girls. He served his NFL penalty but, to me, he is scum and I can't cheer for a team of which he is a member.I've been a die-hard Knick fan for well over 40 years now but Rose presents a similar dilemma. If the rape charges are upheld in court, I will find it incredibly difficult to cheer for any team of which he is a member. That's the personal reality of this situation.
This shows how ignorance, wishing the worst in others and eagerness to judge is more prevalent than due process. He is not on trial for rape!! And if you are saying that there is zero chance that this woman is after financial gains, you are being naive. Sad you would give up on your team over a civil accusation and here say.
For Pete's sake--read the post. Where do you infer that I'm "wishing the worst in him" as that's clearly not what I said. I'm also absolutely not "eager to judge him" because (as I stated) that will be done through the legal process. At the end of the day, it's Rose's character that will largely be revealed--one way or the other--in this scenario; hence, my use of the term "potentially." If it turns out for the worst (which I certainly hope it doesn't) then I will find it nearly impossible to root for him and, unfortunately, diminish the fervor with which I root for his team. If that bothers you, I frankly couldn't care less. (PS the term you're looking for is "hearsay.")
You keep talking in terms of Guilt or Innocence as if this is a Criminal Case but it's not!!!
The Burden of Proof is “Lighter” in a Civil Case
Second, the “burden of proof” in a civil case -- what must be shown in order for the defendant to be held liable for what the plaintiff is alleging -- is “by a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that what the plaintiff is alleging is actually true. In a criminal case, the government must show the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a much tougher standard to meet.By virtue of the nature of a Civil Case you will not ever get to know if Rose is "Guilty". You may personally hold that opinion but in point of fact this will not be determined from a Criminal standpoint.
he is being sued for some form of "wrongdoing," even when that wrongdoing is *merely* civil.
that's why he should settle right away-- he doesn't want to be risk being found "guilty" of anything whatsoever. prolonging the case is professional suicide, as it will be a distraction to his employer. of course, with dolan as the resident malignant narcissist, he may see an extension of himself in rose and fork over the dough to help ease the pain.
You still seem to not have a clear understanding of the huge difference in a Criminal vs Civil case. Guilt or Innocence is not determined in a Civil case but you guys are treating this as if that is what would be determined if Rose lost the case.
CIVIL CASES
In contrast with criminal cases, in civil cases one party sues another for an injury or harm that they feel the other party has committed against them. At issue is not whether the defendant is “guilty” or “innocent,” but whether or not he or she is liable, and if so, to what degree. A liable party can be asked to pay money to the injured party, to do something (like follow through on a contract) or to not do something (like use the plaintiff’s trademark).So as long as we talk about this we should be sure to be accurate in how we talk about this. It's not right to mix the 2 things since one is MUCH more serious in terms of its significance. So if Rose is found LIABLE that's not the same thing as being found GUILTY. No matter how much someone would wish it to be the same thing.
where there is an "injured party" there is wrongdoing. while he would not be guilty of a crime, he would be liable for some form of injury (wrongdoing). in layman's terms he is "guilty" of doing something wrong or acting badly where another person claims some form of injury.
within the spectrum of injury, there is, on one end of it, slipping on the ice in front of somebody's private home where i break my elbow and they are liable. they didn't "do" anything to me but in their *neglect* of shoveling and salting they are liable. on the other end of the spectrum there is what rose allegedly did, ie an *active* drugging and assaulting sexually of a woman.
Wrong again. Skipped law school on your way to your knowitallism, I guess? There are allegations of a civil wrong. For which the accuser wants recompense. This is about money, not morality. Anyone can sue anyone for anything in America. Some might say that is the beauty of the American legal system. You do not need to prove anything to start a case.
Your kind of logic reminds me of the south in the 50s and 60s. Guy gets arrested, you vote guilty cause, 'you dont know what he did, but probably did something...why not this'. But you try and validate your use of the word guilty where it is just wrong. Plain wrong. Guilty carries a stigma with it that doesnt come from civil court. And we protect people from that stigma with the Bill of Rights. But, your half assed logic wants to skip all that. Cause it feels like guilty to you.
You want to skip the right to confront your accuser -- this plaintiff didn't want that. Or a jury of your peers. Or a fair trial. Remember this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lac...? This was about innocent and guilty. Rose's case is not that.
With all sincerity, if you don't know the facts or the law, don't post crap like this. The court of public opinion is far less forgiving than the judicial system. Don't skip the fact finding and jump from allegation to liability - like you do in your slip and fall analogy. Especially here where impressionable minds might read what you say as halfway intelligent, when you are speaking out of turn on something you do not understand. I apologize if I am calling you out, but your verdict is already in and you are trying to back it up. Let the system do its job.
I do not know if he is liable or not. But, I do know that if he is liable, he writes a check and it is over. Cause this is not about the stigma of guilt. It is about money.
okay but that is what i said.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/news/der...
ESOMKnicks wrote:Must say, the plaintiff's side is doing a very good job right now on the public perceptions front: based on the materials released to the public, I am coming to a view that Rose and his friends really did violate this woman. But we may not have the full detail yet, so the story could still turn either way.
They did violate the woman. That's not in question. She was down with the violations for years. Now she's not getting the benefits she's was getting so she wants money. That's what this is. Rose and his peeps probably cut her off. That's why these charges were filed so late. If Rose was still giving this last all the benefits he was giving her we wouldn't be hearing about this. From the court papers she said her and Rose had a relationship for a couple years. He forced her to have group sex and other things. It was all good while she was getting what she wanted. To me it's typical where shit. If you are going to play these games with these women you need to take care of them. Otherwise you leave yourself open to embarrassment. Again this is a civil case not a criminal case. That says it all