Figueroa's Instagram Post

[CaneSince4Ever]

I'm just gonna sit back and watch the learned db305 attempt to explain why he cited that statute to support his proposition. This should be entertaining.

please, feel free to refute anything that i've said. from my very rudimentary knowledge of the law, it boils down to this:

1. figs and blue were 20 at the time of the incident and the girl was 17, so they were ok under florida law to have consensual *** with her because of the provision built in allowing adults to have *** with minors within a specified range.

2. they admitted to the police that they got her drunk and had *** with her. this admission was after they were read their miranda rights, so those statements made are fully admissible in court.

3. because she was drunk, she could no longer give consent in the eyes of the law, which scraps the underage provision that would have covered them.

Agree with #1.

#2...ehhhhhh.

#3...I think that's where our disagreement stems. None of those statutes say anything about inebriation scrapping "the underage provision". Again, per the arrest affidavit, they were both charged with sexual assault, & one of em' was charged with having a fake ID. The only mention the arrest affidavit makes of age, is where they say "The Victim is 17 years of age." Doesn't say anything about underage in that affidavit.

https://cmgpbpcaneswatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/blue-figueroa-arrests.pdf

 

[dookie blaylock]

It must have been a great confession for the State to offer PTI on a rape charge, especially considering the particular prosecutor's reputation.

The girl didn't want to testify.


The reason for the deal: the victim, also a campus athlete, did not want to undergo the “devastating” experience of testifying, prosecutor Laura Adams told a judge Wednesday

UM football players JaWand Blue, Alexander Figueroa charged with sexual battery

“The victim in this case, although never wavering from her insistence that the defendants sexually assaulted her against her will, did not believe it would be in her best interest to have to undergo the type of questioning [and] cross-examination that would essentially amount to an attack on her character should the case go to trial,” Adams wrote in a final memo on the case. “She very much wanted to put this matter behind her, and focu

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article3583495.html#storylink=cpy

But what about this rock solid "confession" and everyone who witnessed it? Why didn't they offer them a plea that required them to admit guilt as an alternative? PTI for rape charges is pretty extreme, pointing to the fact that not only did the AV not want to testify (which is likely bull****), but that the case was complete **** in every other aspect.

I believe in the original police report they admitted to tag teaming an unconscious 17 year old girl. They also admitted to buying her several drinks, and admitted they had knowledge that she had taken drugs. What can the school do at that point?

What exactly would you had done if you ran the athletic department/university?

Reinstating them after the fact could bring media scrutiny. The fact they got PTI doesn't mean they were innocent.

Most schools automatically suspend players charged with felonies. Given the hysteria in the media and the White House over sexual assaults on campus. 60+ schools are under title XI investigations, and with the hysteria around FSU at the time, the university had no options.

UF suspended Harris without him even being charged, mostly because they saw the ****storm FSU was under.

Exactly.

We can hate Golden all we want, but this one was out of his hands. There was no way UM was going to allow him to dictate what happened here after the police report and all of the similar BS going on at other universities. We can probably thank Rapist Winston and the pathetic handling of his case by Trailerhassee PD and F$U for the snap decision by UM in this one.

UM

if you replaced figs' and blue's names with "winston," this thread would look like ******* warchant coming out to defend a rapist.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

Reading 8 pages of people trying to tell lawyers what the law means is pretty interesting.

It's crazy.

 

[dookie blaylock]

I'm just gonna sit back and watch the learned db305 attempt to explain why he cited that statute to support his proposition. This should be entertaining.

please, feel free to refute anything that i've said. from my very rudimentary knowledge of the law, it boils down to this:

1. figs and blue were 20 at the time of the incident and the girl was 17, so they were ok under florida law to have consensual *** with her because of the provision built in allowing adults to have *** with minors within a specified range.

2. they admitted to the police that they got her drunk and had *** with her. this admission was after they were read their miranda rights, so those statements made are fully admissible in court.

3. because she was drunk, she could no longer give consent in the eyes of the law, which scraps the underage provision that would have covered them.

Agree with #1.

#2...ehhhhhh.

