Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG

Rhyme Animal said:
Ah right, you’re privy to all the details of the Evans and RvP cases and also the new evidence that equalled the MG case to be dropped. Apologies, I didn’t think these details were public.

So what’s the difference with Ronaldo and Mendy? Other than one being scrutinised in court for months and then found not guilty, and the other not being able to go to certain places in America for fear of being charged - to the point of his previous clubs at times ensuring that no matches would take place in such areas.

Why are we ok to overlook Ronaldo but Mendy should be punished for something he’s actually been found innocent of?
Click to expand...

People are allowed a watershed to be fair.

Ronaldo was very much mine and I was deeply uncomfortable with him once I researched what was out there.

Just because we've had Best, Giggs etc. Doesn't mean we can't hold a different moral standard moving forward.

I would also argue that the MG is worse in actual released content that any of the other I am aware of, Ronaldo a close second. Just my view though.

How we remember those players and their legacies is a different equally difficult topic but saying hey you weren't complaining then is a bit unfair.

Also Mendy hasn't been found innocent, language matters.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Ah right, you’re privy to all the details of the Evans and RvP cases and also the new evidence that equalled the MG case to be dropped. Apologies, I didn’t think these details were public.

So what’s the difference with Ronaldo and Mendy? Other than one being scrutinised in court for months and then found not guilty, and the other not being able to go to certain places in America for fear of being charged - to the point of his previous clubs at times ensuring that no matches would take place in such areas.

Why are we ok to overlook Ronaldo but Mendy should be punished for something he’s actually been found innocent of?
Click to expand...
I'm sure most people who think Mendy probably isn't innocent feel the same about Ronaldo. There was a huge thread about the Ronaldo allegations on here too, if I remember right.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Apologies, I didn’t think these details were public.
Click to expand...

I never said I was privy to all the details but I'll accept your apology I guess.

I said the cases were treated differently (because they're different) and we know different things about them.

If there was audio of Ronaldo abusing someone then he'd be viewed much more harshly for example.
 
Question for those saying not-guilty is not the same as innocent, I get that (I'm sure most do), where do you have not-guilty on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is innocent and 10 is guilty?
 
So everyone saying he is found not guilty and that is that, i reckon you feel the same way about Manchester City not beeing found guilty of financial cheating?

Or super rich people/companies getting away with crimes?

I am not saying anything about Mendy, i just wonder about this specific argument.
 
afrocentricity said:
Question for those saying not-guilty is not the same as innocent, I get that (I'm sure most do), where do you have not-guilty on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is innocent and 10 is guilty?
Click to expand...

Good question, very difficult isn't it!

It's very case specific.

For me the complainants reported on in the guardian with the contrary victim evidence, I'm at like a 2 or 3. Otherwise I would ebb more toward the middle 4/5 probably.

It's also worthwhile being very clear on what you mean by guilt and innocent of what?

You can think hes like 1, 2 or 3 in terms of a criminal charge of rape but you can believe he's a 8,9 or 10 in respect of very dodgy, pressuring, not great sexual interactions, that just aren't criminal - I think that's fine, even if your saying you believe the latter is worthy or repercussion (not jail though).
 
BootsyCollins said:
So everyone saying he is found not guilty and that is that, i reckon you feel the same way about Manchester City not beeing found guilty of financial cheating?

Or super rich people/companies getting away with crimes?

I am not saying anything about Mendy, i just wonder about this specific argument.
Click to expand...

You don't even have to be that abstract, the courts know they find people not guilty who have committed crimes, it's the price we pay to ensure the system is fair to everyone and that we don't find innocent people guilty, or at least do so as infrequently as humanely possible.
 
BootsyCollins said:
So everyone saying he is found not guilty and that is that, i reckon you feel the same way about Manchester City not beeing found guilty of financial cheating?

Or super rich people/companies getting away with crimes?

I am not saying anything about Mendy, i just wonder about this specific argument.
Click to expand...

Neither have anything to do with each other. As I've posted before, Mendy being found not guilty plus the details released around the evidence that was provided in the case is the reason I'm comfortable taking the stance that I take. That is the stance I'm taking with this case, not the MG case, not city, not whatever random false equivalencey you'd like to compare it to but this case specifically.
 
For those questioning the efficacy of our system based on percentage of convictions, are you looking for a 100% conviction rate? There are nations around the world where rights are suppressed that could deliver that without any due process.

What do you want the judicial system to do in alleged rape cases? Lower the evidentiary burden from beyond a reasonable doubt? I think for many that would be a non-starter, as it should be. If you want to significantly alter someone’s life with a criminal charge and conviction, you need to back it up with the necessary evidence that would lead to reasonable prospect of a conviction.
 
