Comments Thread For: Victor Ortiz, Days Before Fight, Charged With Sexual Assault

[bigjer88]

Scott Petersen is sitting on Death Row without any real evidence he committed the crime. It's all heresay and circumstantial.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Of all the examples you could use to make your point, you choose Scott Peterson?

[Navalny20!8]

I hear you. I also hate how people are being convicted before they even go to trial.

There is a big push to believe women just because they say so. Any other crime has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Right now if you get accused you can lose everything before you even go to court/

Unfortunately, nowadays men can be accused of sexual assault and have their lives ruined without any evidence. We’ll see if this ever makes its way to trial

In California all you have to do is ask a girl for her phone number and your charged with ****. This Me 2 Shame needs to go it’s going to turn everyone g@y cause everyone will be afraid to ask a girl out than be charged with **** or go through what Kavanaugh is going through

Im just calling you out for your gay joke. I like Ortiz the fighter but i could care less what he does outside the ring.

Ortiz is a successful young man and so am I. So I understand how hoes approach you when they smell money.

He is innocent until proven otherwise. You gossiping like a hoe and jumping to conclusion

In California all you have to do is go on a date and your paying child support for a kid not even yours.

As a Russian man who has lived all over the world and is currently residing in the West, I agree with all of the above. I am a fairly ******* person, but the regressive leftists/3rd wave feminists/social justice warriors in the West have gone completely insane.

I know multiple men whose lives have been ruined by lying and vengeful western women who made up stories about sexual assault. In all of those cases, the women did not spend a single day in jail. The falsely accused men, on the other hand, lost friends, jobs, and had to rebuild their lives. Furthermore, they still sometimes receive threats from feminists, despite the fact that women who accused them admitted to lying.

This is insanity. The fact that so many people cannot see it is mind-boggling. You western leftists keep living in your echo chambers and are completely oblivious to what you are doing. You scream "treat women as equals", while, at the same time, demanding that women be granted special privileges. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I would suggest everyone, yes



to read "The Feminist Lie: It Was Never About Equality" by Bob Lewis. It is a good starting point in understanding how the West ended up where it is now.

[PunchyPotorff]

Geez, this guy is nuckin' futs.

Here's an idea for a promotion.... get Ortiz, Billy Joe Saunders and Bonehead Broner on a fight card. Call it The Three Stooges.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Of all the examples you could use to make your point, you choose Scott Peterson?

His is the case that best shows that it's no longer about hard, decisive evidence.

[bigjer88]

His is the case that best shows that it's no longer about hard, decisive evidence.

I get the feeling that you're using the phrase "circumstantial evidence" loosely, without really understanding what it means. Without circumstantial evidence, you'd have to catch someone in the act or get a confession to convict. Any time there are no living witnesses to the criminal act, all that's left is circumstantial evidence. Put enough circumstantial evidence together, you can draw compelling inferences to surpass the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. Sheeeuttt...DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence.

You related to Scott Peterson or something?

[Combat Talk Radio]

Without circumstantial evidence, you'd have to catch someone in the act or get a confession to convict. Any time there are no living witnesses to the criminal act, all that's left is circumstantial evidence. Put enough circumstantial evidence together, you can draw compelling inferences to surpass the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold.

Then explain why OJ didn't go to jail for murder?

Explain why we to this day don't know who killed JonBenet Ramsey - despite tons of ACTUAL evidence that the mother was at least involved?

Explain why G-Dep had to turn his damn self in because the law had no clue whatsoever who committed the murder?

Explain why it took a cable TV show to solve the murder of Tupac?


I'll tell you why. Because the jury can't always be trusted to render the correct decision - they're human, they're emotional, they're triggered by non-facts. So since Lacey was pregnant, they figured they had to throw the book at the guy - with no real proof he did it.

I'm not saying he didn't, I'm saying there's no proof - so to say that you're protected or "innocent until proven guilty" is BS. That's all I'm saying

[McNulty]

The 31-year-old pugilist is charged with forcible ****, forcible oral copulation and forcible digital penetration.

I have my doubts based on the charges.

[bigjer88]

Then explain why OJ didn't go to jail for murder?

Explain why we to this day don't know who killed JonBenet Ramsey - despite tons of ACTUAL evidence that the mother was at least involved?

Explain why G-Dep had to turn his damn self in because the law had no clue whatsoever who committed the murder?

Explain why it took a cable TV show to solve the murder of Tupac?


I'll tell you why. Because the jury can't always be trusted to render the correct decision - they're human, they're emotional, they're triggered by non-facts. So since Lacey was pregnant, they figured they had to throw the book at the guy - with no real proof he did it.

I'm not saying he didn't, I'm saying there's no proof - so to say that you're protected or "innocent until proven guilty" is BS. That's all I'm saying

Do you know what the word "can" means?

If all you're saying is that justice is imperfect...then no *****. But without the use of circumstantial evidence..then, like I said, you'd basically have to catch someone in the act or get a confession to have a conviction. Is that what you'd prefer?

[Combat Talk Radio]

But without the use of circumstantial evidence..then, like I said, you'd basically have to catch someone in the act or get a confession to have a conviction. Is that what you'd prefer?

That's exactly what I prefer. Proof. Definitive, irrefutable proof.

That's why this whole #MeToo garbage and the #BlackLivesMatter nonsense got out of hand - because there's too much deviation from the time honored tradition of innocent until proven guilty.

That guy who shot the girl through the wall of her house. They matched the bullet to the gun, his friends ratted him out, they got the clothes - there was NO way he was getting off.

Jodi Arias. DEFINITIVE proof she did it.


That's what we need to get back to. Not a bunch of heresay and circumstantial - HARD evidence of a crime. If you don't have it, you don't even bring a case because it's a waste of taxpayer money.

[bigjer88]

That's exactly what I prefer. Proof. Definitive, irrefutable proof.

That's why this whole #MeToo garbage and the #BlackLivesMatter nonsense got out of hand - because there's too much deviation from the time honored tradition of innocent until proven guilty.

That guy who shot the girl through the wall of her house. They matched the bullet to the gun, his friends ratted him out, they got the clothes - there was NO way he was getting off.

Jodi Arias. DEFINITIVE proof she did it.


That's what we need to get back to. Not a bunch of heresay and circumstantial - HARD evidence of a crime. If you don't have it, you don't even bring a case because it's a waste of taxpayer money.

I get your point, but no judicial system has ever, in the history of mankind, successfully implemented the standard (of certainty) you're shooting for. That's because, as you acknowledge, humans are imperfect...and the judicial system is a product of humanity. It's not a system where you plug in your pieces of evidence (both direct and circumstantial) and an algorithm determines whether charges are warranted. It requires judgment and inference.

When you say that we need to "get back" to a time when the presumption of innocence actually meant what you think it means, I really don't know what point in history you're referring to.