#3...I think that's where our disagreement stems. None of those statutes say anything about inebriation scrapping "the underage provision". Again, per the arrest affidavit, they were both charged with sexual assault, & one of em' was charged with having a fake ID. The only mention the arrest affidavit makes of age, is where they say "The Victim is 17 years of age." Doesn't say anything about underage in that affidavit.

https://cmgpbpcaneswatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/blue-figueroa-arrests.pdf

for #2 about statements being made post-miranda, look at the documents you linked on the 3rd paragraph. to my understanding, after miranda rights are given, the prosecution can admit anything you say.

on #3, if i'm wrong, this is where i'd also like some clarification because legalese can be weird. the law says that you can have consensual *** with a minor if you're both within a certain age range. the law says that you cannot get consent from someone that is intoxicated. so to my understanding, if you have *** with an intoxicated minor, the *** cannot be consensual no matter what in the eyes of the law.

if there's any lawyers on here that can clear this up, it would be great because i'd rather know how this works than assume.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

I'm just gonna sit back and watch the learned db305 attempt to explain why he cited that statute to support his proposition. This should be entertaining.

please, feel free to refute anything that i've said. from my very rudimentary knowledge of the law, it boils down to this:

1. figs and blue were 20 at the time of the incident and the girl was 17, so they were ok under florida law to have consensual *** with her because of the provision built in allowing adults to have *** with minors within a specified range.

2. they admitted to the police that they got her drunk and had *** with her. this admission was after they were read their miranda rights, so those statements made are fully admissible in court.

3. because she was drunk, she could no longer give consent in the eyes of the law, which scraps the underage provision that would have covered them.

Agree with #1.

#2...ehhhhhh.

#3...I think that's where our disagreement stems. None of those statutes say anything about inebriation scrapping "the underage provision". Again, per the arrest affidavit, they were both charged with sexual assault, & one of em' was charged with having a fake ID. The only mention the arrest affidavit makes of age, is where they say "The Victim is 17 years of age." Doesn't say anything about underage in that affidavit.

https://cmgpbpcaneswatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/blue-figueroa-arrests.pdf

for #2 about statements being made post-miranda, look at the documents you linked on the 3rd paragraph. to my understanding, after miranda rights are given, the prosecution can admit anything you say.

on #3, if i'm wrong, this is where i'd also like some clarification because legalese can be weird. the law says that you can have consensual *** with a minor if you're both within a certain age range. the law says that you cannot get consent from someone that is intoxicated. so to my understanding, if you have *** with an intoxicated minor, the *** cannot be consensual no matter what in the eyes of the law.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the 5th Amendment other than what you have watched on Cops.

As for the other part...why don't you look up some case law to interpret the statute and all of this "legalese." Report back to us with a good case (preferably from the 3rd) and tell us what ya find.

 

[dookie blaylock]

I'm just gonna sit back and watch the learned db305 attempt to explain why he cited that statute to support his proposition. This should be entertaining.

please, feel free to refute anything that i've said. from my very rudimentary knowledge of the law, it boils down to this:

1. figs and blue were 20 at the time of the incident and the girl was 17, so they were ok under florida law to have consensual *** with her because of the provision built in allowing adults to have *** with minors within a specified range.

2. they admitted to the police that they got her drunk and had *** with her. this admission was after they were read their miranda rights, so those statements made are fully admissible in court.

3. because she was drunk, she could no longer give consent in the eyes of the law, which scraps the underage provision that would have covered them.

Agree with #1.

#2...ehhhhhh.

#3...I think that's where our disagreement stems. None of those statutes say anything about inebriation scrapping "the underage provision". Again, per the arrest affidavit, they were both charged with sexual assault, & one of em' was charged with having a fake ID. The only mention the arrest affidavit makes of age, is where they say "The Victim is 17 years of age." Doesn't say anything about underage in that affidavit.

https://cmgpbpcaneswatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/blue-figueroa-arrests.pdf

for #2 about statements being made post-miranda, look at the documents you linked on the 3rd paragraph. to my understanding, after miranda rights are given, the prosecution can admit anything you say.

on #3, if i'm wrong, this is where i'd also like some clarification because legalese can be weird. the law says that you can have consensual *** with a minor if you're both within a certain age range. the law says that you cannot get consent from someone that is intoxicated. so to my understanding, if you have *** with an intoxicated minor, the *** cannot be consensual no matter what in the eyes of the law.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the 5th Amendment other than what you have watched on Cops.

so instead of being a ****, why don't you explain it? they voluntarily went into the police station, were given their mirandas, and then admitted to getting her drunk and having *** with her. had it gone to trial, how would that not be admissible in court?

seriously, if you cited something and it proved me wrong, i would fully accept being wrong and eat crow.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

on #3, if i'm wrong, this is where i'd also like some clarification because legalese can be weird. the law says that you can have consensual *** with a minor if you're both within a certain age range. the law says that you cannot get consent from someone that is intoxicated. so to my understanding, if you have *** with an intoxicated minor, the *** cannot be consensual no matter what in the eyes of the law.