Duafc said:
Good question, very difficult isn't it!

It's very case specific.

For me the complainants reported on in the guardian with the contrary victim evidence, I'm at like a 2 or 3. Otherwise I would ebb more toward the middle 4/5 probably.

It's also worthwhile being very clear on what you mean by guilt and innocent of what?

You can think hes like 1, 2 or 3 in terms of a criminal charge of rape but you can believe he's a 8,9 or 10 in respect of very dodgy, pressuring, not great sexual interactions, that just aren't criminal - I think that's fine, even if your saying you believe the latter is worthy or repercussion (not jail though).
Click to expand...
Strictly on the charges really as outside of that it starts to get wishy washy, for me...

Anyway I guess it's < 6 unless it's off on technicality or similarly dodgy shite.... all being straightforward you'd have to say odds on innocent.
 
Wibble said:
I really hope that isn't true.
Click to expand...
Given that the vast majority of cases are "he said, she said" without direct evidence available, it sounds like you'd prefer a system that by definition results in more innocent people being convicted?
 
BootsyCollins said:
So everyone saying he is found not guilty and that is that, i reckon you feel the same way about Manchester City not beeing found guilty of financial cheating?

Or super rich people/companies getting away with crimes?

I am not saying anything about Mendy, i just wonder about this specific argument.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between the consequences to a party in civil case compared to an accused in a criminal matter though…
 
afrocentricity said:
Strictly on the charges really as outside of that it starts to get wishy washy, for me...

Anyway I guess it's < 6 unless it's off on technicality or similarly dodgy shite.... all being straightforward you'd have to say odds on innocent.
Click to expand...

I think the wishy washy is important tbf, id quite like the discussion to move beyond the charges because they are limited in what they tell us and that's kinda why we have this very black and white butting of heads over the last 10 pages.

It's miles more speculative though which isn't great but I still think people can be allowed to make up their mind on a behaviour even with much less than the full facts, as long as thats borne in mind.
 
afrocentricity said:
Question for those saying not-guilty is not the same as innocent, I get that (I'm sure most do), where do you have not-guilty on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is innocent and 10 is guilty?
Click to expand...

The question doesn't make any sense if it's a general one.

In the cases of OJ Simpson and John Terry it's a 10, because OJ obviously did it and we all know Terry said what he said. In a very clear cut case in the other direction it could be a 1, and it could be anything in-between.
 
afrocentricity said:
Question for those saying not-guilty is not the same as innocent, I get that (I'm sure most do), where do you have not-guilty on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is innocent and 10 is guilty?
Click to expand...

There is no way to answer your question honestly. It's a case by case situation, you have to know which evidences were presented and their context, the sentencing that the prosecution aimed for, how the entire thing was presented to a judge or a jury. In many cases you will also have to know what is the jurisprudence and how it is evolving.
 
Duafc said:
I think the wishy washy is important tbf, id quite like the discussion to move beyond the charges because they are limited in what they tell us and that's kinda why we have this very black and white butting of heads over the last 10 pages.

It's miles more speculative though which isn't great but I still think people can be allowed to make up their mind on a behaviour even with much less than the full facts, as long as thats borne in mind.
Click to expand...
I get that but I don't really partake in it tbh.

You could know important details I don't so carry on though.


NotThatSoph said:
The question doesn't make any sense if it's a general one.

In the cases of OJ Simpson and John Terry it's a 10, because OJ obviously did it and we all know Terry said what he said. In a very clear cut case in the other direction it could be a 1, and it could be anything in-between.
Click to expand...
JPRouve said:
There is no way to answer your question honestly. It's a case by case situation, you have to know which evidences were presented and their context, the sentencing that the prosecution aimed for, how the entire thing was presented to a judge or a jury. In many cases you will also have to know what is the jurisprudence and how it is evolving.
Click to expand...
I accounted for that later in my own way, answer it in yours... specifically on this case if it makes it easier
 
flameinthesun said:
Neither have anything to do with each other. As I've posted before, Mendy being found not guilty plus the details released around the evidence that was provided in the case is the reason I'm comfortable taking the stance that I take. That is the stance I'm taking with this case, not the MG case, not city, not whatever random false equivalencey you'd like to compare it to but this case specifically.
Click to expand...
Ok. Thats why i was specific about only the ”not guilty” argument, and how that is enough for some people. Thats not you then, as you have other information about this case to form your stance.

Duafc said:
You don't even have to be that abstract, the courts know they find people not guilty who have committed crimes, it's the price we pay to ensure the system is fair to everyone and that we don't find innocent people guilty, or at least do so as infrequently as humanely possible.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
And if that verdict alone is enough for people in this case it needs to be it on other cases to.
I took the City cheating as an example because i know if i go back and read some of the threads here on this topic alot of the responses will be something similar to ”everbody knows they did it anyway so feck them”
 
BootsyCollins said:
So everyone saying he is found not guilty and that is that, i reckon you feel the same way about Manchester City not beeing found guilty of financial cheating?

