Charges to be dropped against Kobe.

[Shockeye]

ABCNews is running a blurb on their website claiming that now the prosecution is also moving to have all charges against Kobe dropped. Looks like this case is over. There's still a pesky civil suit that will go away once Kobe writes a few checks, though.

(Edit) I updated the URL above with the story now on ABCNews.

[kaid]

Yup going straight to the bling bling phase. Personally after all the horrible fuckups the court did in releasing info that should not have been released on 3 or 4 instances I am so not surprised.


kaid

[Rasix]

Poor guy lost his Gnutella endorsement deal over this and shelled out 4 mill for a "oops I cheated on you" ring for his hot as hell wife.

Whether he raped the looney slut or not, this whole thing sure tarnished the image of what was once considered one of the class acts in the NBA (and now follow that up with personally destroying the Lakers... gogo Kobe).

[Shockeye]

And now it looks like Kevin Garnett is an asshole as well.

[Rasix]

And now it looks like Kevin Garnett is an asshole as well.

Anyone that goes through such an elaborate routine before he steps on the court can't be anything but an asshole.  It's like he's preparing himself for a samurai duel.

[Shockeye]

Here's a link to the MSNBC story. The prosecution wants to be able to refile the charges again at a later date. Umm.. why? Do they hope that Kobe will run out of money at some point and can't afford a dream team to defend him?

[Shockeye]

Anyone that goes through such an elaborate routine before he steps on the court can't be anything but an asshole.  It's like he's preparing himself for a samurai duel.

Doesn't Nomar touch himself all over numerous times before each at bat and each swing? Asshole.

[Pig Destroyer]

And now it looks like Kevin Garnett is an asshole as well.

What the fuck...?

[stray]

And now it looks like Kevin Garnett is an asshole as well.

What the fuck...?

There has to be more to it than what's written there. You never know, maybe the kid deserved it.

[Shockeye]

The judge has dropped the charges. It's over.

[SirBruce]

Thank God.  Now where does Kobe go to get his reputation back, his life back, and last year's NBA Championship back?  It's a terrible thing when one person can ruin another person's life simply by accusing them of something and then not sticking to it.

Bruce

[daveNYC]

Thank God.  Now where does Kobe go to get his reputation back, his life back, and last year's NBA Championship back?  It's a terrible thing when one person can ruin another person's life simply by accusing them of something and then not sticking to it.

Bruce

It was a nice troll except for the extreme stupid bit that I highlighted.

[Lakov_Sanite]

to be fair the trial probably ruined would should have been one of the greatest moments of his life, i'd say that qualifies  with the rest of that statement.

[schild]

to be fair the trial probably ruined would should have been one of the greatest moments of his life, i'd say that qualifies  with the rest of that statement.

Finishing his education? Oh...wait...

[Abagadro]

Watching that self-serving prick DA talk about justice interupted and the courage of the victim made me want to vomit.

[Alrindel]

Maybe you didn't actually read the text of his "apology": he admitted that he raped her, and justified it by saying that he didn't realize she didn't want to be raped.  More than one analyst has called it a "plea bargain without the plea".

The criminal prosecution collapsed because it was bungled at just about every level, but the forensic evidence against Bryant - who was taped by detectives lying his ass off - is pretty devastating.  If his lawyers decide not to settle the civil case, he will probably lose it, no matter how much they smear the victim as an insane, greedy whore. Assuming that one of Kobe's fans doesn't make good on hundreds of death threats she's received since the press published her name, home address and photograph.

[toma levine]

Maybe you didn't actually read the text of his "apology": he admitted that he raped her, and justified it by saying that he didn't realize she didn't want to be raped.

Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way that I did.

Hardly sounds like he's admitting rape here.

[Alrindel]

I guess that if your definition of "rape" doesn't include forcing sex on someone who doesn't want to have sex with you because you think that they really do, then for you, he didn't.  Would you accept it if someone raped you and got off because they said "well, at the time I thought he wanted it, but now I understand that he didn't.  Sorry."?  Perhaps you would.

I look forward to his testimony where he explains to a jury looking at photographs of her wounds how consensual sex caused the bloodstains on his clothes.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I guess that if your definition of "rape" doesn't include forcing sex on someone who doesn't want to have sex with you because you think that they really do, then for you, he didn't.  Would you accept it if someone raped you and got off because they said "well, at the time I thought he wanted it, but now I understand that he didn't.  Sorry."?  Perhaps you would.

I look forward to his testimony where he explains to a jury looking at photographs of her wounds how consensual sex caused the bloodstains on his clothes.