The only statute that you posted that said anything about alcohol, was C in this one:

"794.011 Sexual battery.—

(1) As used in this chapter:
(a) “Consent” means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. “Consent” shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.
(c) “Mentally incapacitated” means temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling a person’s own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered without his or her consent or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent."

But if you read C carefully, it says..."due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered without his or her consent." And that's what I said in one of my prior posts, it came down to whether they slipped a drug in her drink, that incapacitated her to where she was "physically helpless to resist."

Again, that statute says nothing about inebriation nullifying the fact it would've been legal if it was consensual.

 

[dookie blaylock]

on #3, if i'm wrong, this is where i'd also like some clarification because legalese can be weird. the law says that you can have consensual *** with a minor if you're both within a certain age range. the law says that you cannot get consent from someone that is intoxicated. so to my understanding, if you have *** with an intoxicated minor, the *** cannot be consensual no matter what in the eyes of the law.

The only statute that you posted that said anything about alcohol, was C in this one:

"794.011 Sexual battery.—

(1) As used in this chapter:
(a) “Consent” means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. “Consent” shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.
(c) “Mentally incapacitated” means temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling a person’s own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered without his or her consent or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent."

But if you read C carefully, it says..."due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance administered without his or her consent. Again, that statute says nothing about inebriation nullifying the fact it would've been legal if it was consensual.

and i totally missed that, so you may be right. good catch.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

please, feel free to refute anything that i've said. from my very rudimentary knowledge of the law, it boils down to this:

1. figs and blue were 20 at the time of the incident and the girl was 17, so they were ok under florida law to have consensual *** with her because of the provision built in allowing adults to have *** with minors within a specified range.

2. they admitted to the police that they got her drunk and had *** with her. this admission was after they were read their miranda rights, so those statements made are fully admissible in court.

3. because she was drunk, she could no longer give consent in the eyes of the law, which scraps the underage provision that would have covered them.

Agree with #1.

#2...ehhhhhh.

#3...I think that's where our disagreement stems. None of those statutes say anything about inebriation scrapping "the underage provision". Again, per the arrest affidavit, they were both charged with sexual assault, & one of em' was charged with having a fake ID. The only mention the arrest affidavit makes of age, is where they say "The Victim is 17 years of age." Doesn't say anything about underage in that affidavit.

https://cmgpbpcaneswatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/blue-figueroa-arrests.pdf

for #2 about statements being made post-miranda, look at the documents you linked on the 3rd paragraph. to my understanding, after miranda rights are given, the prosecution can admit anything you say.

on #3, if i'm wrong, this is where i'd also like some clarification because legalese can be weird. the law says that you can have consensual *** with a minor if you're both within a certain age range. the law says that you cannot get consent from someone that is intoxicated. so to my understanding, if you have *** with an intoxicated minor, the *** cannot be consensual no matter what in the eyes of the law.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the 5th Amendment other than what you have watched on Cops.

so instead of being a ****, why don't you explain it? they voluntarily went into the police station, were given their mirandas, and then admitted to getting her drunk and having *** with her. had it gone to trial, how would that not be admissible in court?

seriously, if you cited something and it proved me wrong, i would fully accept being wrong and eat crow.

Miranda only helps a defendant know of their rights but it does not ensure that their rights are actually protected. Regardless of Miranda, the voluntariness standard always applies to the 5th Amendment. If I am read Miranda, and the police proceed to beat the **** out of me or (no I am not saying that this occurred in this case) to get me to say something, then that statement is not coming in no matter if they mirandized me 100 times.

 

[The Franchise]

everyone here is arguing over legal technicalities but leaving out the fact that the girl wasn't old enough to buy cigarettes at the time of this happening.

She was 17 or 18. You guys act like she was 10 and the guys she was banging were 30. The age difference between the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrators was only a couple years.

so you're saying that as long as there's only a small difference in age, there's nothing wrong with giving someone that's under the age of consent alcohol or drugs and having *** with them while they're under the influence. that's not even legal with someone that's 21 years old.

christ this board has gone to ****. you ******* idiots will stoop to any level to discredit the school, even when they do what any other reasonable university would do. sexual assault and title ix are being policed so hard across the country that there is no other choice anymore.

