Just wow...really?
LEARN TO READ:
This is what we are talking about. Do I need to fucking spell it out better for y'all?
This one point has nada to do with Rapistburger forcing himself on the girl, her age is completely irrelevant because she is of legal fucking age; however, she is not of legal drinking age.
We clear now?
Edit: Roy bet me, but still...ffs read.
You're not understanding my point though. If RAPISTBURGER was brought to court, and the Lawyers asked him why she was drinking, he can't play the "I DIDN'T KNOW" card because HE. FUCKED. HER.
WHY WOULD HE SAY THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW HER AGE AND RISK LOOKING LIKE AN IDIOT THAT WOULD FUCK A GIRL THAT COULD BE UNDER 18.
dumb alibi is still dumb
You sir are and idiot.
I don't know all the ages of bitches I fuck.
Don't be such a Qalbert.
but "I don't know brah she looked old" isn't nullified when HE HAD SEX WITH HER. Let me break this down for you:
Her not being 21 wasn't any of his business if all they did was drink. But that obviously wasn't the case because he took her to the bathroom.
Lawyers could ask him what he was doing alone with a drunk chick who was under drinking age.
If he simply said "I didn't know her age" he would only look more irresponsible for taking her to a bathroom and fucking her.
HER AGE DOESN'T ABSOLVE HIM FROM ANYTHING, it just makes him look more dumb for not even asking, and that shit just wouldn't fly in court.
This is why I replied earlier saying that playing the "i didn't know card" would be stupid for him.
Yes, if your in a bar, the assumption of she is over 21 would fly in court. Now if you picked her up and stuck it in her in a mcdonalds bathroom, then it would not fly. Location is key on this.
So to sum this up. Things Rapistburger can be nailed for.
1. Sex with a girl in a bar. Even if he's not charged, it doesn't make the NFL look good that it's star players are having sex in public.
2. Supposed assault in another location that the investigation/lawsuit is still ongoing. NFL see's a pattern, will discipline to deter further abuse. hi2u pacman.
Things he can't be nailed on:
1. A bar letting a 20yo in and allowing her to drink.
Good God, you are fucking retarded.
She's 20, Ben could very well make the assumption she was 21 for being at a bar, and yes, had she actually been 14 or some shit, then yes he is screwed.
HOWEVER, that is a non-issue, she's 20. This has been established. I don't know why the fuck you are saying "but she could've been 18", yes she could've been, but she wasn't.
Let's recap: Roy and I were talking about underage drinking and Ben possibly facing charges for that. Ben can easily pass the buck to the bar owners/security on that fact alone.
This small aside discussion that we were having has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, to do with Ben being fucking retarded for not covering his ass and making sure she was over 18.
Plus, let's say right before he raped her, he said "oh hay, btw, you are over 18 right?" And she answers yes, guess what, AGAIN he has no frame of reference for her being under 21.
I cannot believe I am having to explain this again...
do I get a cookie?
yummy. Thanks
But we're not talking about the "I didn't know card" and we're specifically talking about underage drinking. The report said he bought her a drink, thus supplying an alcoholic beverage to a minor. I asked why this wasn't mentioned in any of the reports. Stiker said that it wouldn't matter because it is the bar's responsibility to make sure that it's patrons are drinking legally, not a person that buys her a drink.
In other words... If a guy is in a 21+ club and buys a few drinks for 19 year olds, but nothing winds up happening (no alleged raped), would it be possible him to be charged with supplying alcohol to minors. To which the answer would be no because it would be the club's fault for allowing minors in.