Are you that mentally challenged or are you putting us on?  He says in the statement that he STILL believes it was a consentual encounter and that she has a different memory of it.  How is that in any way an admittance of guilt or even an apology? if anything he's sorry that his life ever came to this.

I'm not saying who's innocent or guilty because i don't have the time to give a shit but you've oviously made up your mind what side of the case you are on and frankly i'm sick of people who are so colored by their opinions that they can't even read a statement without seeing it as a secret message damning that person.

maybe it's just your schools, maybe things like reading comprehension and common sense are beyond you but for whatever reason, you contribute nothing to this conversation and i'd hazard a guess to any others as well.  So please, stop posting for all of us.

[Dren]

I was in the jury for a rape trial here locally.  Not fun.

Essentially, to prove to ourselves that there was no reasonable doubt that the guy did force himself on the young girl, we had to know that she said "No" and he heard "No."

Now, that is damned hard to prove when it is a he said, she said bit.  It was in a car away from a party that was going on.  They both were high on crank.  She admitted this.  Neither of them had what I would call, highly reputable backgrounds, but that really doesn't matter either.

We had to know for sure that he understood he was raping her at the time (having sex with her without her consent.)  Now, his defense was that he was "Not Guilty."  That's it.  No story of his own at all.

We were instructed that he does not have to prove his innocence.  He didn't take the stand.  He didn't give any other opinion of the night in question.  Nothing.  It was very difficult.

However, the young girl got in touch with a smart detective the day after the incident and he instructed her to tape her phone conversations with this guy.  She basically had him on tape admitting that she said stop and that she didn't want to have sex. (He was a friend of a friend so they knew each other quite well.)  He even goes on to ask her not to call the cops, etc.

Up until we heard the tape (which was admitted as evidence,) we would have let the guy off because there was just her word against his "Not Guilty."  Well, needless to say, we found him guilty by his own admission. Don't ask me why he even pleaded not guilty.  I still ponder that to this day.  He had to have known he was busted.

/boggle

Now to the relevance of this case.  It doesn't matter that there was blood or if he/she said it was rough.  It all comes down to whether she said "NO" and that it was in a way that he understood that she wanted the act to stop.  If nobody else is there to hear/see the act, then it is her word against his.  

Now the blood and bruises could be entered into a charge of assault, but it doesn't prove that he forced sex upon her.  Even then, it will be hard to prove that he was the one that made the injuries.

I'm not saying he's guilty or not, but just realize that in these cases, it is very difficult to make a judgement beyond a reasonable doubt when one party is obviously not telling the truth about a matter that is usually done behind closed doors.

[Alrindel]

maybe it's just your schools, maybe things like reading comprehension and common sense are beyond you but for whatever reason, you contribute nothing to this conversation and i'd hazard a guess to any others as well.  So please, stop posting for all of us.

If you don't understand the text of Bryant's statement, ask a grown-up to explain it to you - don't project your lack of reading skills onto me.

[Paelos]

In a dumbed down way he said, I thought she wanted it, I still think that was the deal, but I realize that is was a sketchy situation.

If there was any doubt in his mind he should have backed off, but he's an NBA star, which automatically decreases IQ by at least 30 points. Still, there's no admission there. That's basically the equivilant of restating the he said/she said argument in PC terms.

[Dark Vengeance]

The DA stated that the case was reluctantly dropped because the accuser refused to testify. Not surprising given the defense strategy of putting her sexual and medical history on trial, their attempts at making an end-run around rape shield laws, and the convenient leaking of the accusers personal information to the media.

Plus, given his resources, already mildly-tarnished reputation, and his superstar lawyers, I think she just decided to go for the civil trial (and/or a nice out-of-court settlement) take her boatload of cash, and live comfortably for the rest of her life.

Kobe spent $4M on a ring for his wife....the apology he issued looks to me like he may try to settle the civil trial out of court. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he throws a couple million at her just to put this behind him.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Dren]

If she doesn't take the stand, the judge has no option.  The case is over, no question.  She has to prove his guilt.  He doesn't have to prove his innocence.

As to his apology, it is basically he said, she said.  He says she didn't let him know she didn't want the sex after it was done.  That is not rape.  I'm guessing she is saying that she let him know this before or during the sex and he ignored her.  That is rape.  We'll never know what she is saying.  She didn't take the stand.

Just knowing that you don't want to have sex and not stating in a way that your partner understands this is not rape.  Unfortunately, it IS the responsibility of the person being raped to SAY they do not want to have sex or be touched or be undressed, etc.  If a person says nothing and lets it happen and then says it was wrong later, they have just done themselves a injustice.