Some of you cats are easy marks. As soon as you read something in a newspaper or a police report you automatically assume it's true.

Of course, if they drugged and raped her it's rape. It's much more likely that they were all drinking together and maybe popping pills and they boned.

I doubt that they drugged her, raped her unconscious lifeless body and then got PTI. It's much more likely they banged this chick before and something weird happened this time that made her call the cops.

 

[The Franchise]

everyone here is arguing over legal technicalities but leaving out the fact that the girl wasn't old enough to buy cigarettes at the time of this happening.

Since the last person I asked failed to articulate it, let's see if you can. What legal "technicalities" are we arguing about?

We get it Mr. Dershowitz. You are saying they received PTI for a violent *** crime, which is very unusual, since violent crimes aren't even eligible for PTI. So you are rationalizing that they must be innocent. The legal "technicalities" Dont change the fact that keeping them on the team creates an ugly story and a guaranteed Title XI lawsuit.

They bought drinks and tag teamed an unconscious 17 year old student, with knowledge she took Xanax, Molly or whatever. Maybe she "wanted" it, but who are you to know for sure?

they allegedly admitted to police that they "raped" her, and at that point they were dismissed. Nothing the school could have done differently, and hopefully they learned the life lesson that you don't talk to police without an attorney.

The charges aren't dismmised until PTI is completed, so those charges are still hanging over them. the school can't just let them back without a serious ****le XI lawsuit happening.

Isn't Figs from Virginia?

Don't you have to plead guilty to recieve PTI if you live out the state of Florida for the probationary period?

Maybe next time you and your boy Matlock are down at the courthouse, one of you could get some files, I'm curious to see what they were actually charged with.

Where did they admit that tey raped her?

That's actually on record.

I don't think it is, but I'm willing to be convinced if you show me a video or a signed statement where they said they raped her.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

everyone here is arguing over legal technicalities but leaving out the fact that the girl wasn't old enough to buy cigarettes at the time of this happening.

She was 17 or 18. You guys act like she was 10 and the guys she was banging were 30. The age difference between the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrators was only a couple years.

so you're saying that as long as there's only a small difference in age, there's nothing wrong with giving someone that's under the age of consent alcohol or drugs and having *** with them while they're under the influence. that's not even legal with someone that's 21 years old.

christ this board has gone to ****. you ******* idiots will stoop to any level to discredit the school, even when they do what any other reasonable university would do. sexual assault and title ix are being policed so hard across the country that there is no other choice anymore.

Some of you cats are easy marks. As soon as you read something in a newspaper or a police report you automatically assume it's true.

Of course, if they drugged and raped her it's rape. It's much more likely that they were all drinking together and maybe popping pills and they boned.

I doubt that they drugged her, raped her unconscious lifeless body and then got PTI. It's much more likely they banged this chick before and something weird happened this time that made her call the cops.

The whole police report thing is scary. Based on this thread's logic, everyone who gets arrested is guilty because the police report says they are.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

Since the last person I asked failed to articulate it, let's see if you can. What legal "technicalities" are we arguing about?

We get it Mr. Dershowitz. You are saying they received PTI for a violent *** crime, which is very unusual, since violent crimes aren't even eligible for PTI. So you are rationalizing that they must be innocent. The legal "technicalities" Dont change the fact that keeping them on the team creates an ugly story and a guaranteed Title XI lawsuit.

They bought drinks and tag teamed an unconscious 17 year old student, with knowledge she took Xanax, Molly or whatever. Maybe she "wanted" it, but who are you to know for sure?

they allegedly admitted to police that they "raped" her, and at that point they were dismissed. Nothing the school could have done differently, and hopefully they learned the life lesson that you don't talk to police without an attorney.

The charges aren't dismmised until PTI is completed, so those charges are still hanging over them. the school can't just let them back without a serious ****le XI lawsuit happening.

Isn't Figs from Virginia?

Don't you have to plead guilty to recieve PTI if you live out the state of Florida for the probationary period?

Maybe next time you and your boy Matlock are down at the courthouse, one of you could get some files, I'm curious to see what they were actually charged with.

Where did they admit that tey raped her?

That's actually on record.

I don't think it is, but I'm willing to be convinced if you show me a video or a signed statement where they said they raped her.

