NBC chose a registered sex offender to star in their Thanksgiving NFL promo

[mercuryblues]

As a person in the world in 2017, there are many things about Lawrence Taylor that you need to know. The first is that he was arrested in May of 2010 and charged with the solicitation and rape of a 16-year-old runaway who was brought to his hotel room against her will. The age of consent in the state of New York is 17.


According to the police report at the time, the girl known as "C.F." in court had been provided a place to stay by Rasheed Davis, who served 14 years in prison for first-degree manslaughter before getting paroled in 2008. The report says that when she refused, Davis punched and kicked her and then Taylor sexually assaulted her.

The second thing you should know about Taylor is that he admitted to having sex with the girl and took a plea deal to the lesser misdemeanor charges of sexual misconduct and patronizing a prostitute in order to escape the ramifications of being found guilty to the far more serious charge of rape of a minor. He was inexplicably sentenced to six years probation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nbc-chose-a-registered-sex-offender-to-star-in-their-thanksgiving-nfl-promo/ar-BBFoIci?ocid=spartandhp

It seems to me that this is a big fuck you to women. How hard would it have been for someone to say, ahhhh. no. not a good choice to represent us and the NFL?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Un-freakin-believable!! Talk about tone deaf!!

[FSogol]

2. Maybe he's the cleanest guy they could find?

[NCTraveler]

3. Ben Rothlisberger not available? nt.

[Orrex]

4. Roethlisberger is a registered sex offender? I must have missed that.

Can't wait for your link.

[NCTraveler]

5. I didn't state that the rapist was a registered sex offender.

I'm sure his four game suspension and the suit he settled were all just a bad misunderstanding.

Rapist.

I thought the connection was really clear.

[Orrex]

6. The subject line of the OP referred to a registered sex offender

Your subject line called out Roethlisberger. You drew a clear connection, indeed.

His suspension was do to a violation of NFL policy re: personal conduct. The allegations of rape remain unproven, and Roethlisberger was not charged.


Look, I don't give a shit about Roethlisberger or the NFL. It would make no difference to me if the entire industry vanished tomorrow.

You are, however, declaring him guilty by reason of accusation. I find that questionable.

[NCTraveler]

7. The connection was clear.

He is a known rapist.

I'll say it again.

Was Roethlisberger busy. <-There is really no confusion there.

Raped a woman in March, suspended in April. Nope. No connection at all.

[Orrex]

8. He is a known *accused* rapist

You are declaring him guilty by reason of accusation.


You are free to insist that your post meant what you want it to meant, but it's not the reader's fault if your wording implies something beyond what you claim to have intended.

[NCTraveler]

9. " You are declaring him guilty by reason of accusation. "

There is more than that but I'm still willing to agree with you. There is also a settled suit making sure the victim no longer speaks. There is also the suspension one month after he raped a woman.

He is a rapist and I am not a court of law. You don't seem to understand that law bit, at all.

I'd love to hear you standing up for Trump or Moore like this.



Roethlisberger is a known rapist.

[Orrex]

10. You are drawing another silly connection

And you will no doubt pretend that the connection is clear, but what it is clear is not what you probably imagine.

You flamboyantly declare that Roethlisberger is a known rapist. When I point out that you are incorrect--that he is instead an accused rapist, you double down. Of course, you don't indicate how you "know" him to be a rapist, instead relying on your own beliefs as you compare Roethlisberger to Moore and Trump. That's a silly kneejerk reaction, but it's hardly surprising.

Do you have familiarity with Roethlisberger's cases? Your broadsides suggest that you do not.

The first was a civil suit that was settled out of court. The accuser's claims were undermined by statements that she herself made to her friend--who swore an affidavit to that effect. If this leads you to declare that Roethlisberger is a known rapist, then you are declaring him guilty by reason of a withdrawn accusation.

The terms of the sealed settlement were not disclosed. There is no indication that Roethlisberger paid the accuser, and the settlement could as readily have required that he not seek damages from her in response. The settlement is not proof nor an admission of guilt.