Now he may be lieing, but I read his statement as "If she didn't like what happened, she never told me.  I thought it was consensual.  She obviously thought otherwise."  It is not just about what he said and what she said.  It is about what he thought and what she thought.  How do you prove it one way or another?  That's the problem.

[Alluvian]

I have not read the full statement, but the quoted blurb here is NOT admitting to rape.  His statement says that he still believes that he had consentual sex that night, and that she disagrees.

If you have sex with someone, rough sex, gentle sex, whatever.  The next morning if the girl says she didn't want to have sex, you are not instantly a rapist.  Even if she convinces you that she was not into it after the fact you are still not a rapist.  Only if you knew she did not want it during or before the act are you a rapist.

Lets look at this example of rough sex.  She could have been screaming.  Is that a universal sign to stop sex?  If it is, everyone who has ever had vigorous sex is a rapist.  Hell, I would have raped my wife many times.  If she later says something like "I was yelling!  I wanted you to stop."  It does not make you a rapist unless you understood that meaning at the time.   If she said NO, then things change completely.  But that is he said / she said.

[Dren]

I have not read the full statement, but the quoted blurb here is NOT admitting to rape.  His statement says that he still believes that he had consentual sex that night, and that she disagrees.

If you have sex with someone, rough sex, gentle sex, whatever.  The next morning if the girl says she didn't want to have sex, you are not instantly a rapist.  Even if she convinces you that she was not into it after the fact you are still not a rapist.  Only if you knew she did not want it during or before the act are you a rapist.

Lets look at this example of rough sex.  She could have been screaming.  Is that a universal sign to stop sex?  If it is, everyone who has ever had vigorous sex is a rapist.  Hell, I would have raped my wife many times.  If she later says something like "I was yelling!  I wanted you to stop."  It does not make you a rapist unless you understood that meaning at the time.   If she said NO, then things change completely.  But that is he said / she said.

Exactly.  It should probabbly be one of the first things little girls (and probably boys now too) should learn is to try and stay calm if being attacked and plainly and clearly state that you do not want to be attacked with words like NO or Please Stop.  This shouldn't just be said once, but multiple times until the attack stops.

Screaming, hitting, scratching, etc. are not indications for wanting it to stop.  Verbal commands have to be made.  It is the only way to be sure that the distinction between "rough" sex and rape is made.  It is sad, but true none-the-less.

[Abagadro]

That statement has absolutely nothing to do with Kobe. I doubt he ever even read it before signing it. It was written by the lawyers.  

I'll translate it out of lawyer-speak: "You're crazy, but I'm getting rid of the risk of going to jail for 20 years, so I'll say you honestly 'think' you didn't consent when I know damn well you did."

[Alluvian]

I'll translate it out of lawyer-speak: "You're crazy, but I'm getting rid of the risk of going to jail for 20 years, so I'll say you honestly 'think' you didn't consent when I know damn well you did."

Haha, good translation.  I attempted to do a similar thing myself but the words failed me and I deleted the paragraph.  This is the spirit of what I believe the 'legal' meaning of the statement is as well.

[Abagadro]

Hey, I didn't become a law-talking-guy for nothin.

[Paelos]

Hey, I didn't become a law-talking-guy for nothin.

Mr. Hutz are you not wearing any pants?

[Dren]

Hey, I didn't become a law-talking-guy for nothin.

Mr. Hutz are you not wearing any pants?

Best law-talking-guy evar!

[Abagadro]

I rest my case.


You rest your case?


Oh, I thought that was just a figure of speach. Case closed.

[Paelos]

Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

[HaemishM]

Kobe is a fucking idiot, but nothing I ever heard or saw about this bunglefuck of a case made me think he really raped the girl. Overconfident and cocky? Sure. He had sex with 19-year old girl while out of town away from his wife and kids, then got busted for it. His statement wasn't saying he was guilty, he was saying that obviously their opinions on what happened that night differed. Nobody knows for sure what happened but those two.

The fact that she can sue him in civil court when he's not being tried in criminal court just tells me that SHE did an end-around the whole double jeapordy part of the Constitution, just like Nicole Brown-Simpson's parents did. No matter what I think of Bryant personally, I have never quite been comfortable with that kind of deliberate attempt to punish someone for a crime after the justice system has found the accused innocent.

I'm just glad this shit won't be on my goddamn television too much longer.

[SirBruce]

And as for your case, don't you worry. I've argued in front of every judge in the state.  Often as a lawyer!

Bruce