He probably thinks the a-form is the "record."

 

[dookie blaylock]

Agree with #1.

#2...ehhhhhh.

#3...I think that's where our disagreement stems. None of those statutes say anything about inebriation scrapping "the underage provision". Again, per the arrest affidavit, they were both charged with sexual assault, & one of em' was charged with having a fake ID. The only mention the arrest affidavit makes of age, is where they say "The Victim is 17 years of age." Doesn't say anything about underage in that affidavit.

https://cmgpbpcaneswatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/blue-figueroa-arrests.pdf

for #2 about statements being made post-miranda, look at the documents you linked on the 3rd paragraph. to my understanding, after miranda rights are given, the prosecution can admit anything you say.

on #3, if i'm wrong, this is where i'd also like some clarification because legalese can be weird. the law says that you can have consensual *** with a minor if you're both within a certain age range. the law says that you cannot get consent from someone that is intoxicated. so to my understanding, if you have *** with an intoxicated minor, the *** cannot be consensual no matter what in the eyes of the law.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the 5th Amendment other than what you have watched on Cops.

so instead of being a ****, why don't you explain it? they voluntarily went into the police station, were given their mirandas, and then admitted to getting her drunk and having *** with her. had it gone to trial, how would that not be admissible in court?

seriously, if you cited something and it proved me wrong, i would fully accept being wrong and eat crow.

Miranda only helps a defendant know of their rights but it does not ensure that their rights are actually protected. Regardless of Miranda, the voluntariness standard always applies to the 5th Amendment. If I am read Miranda, and the police proceed to beat the **** out of me or (no I am not saying that this occurred in this case) to get me to say something, then that statement is not coming in no matter if they mirandized me 100 times.

right, i should've been more specific in that statement. obviously there are things the police or prosecution can do to get inadmissible statements after miranda (like a statement under duress as you pointed out), but i meant in the context of a case like this where it appears that it was done by the book.

 

[McGahee2TheHouse]

for #2 about statements being made post-miranda, look at the documents you linked on the 3rd paragraph. to my understanding, after miranda rights are given, the prosecution can admit anything you say.

on #3, if i'm wrong, this is where i'd also like some clarification because legalese can be weird. the law says that you can have consensual *** with a minor if you're both within a certain age range. the law says that you cannot get consent from someone that is intoxicated. so to my understanding, if you have *** with an intoxicated minor, the *** cannot be consensual no matter what in the eyes of the law.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the 5th Amendment other than what you have watched on Cops.

so instead of being a ****, why don't you explain it? they voluntarily went into the police station, were given their mirandas, and then admitted to getting her drunk and having *** with her. had it gone to trial, how would that not be admissible in court?

seriously, if you cited something and it proved me wrong, i would fully accept being wrong and eat crow.

Miranda only helps a defendant know of their rights but it does not ensure that their rights are actually protected. Regardless of Miranda, the voluntariness standard always applies to the 5th Amendment. If I am read Miranda, and the police proceed to beat the **** out of me or (no I am not saying that this occurred in this case) to get me to say something, then that statement is not coming in no matter if they mirandized me 100 times.

right, i should've been more specific in that statement. obviously there are things the police or prosecution can do to get inadmissible statements after miranda (like a statement under duress as you pointed out), but i meant in the context of a case like this where it appears that it was done by the book.

Really? Did you take depos of the officers? Did you interview the AV? Did you interview the D? Did you listen to the recording if there was one?

Why do you assume it was done by the books? And don't say the police report.

 

[The Franchise]

please, feel free to refute anything that i've said. from my very rudimentary knowledge of the law, it boils down to this:

1. figs and blue were 20 at the time of the incident and the girl was 17, so they were ok under florida law to have consensual *** with her because of the provision built in allowing adults to have *** with minors within a specified range.

2. they admitted to the police that they got her drunk and had *** with her. this admission was after they were read their miranda rights, so those statements made are fully admissible in court.

3. because she was drunk, she could no longer give consent in the eyes of the law, which scraps the underage provision that would have covered them.

Agree with #1.

#2...ehhhhhh.

