Posted on 12/18/2007 11:12:12 AM PST by Locomotive Breath
That's not what's being done here. Several people tried to create evidence in order to help the lying stripper create a case against the men.
That is a fantastic point.
Would you feel sorry for him if he did?
Of course. A bus would have to have gone awfully out of its way to hit someone on the train tracks.
That was the DA, police chief, and DNA lab.
This is about suing a whole list of people, to include professors at the school and others.
“Duke University, the City of Durham, Duke University professors, Mike Nifong and the DNA lab involved in the case. The suit also names doctors and nurses who treated the alleged victim the night she claimed she’d been raped at a party. The players are also suing City Manager Patrick Baker and former Durham Police Chief Stephen Chalmers. As part of the investigation, the unindicted players had to give up DNA samples and were named in the school paper. “
My point is that these students should NOT have their legal rights taken away, BUT that I have no sympathy for their lawsuit against those who weren’t actually part of the case.....who simply believed negative things that resulted from their lacking-common-sense stripper/ho party.
What makes you think they “believed” it? The reasons for pursuing these people have been well documented.
Have you followed the case?
Asking you again to supply at least two names to back your statement. If you can't do so, then would you retract it?
And, who do they want to sue? Why, people who believed a liar...
Asking again: What is the justification for your claim that the defendants actually believed her story?
That's quite a qualifier you just added. Does that mean you do have sympathy for their lawsuit against those who were part of the case?
If you don't care for the lax players, fine. But why would you NOT back the effort to shine the light on a cesspool of racist, left-wing corruption?
Whose malfeasance are you referencing?
The lawsuit may be the only opportunity to uncover the full extent of the criminality involved.
What crimes did Duke University commit?
But why would you NOT back the effort to shine the light on a cesspool of racist, left-wing corruption?
Are you talking about Durham County prosecutor's office or Duke University?
Have you read the lawsuit?
The defendants.
What crimes did Duke University commit?
There are documented allegations in the suit against a nurse who worked at DUMC, for example. There may be federal privacy violations on Duke's part.
At this point, discovery in a civil suit looks like the best and possibly only opportunity to uncover the facts. That would be a good thing to have happen, right?
Are you talking about Durham County prosecutor's office or Duke University?
The cesspool of racist, left-wing corruption refers to both. Discovery in a civil suit would certainly shine a light on them, yes?
So I ask again: Why would you NOT be supportive of such an effort?
Because people in America are just too damned sue happy. I notice these guys didn't bother to sue the hooker they hired. Why not? Because she doesn't have deep pockets. These greedy little bastards are going for the big bucks. Maybe they deserve some compensation, but they don't deserve to get rich off their stupid stripper party. And they really don't deserve to get rich off anybody who was not directly tied to the prosecution, either the DA or the Hooker.
I only wish we had a "loser pays" system here in the US. It would likely prevent dragging in everybody and their mother into lawsuits simply because there is a deep pocket to pick. These stupid guys might think twice about bringing in the University if they thought that by doing so, they might just jeopardize their suit against the County and the DA's office. In a loser pays situation, if they got millions from the County, but lost to the University, the University could end up with everything they got from the county if they were unable to prove their case against the University.
Instead, these guys risk nothing by suing everyone. That, my friend, is wrong.
Do I have sympathy for these guys? Maybe before I chimed in on this thread. Based upon the vitriol expressed by their defenders, I hope they get a verdict like the one in "QB VII" (great movie).... "Yeah, you guys were wronged.... here's your dollar. Don't spend it all in one place."
It’s not a qualification. I’ve always supported the preservation of their legal rights. I’ve always supported the campaign against Nifong and corrupt prosecution.
I’ve said that I could care less, though, if they manage to win a lawsuit against those who simply piled on based on reports they heard. If you play with fire, some day you’re gonna get burned. If you play with stripper/ho’s, then some day you’re gonna get burned.
If you take the risk, and you get burned, then I don’t care if you win a lawsuit against peripheral folks.
Sue Nifong...fine. Sue Professor Quigley...I don’t care.
What was Duke University’s crime?
That they fired the coach? That they ended the lacrosse season? That their professors believed newspaper accounts? That they supported the ho’s rape accusation?
Which of those is illegal? I don’t think any of them are.
I don’t think it’s illegal to publish the name of an accused who’s over 18 years old.
You can fire a coach and end a season for having a stripper/ho party. It’s probably a bit extreme to do so, but Duke would be on fairly solid ground with that one, and their argument would only have to be based on the reputation of the university. (The rape charges are not even necessary to make the case, but they certainly didn’t help the PR department.)
I have no love for the school, but if these players lose their brain-dead-stripper-ho lawsuit, then I’ll not cry over it. If you wallow with pigs.....
If someone illegally released someone’s medical info, then, by all means, go after them. If someone reported a police fact that potential suspects were tested, I’m unsure why that’s different than saying they were in a lineup.
see #297
Shame on you for enabling that left-wing, racist cesspool.
You keep mentioning these peripheral players in the lawsuit who believed the accuser.
What are their names, and - for the third time - what is your justification for claiming that they believed the accuser's story?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.