The second case was dropped due to lack of evidence, with no charges filed. It must be noted that the accuser did not withdraw her accusation, and also that a police officer involved with the case behaved atrociously. These facts are beyond dispute, but neither of means that Roethlisberger is guilty.

You claim that I don't "understand that law bit, at all," yet you have looked at two untried cases with little evidence and declared Roethlisberger guilty by reason of accusation. No shit you're not a court of law--and for all our sakes I am glad that you are not, given your preposterously low threshold of guilt.

As for Moore and Trump, they have a much longer history consistent with the accusations made against them. I wonder why you seek to diminish the strong claims against them by comparing them to two weak cases against Roethlisberger (both of which were closed without charges filed).

Further, you're aware that Trump is an elected official and that Moore is currently seeking election, right? I'd say that the stakes are rather higher than a six-game suspension, but as long as it lets you publicly massage your Roethlisberger hate, I guess it's all good.

[NCTraveler]

11. "that he is instead an accused rapist"

Too funny at this point. You clearly don't see the difference between the court of public opinion, and the actual court system. Roethlisberger is a known rapist.

Make sure you attack people and emphasize "accused" when talking about Trump and sexual assault. Moore as well. Please stay consistent as you passionately try to CLEAR Rothlisberg all while admitting the accusations are out there.

I get that you think Roethlisberg would be a better person in this position. I think it's pathetic to adore/fight for a known rapist. With his current track record, will you be taken back when he rapes yet again?

[Orrex]

12. Predictable.

Other than your eagerness to believe, what is your basis for "knowing" that Roethlisberger is a rapist? Do you also "know" that Franken is guilty of multiple sexual assaults?

You clearly don't see the difference between the court of public opinion, and the actual court system.

I would have thought such a simplistic statement to be beneath you, but here we are. Find one statement by me in the history of discourse in which I have equated "the court of public opinion" and "the actual court system." Since I have never made such a statement, your assertion is a preposterous straw man.

Further, it contradicts your own foolish attempt at insult in which you presumed to scold me for not understanding the law. The court of public opinion is not governed by law, so either your invocation of law was silly because it was irrelevant, or your invocation of the court of public opinion is silly because it's yet another example of your post hoc desperation to salvage your untenable point.

Roethlisberger is a known rapist.

On what basis is this "known?" Are you perhaps unfamiliar with the difference between "known" and "accused?"

Make sure you attack people and emphasize "accused" when talking about Trump and sexual assault. Moore as well.

Why the fuck should I? Are you unable to comprehend that the resolution of one case is not predicated upon the resolution of another? And you presume to lecture me?

I use the term "accused rapist" because it is accurate, in stark contrast to your repeatedly incorrect use of "known rapist."

Please stay consistent as you passionately try to CLEAR Rothlisberg all while admitting the accusations are out there.

Are you aware of an accusation that I did not cite? Please provide links to these cases, because I have a well-documented history of admitting error when I am mistaken and would be happy to amend my understanding if needed.

If, instead, you are referring to the withdrawn claim and the dismissed case, then you are basing your knowledge on hearsay, and you are presuming to lecture me for failing to accept your assertions on faith.

I get that you think Roethlisberger would be a better person in this position.

I do not think that, nor do I even understand what you mean by it. Your pattern of ill-supported claims continues, I see.

I think it's pathetic to adore/fight for a known rapist. With his current track record, will you be taken back when he rapes yet again?

I do not adore him, so your desperation has driven you to make yet another false claim. In point of fact, I haven't expressed an opinion about Roethlisberger at all, other than to "fight for" him by reviewing the facts. Why does this imply "adoration" to you? Why do you link "adore" and "fight for" as you have done?

Frankly I'm not thrilled with him, and if he were found guilty at trial then I would want him to be prosecuted to to fullest extent of the law. That is a far cry from declaring his guilt by reason of accusation as you have done, however.

Further, by "his current track record," you are of course referring to one claim that was withdrawn and another that resulted in no charges, correct?

If he were accused again, would you again assume his guilt, or would you maintain a presumption of innocence? Before you weasel your way back on the court of public opinion again, I remind you that you presumed to scold me for my failure to understand law, so we're not talking about public opinion.