#3...I think that's where our disagreement stems. None of those statutes say anything about inebriation scrapping "the underage provision". Again, per the arrest affidavit, they were both charged with sexual assault, & one of em' was charged with having a fake ID. The only mention the arrest affidavit makes of age, is where they say "The Victim is 17 years of age." Doesn't say anything about underage in that affidavit.

https://cmgpbpcaneswatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/blue-figueroa-arrests.pdf

for #2 about statements being made post-miranda, look at the documents you linked on the 3rd paragraph. to my understanding, after miranda rights are given, the prosecution can admit anything you say.

on #3, if i'm wrong, this is where i'd also like some clarification because legalese can be weird. the law says that you can have consensual *** with a minor if you're both within a certain age range. the law says that you cannot get consent from someone that is intoxicated. so to my understanding, if you have *** with an intoxicated minor, the *** cannot be consensual no matter what in the eyes of the law.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the 5th Amendment other than what you have watched on Cops.

so instead of being a ****, why don't you explain it? they voluntarily went into the police station, were given their mirandas, and then admitted to getting her drunk and having *** with her. had it gone to trial, how would that not be admissible in court?

seriously, if you cited something and it proved me wrong, i would fully accept being wrong and eat crow.

He's treating you like you deserve to be treated. You're a Google lawyer. You Google lawyers crack me up thinking you can issue legal opinions based on a few Google searches. You deserve the mockery he's serving you for being a dope arguing legal intricacies with no education.

 

[The Franchise]

everyone here is arguing over legal technicalities but leaving out the fact that the girl wasn't old enough to buy cigarettes at the time of this happening.

She was 17 or 18. You guys act like she was 10 and the guys she was banging were 30. The age difference between the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrators was only a couple years.

so you're saying that as long as there's only a small difference in age, there's nothing wrong with giving someone that's under the age of consent alcohol or drugs and having *** with them while they're under the influence. that's not even legal with someone that's 21 years old.

christ this board has gone to ****. you ******* idiots will stoop to any level to discredit the school, even when they do what any other reasonable university would do. sexual assault and title ix are being policed so hard across the country that there is no other choice anymore.

Some of you cats are easy marks. As soon as you read something in a newspaper or a police report you automatically assume it's true.

Of course, if they drugged and raped her it's rape. It's much more likely that they were all drinking together and maybe popping pills and they boned.

I doubt that they drugged her, raped her unconscious lifeless body and then got PTI. It's much more likely they banged this chick before and something weird happened this time that made her call the cops.

The whole police report thing is scary. Based on this thread's logic, everyone who gets arrested is guilty because the police report says they are.

I'm enjoying watching these Google lawyers pontificate on the law like they're Learned Hand. They think because they watch a few tv shows and do a Google search they're qualified to give legal advice or render legal opinions on complex issues.

 

[dookie blaylock]

Agree with #1.

#2...ehhhhhh.

#3...I think that's where our disagreement stems. None of those statutes say anything about inebriation scrapping "the underage provision". Again, per the arrest affidavit, they were both charged with sexual assault, & one of em' was charged with having a fake ID. The only mention the arrest affidavit makes of age, is where they say "The Victim is 17 years of age." Doesn't say anything about underage in that affidavit.

https://cmgpbpcaneswatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/blue-figueroa-arrests.pdf

for #2 about statements being made post-miranda, look at the documents you linked on the 3rd paragraph. to my understanding, after miranda rights are given, the prosecution can admit anything you say.

on #3, if i'm wrong, this is where i'd also like some clarification because legalese can be weird. the law says that you can have consensual *** with a minor if you're both within a certain age range. the law says that you cannot get consent from someone that is intoxicated. so to my understanding, if you have *** with an intoxicated minor, the *** cannot be consensual no matter what in the eyes of the law.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the 5th Amendment other than what you have watched on Cops.

so instead of being a ****, why don't you explain it? they voluntarily went into the police station, were given their mirandas, and then admitted to getting her drunk and having *** with her. had it gone to trial, how would that not be admissible in court?

seriously, if you cited something and it proved me wrong, i would fully accept being wrong and eat crow.

He's treating you like you deserve to be treated. You're a Google lawyer. You Google lawyers crack me up thinking you can issue legal opinions based on a few Google searches. You deserve the mockery he's serving you for being a dope arguing legal intricacies with no education.

and i'll completely accept being wrong in the places where i'm wrong. if the law is so complicated to the point where you need a lawyer to tell you if it's ok or not to put your **** in someone after getting them drunk, regardless of that person being a child in the eyes of the law, then there may be an issue there.

 

[westcoastcanes]

You guys are killin me. This should all be billable time.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Al Gorlden strikes again.