Next:
Eastern Washington @  Utah
ESPN+

In off-field USC news…

Welcome UCF Fans! Forums Utah Utes Sports Football In off-field USC news…

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #44151
      PlainsUte
      Participant
    • #44156
      3
      gUrthBrooks
      Participant

      So basically, they had rough sex and she didn’t want the rough part?

      • #44160
        2
        Sweetness
        Participant

        The initial reports were pretty disturbing. I believe there was some snapchat evidence, along with other corroboration. Extremely disappointing to see him getting off this easy. Seems like a case where their wasn’t enough court evidence to ensure a conviction and now the court is offering a plea deal.

        • #44197
          3
          Utah
          Participant

          There was never any Snapchat videos. That was a lie.

          This is a terrible case all around. Most of the “facts” that were reported at the beginning turned out to be outright lies.

          This is just terrible. From what I’ve been told, I don’t know if there was some bad and she tried to cash in or if there was some bad and it blew up or if there was no bad and this was a girl looking for a payout.

          Its tragic all around. Hopefully everyone can move on and whoever was screwed in this case can find peace because the prosecutors made damn sure there will be no justice all in the name of trying to get headlines.

          Disgusting showing by the Utah prosecutors, much like the Hatfield case.

          My advice to people in Utah: whenever something comes out in the news from the prosecutors office…wait. Because usually what spews out of that office is bulls**t…and most likely race motivated.

          • #44198
            1
            EagleMountainUte
            Participant

            Wow I have read some dumb things lately but this pretty much takes the cake. He plead guilty to a plea bargain because in most cases the prosecution prefers to offer this instead of making the victim relive it on the stand.It is being victimized all over again.

            Also I am sick of the race card being thrown everywhere with no evidence whatsoever. He plead probably because he knew he would face the full rape charge. Had a pretty good lawyer that advised him to take the deal. I bet he lost all of the motions and going to trial was advised he would have lose.

            • #44200
              1
              Puget Ute
              Participant

              California dropped the case, and all of them initial evidence against him was shown to be nonexistent. The prosecutor offered the plea deal because they didnt believe they had a case a jury would buy. The defense took the plea deal because there was still a 5% chance he would get convicted and face 15 years for something that turns out to be inaccurate.

          • #44205
            1
            pedro
            Participant

            Wrong.  There was and several people saw it. He ex boyfriend (think about that) was willing to testify that he saw but because the court ruled that no physical proof that the video ever existed (which is a dumb ass ruling BTW given that we are talking about an ap that deletes videos upon viewing them) then there was nothing for the boyfriend to testify seeing (which is also really stupid).  

            Furthermore, Osa has quite the reputation of this sort of thing.  A LOT of people were surprised by him not getting hung up on this one.  Most figured it was about time.

      • #44162
        3
        3UteDad
        Member

        Is that what you think sexual battery is? The article says he was originally charged with rape and two counts of forcible sodomy…sounds like a whole lot more than “rough sex” to me…and he’s getting off easy.

        There are some job openings in the Baylor athletic department you might be interested in…

    • #44164
      ironman1315
      Participant

      Here is Utah law: 

       

      “A person is guilty of sexual battery if the person, under circumstances not amounting to an offense under Subsection (2), intentionally touches, whether or not through clothing, the anus, buttocks, or any part of the genitals of another person, or the breast of a female person, and the actor’s conduct is under circumstances the actor knows or should know will likely cause affront or alarm to the person touched.”

      Its usually more than just rough sex where the roughness was non-consensual but this seems like a deal where the prosecution wasn’t sure so they took the sure thing.  

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.