[dieterbrock]

I;m not defending him btw

Oh I didn’t think you were. I understood you were merely guessing to what the defense could possibly angle

The laws pertaining to your hypothetical don't turn on intention when it comes to how they're written. First off it's illegal to drive drunk in the first place. You are liable for the consequences regardless.

It’s also illegal to enter/trespass in to a woman’s bedroom and make unwanted physical contact, also liable for the consequences

Again, im not attacking your guess as to their explanation, and it may be exactly what they do.

Full disclosure- my next door neighbor, a guy who invited my children in to his home for candy apples at Halloween, was pictured in a major news publication with a huge smile on his face when his son was found not guilty of sexual assault. The defense? That the son had always sleep walked.
The “law” allowed Sleep walking to be a viable excuse for this scum bag touching a young woman inappropriately, and against her will.

So I’m not exactly unbiased or forgiving on the matter....

[/zn/]

Full disclosure- my next door neighbor, a guy who invited my children in to his home for candy apples at Halloween, was pictured in a major news publication with a huge smile on his face when his son was found not guilty of sexual assault. The defense? That the son had always sleep walked.
The “law” allowed Sleep walking to be a viable excuse for this scum bag touching a young woman inappropriately, and against her will.

So I’m not exactly unbiased or forgiving on the matter....

I hear ya. I have 2 20-something daughters. Now and then over the years they have told me or their mother a story about this or that bad encounter. Never anything super awful, but still.

[Elvis]

[laxbird]

Suh was one of the witnesses called to the stand yesterday. I assume as a character witness.

[CanuckRightWinger]

NOTA BENE: Always, always....innocent until PROVEN guilty.......BUT...

Is this what Rath's Defense Lawyer is selling?

UNIVERSAL COCKTAIL RECIPE
1.33 oz. vodka + 1.33 oz. cranberry juice + 1.33 oz. orange juice + .66 oz. peach schnapps = SEX ON THE BEACH

TED RATH'S OVERWHELMING & TRANCE-INDUCING COCKTAIL RECIPE
2 tablets Lipitor + 4 Aspirins + numerous shots of vodka =
SEX IN MY NEIGHBOR DRINKING-BUDDY'S BEDROOM WITH HIS WIFE

As a dedicated Rams Fan, I always hope for the best when our guys end up in Courts Of Law. I have always wished the best for guys like Leonard Little going way back to his St.Louis vehicular homicide deal, and most recently Ethan Westbrooks and his domestic violence case. I was also hopeful and supportive of Rams Strength Coach (& McVay Sideline Restrainer) Ted Rath when I first heard he was charged, and before any facts came out...
......BUT.....

upon hearing "the facts", albeit so far, it sounds like he did something foul, foul enough to have his neighbor drinking buddy call the Police and swear out a statement, along with his wife, a couple of days later.....

.....and his Defence Attorney is, again just judging from what I've read here and in the media.....she is claiming the Lipitor-Aspirin-Alcohol Cocktail is the guilty party in this case, and that Rath is just a victim of a bad chemical reaction. Let me know if I am missing something as this Rath story is not getting much print up here in The Great White North.

I am not a lawyer, but if one's neighbor drinking-buddy was in one's house one night, and wandered into one's sleeping wife's bedroom, and ends up on Third Base prior to the wife awakening.......
um, pretty hard to overlook that kind of behavior, n'est-ce pas??!!
Hard to pass that off as just "a social faux pas" eh!

Again, not condemning Rath nor declaring him guilty.....as I stated above, always innocent until PROVEN guilty!!.......
but "the facts of that evening"
revealed so far anyway,
do not put Coach Rath into a very good light, huh?

Sheesh I hope some facts that are more positive for Rath's defence come out soon.

[/zn/]

Hard to pass that off as just "a social faux pas" eh!

Not taking anyone's side in this, just trying to see what the people involved are trying to say.

Your point is that it's hard for the couple to overlook what Rath did. True. But then IF it happened the way Rath says, they would have no way to know that before filing a report. They can only assume he meant to do what he did.