Or super rich people/companies getting away with crimes?

I am not saying anything about Mendy, i just wonder about this specific argument.
Click to expand...

Man City have not been found not guilty of financial cheating - they’ve been found guilty of cheating and also have 115 unfinished charges over them.
 
afrocentricity said:
I get that but I don't really partake in it tbh.

You could know important details I don't so carry on though.




I accounted for that later in my own way, answer it in yours... specifically on this case if it makes it easier
Click to expand...

I don't know very many details at all and I genuinely don't care about Mendy or his future, positively or negatively, unless United bid for him that is.

I'm interested in the topic due to MG and United and was just very keen to correct things that were wrong earlier in the thread.
 
BootsyCollins said:
Ok. Thats why i was specific about only the ”not guilty” argument, and how that is enough for some people. Thats not you then, as you have other information about this case to form your stance.


Exactly.
And if that verdict alone is enough for people in this case it needs to be it on other cases to.
I took the City cheating as an example because i know if i go back and read some of the threads here on this topic alot of the responses will be something similar to ”everbody knows they did it anyway so feck them”
Click to expand...

Wait... Your saying this approach might not be consistent and is possibly influenced by current Manchester United affairs? :wenger:
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Are you 100% sure that the audio was MG abusing someone since there was no case to charge him?
Click to expand...

I've asked so many times for alternative explanations and I never really get any answers.

I'd say 97% sure. Which is more than enough for me.

You?
 
Duafc said:
I've asked so many times for alternative explanations and I never really get any answers.

I'd say 97% sure. Which is more than enough for me.

You?
Click to expand...

Since his case is dropped from the eyes of law, I have to believe it unless I'm privy to some information.
 
afrocentricity said:
I get that but I don't really partake in it tbh.

You could know important details I don't so carry on though.




I accounted for that later in my own way, answer it in yours... specifically on this case if it makes it easier
Click to expand...

It doesn't make it easier, I don't have access to the trial full records.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Since his case is dropped from the eyes of law, I have to believe it unless I'm privy to some information.
Click to expand...

You are privy to information.

Is the Wimbledon final actually happening? I'm watching on IPlayer but it hasn't been proven in a court of law and I'm not physically present?
 
JPRouve said:
It doesn't make it easier, I don't have access to the trial full records.
Click to expand...
;)


Duafc said:
unless United bid for him that is.
Click to expand...
:lol: fecking hell could you imagine!?
Duafc said:
I've asked so many times for alternative explanations and I never really get any answers.

I'd say 97% sure. Which is more than enough for me.

You?
Click to expand...
Lets be straight, that audio was scummy as feck. I still want to hear them out though
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Why he isn't charge?
Click to expand...

You can't prove certain offences in court if the victim won't attend court to be cross examined on their evidence.

Just one of the necessary drawbacks of a fair legal system, it doesn't mean innocence or even a not guilty verdict, it simply means it never got to court.
 
Duafc said:
You are privy to information.

Is the Wimbledon final actually happening? I'm watching on IPlayer but it hasn't been proven in a court of law and I'm not physically present?
Click to expand...

Haha... I guess I have to rest my case.
 
Guys we aren't allowed to talk about it so no point going further.

The recording is the recording, if people want to pretend it's no longer valid or worthy or consideration because the trial didn't happen that's... something.
 
afrocentricity said:
My point all along in this thread....
Click to expand...

So your point is the same that @Duafc and myself have stated more than once? That's why it's not honest to state that he is innoncent because he was declared not guilty similarly it is not honest to claim that he is likely guilty because he has been accused both sentences are wrong.

The law is procedural for a reason and in this case he was found not guilty which means that he was found not guilty, there is no extrapolation to make.
 
JPRouve said:
So your point is the same that @Duafc and myself have stated more than once? That's why it's not honest to state that he is innoncent because he was declared not guilty similarly it is not honest to claim that he is likely guilty because he has been accused both sentences are wrong.

The law is procedural for a reason and in this case he was found not guilty which means that he was found not guilty, there is no extrapolation to make.
Click to expand...
Except the moral one beyond the court room :drool:

I would like to invite everyone to now enter phase 2 of this shit show.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Since his case is dropped from the eyes of law, I have to believe it unless I'm privy to some information.
Click to expand...

You've stated that if City get away with it, that's only further proof of their guilt, so while you think not being convicted is sufficient on the topic of rape, it's clearly not a general principle you hold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.