I will say this (again) about Rath's defense. Often, far more often than we sometimes care to admit, accusations of sexual assault--even misdemeanor sexual assault--turn it into a trial of the victim. In that case the defendent denies doing anything and makes it about the victim's motives for accusing him. This kind of "guilty until proven innocent and often not even then" approach to the accuser is so common, that it is estimated that only 1/4th of victims of sexual assault (felony or misdemeanor) ever even come forward and report it. Facing that kind of "blame the victim" accusation is very daunting and often people decide it's better to just never report it.

Rath did NOT take the path of denying the accusation and therefore in effect putting the victim on trial. So there's that.

I personally have no trouble believing he was so messed up he did something out of character. But I keep thinking that someone who had a stroke and was on medication maybe should know you don't drink heavily in the wake of that, and that all sorts of stuff can happen if you do.

....

[AvengerRam]

This defense:

Rath spent a few days in the hospital and lost 14 pounds, Podberesky said. He then spent the next several weeks at home recovering before heading out to a charity event on June 15, 2018.

“It’s the first event he’s had any real significant amount of alcohol” since the May 2018 episode, Podberesky said. Since then he had been taking aspirin and Lipitor, she said.

Does not add up.

First... he was at a charity event and had a significant amount of alcohol, then ended up at the victim's house? So... how did he get there? Did he drive under the same level of intoxication, or worse? Did someone else drive him? If so, what did he or she observe?

Also... WTF does lipitor and aspirin have to do with any of this? I've taken lipitor for years, and I've taken aspirin many times in my life. Neither has any side effects that would be relevant to this case.

Sounds like the defense is grasping at straws and counting on the jury to be lenient.

Either way... I can't imagine allowing this guy to return to the Rams' sideline.

[Haden]

Rath is a scumbag. He got drunk and hit on his friend's wife. 'Nuff said.

[Flash]

Not taking anyone's side in this, just trying to see what the people involved are trying to say.

Your point is that it's hard for the couple to overlook what Rath did. True. But then IF it happened the way Rath says, they would have no way to know that before filing a report. They can only assume he meant to do what he did.

I will say this (again) about Rath's defense. Often, far more often than we sometimes care to admit, accusations of sexual assault--even misdemeanor sexual assault--turn it into a trial of the victim. In that case the defendent denies doing anything and makes it about the victim's motives for accusing him. This kind of "guilty until proven innocent and often not even then" approach to the accuser is so common, that it is estimated that only 1/4th of victims of sexual assault (felony or misdemeanor) ever even come forward and report it. Facing that kind of "blame the victim" accusation is very daunting and often people decide it's better to just never report it.

Rath did NOT take the path of denying the accusation and therefore in effect putting the victim on trial. So there's that.

I personally have no trouble believing he was so messed up he did something out of character. But I keep thinking that someone who had a stroke and was on medication maybe should know you don't drink heavily in the wake of that, and that all sorts of stuff can happen if you do.

....

My first thought when I saw his defense was he didn't realize where he was and thought he was fondling his wife.

Maybe this goes with the intent element his defense seems to be raising.

[dieterbrock]

Not taking anyone's side in this, just trying to see what the people involved are trying to say.

Your point is that it's hard for the couple to overlook what Rath did. True. But then IF it happened the way Rath says, they would have no way to know that before filing a report. They can only assume he meant to do what he did.

I will say this (again) about Rath's defense. Often, far more often than we sometimes care to admit, accusations of sexual assault--even misdemeanor sexual assault--turn it into a trial of the victim. In that case the defendent denies doing anything and makes it about the victim's motives for accusing him. This kind of "guilty until proven innocent and often not even then" approach to the accuser is so common, that it is estimated that only 1/4th of victims of sexual assault (felony or misdemeanor) ever even come forward and report it. Facing that kind of "blame the victim" accusation is very daunting and often people decide it's better to just never report it.

Rath did NOT take the path of denying the accusation and therefore in effect putting the victim on trial. So there's that.

I personally have no trouble believing he was so messed up he did something out of character. But I keep thinking that someone who had a stroke and was on medication maybe should know you don't drink heavily in the wake of that, and that all sorts of stuff can happen if you do.

....

Great post.