Heh...I disagree (natch ).  The dude's a psycho who clearly has no boundaries when it comes to violence against other people.  He bit a guy's ear off, for crying out loud.

Well, in all fairness, the dude WAS punching Mr.Tyson at the time of the biting incident. 
Seriously, though, it's hard to make the case that boxers = rapists because they are both violent.
What we do know about Mr. Tyson's past is that he was NEVER before accused of rape, or any type of bad sexual behavior.
And what we know about the accuser (but what the jury was NOT allowed to know) is that she had falsely accused men of rape before.
And we know that she went to Mike Tyson's hotel room to be with him alone after midnight. 
We know that two of the jurors begged the judge to let them change their verdict after the trial.
We know that bruises found during her rape exam were, well, to put it delicately, deeper than they would have been had they been made by Mr. Tyson's penis.
We know that Tyson's appeal was denied because "Indiana's legal system makes China look fair.", according to Alan Dershowitz.

Anyone who can't find reasonable doubt there, does not belong on a jury.

--Ray

[TakeMeGrl]

Well, in all fairness, the dude WAS punching Mr.Tyson at the time of the biting incident.  

Heh...I won't fight the reasonable doubt angle.  But dude?  The guy gets *paid* to get punched.  lol.

[Lois]

Ah, the dangers of being known as a bad-boy!

[prey4me]

Both the preppie prick--naw, I don't want to slur penises--, the preppie son-of-a-bitch--naw, I don't want to slur currs and bitches, you know the preppie scumbag well, let's just call him lowlife and Mike Tyson demonstrate for us that even the scum of the Earth* are entitled to a fair trial and their Constitutional rights, which incude the presumption of innocence and a finding of guilty only by "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."   It's interesting that Tyson has since been arrested for DUI and possession of cocaine.  So I guess he's finally getting what he deserves, although he didn't on the rape trial.

Think of the irony:  O.J., well-established as a wife-batterer, walks free, and Tyson, well-established as a woman-abuser, serves time.

*I'm willing to make an exception on Jihadists.  They're military "irregulars," fighting with neither uniforms nor national identities and legitimacy, and should be executed immediately when captured.  Then thrown into unmarked graves with their exposes corpses covered with swine entrails.  No rigthts for them whatsoever.

Think of the irony:  O.J., well-established as a wife-batterer, walks free, and Tyson, well-established as a woman-abuser, serves time.

*I'm willing to make an exception on Jihadists.  They're military "irregulars," fighting with neither uniforms nor national identities and legitimacy, and should be executed immediately when captured.  Then thrown into unmarked graves with their exposes corpses covered with swine entrails.  No rigthts for them whatsoever.

While don't want to waste time arguing againist your astrisk, because could but don't want to start something I don't have time to finish...I'm going to say that O.J. did not do it. He most likely knew why they were killed, knew they were going to be killed, but he didn't do it. He just knows who did. And those families need to understand, no amount of money will bring them back.

On topic: Ray, are you sure this was Justice you were watching? I find it hard as hell to believe the pimp-and-half bomb as all hell* lawyers at TNT & G could lose a cause like that.

*Translation: Persons of superior talent; peerless in skill at thier occupation.

Think of the irony:  O.J., well-established as a wife-batterer, walks free, and Tyson, well-established as a woman-abuser, serves time.

*I'm willing to make an exception on Jihadists.  They're military "irregulars," fighting with neither uniforms nor national identities and legitimacy, and should be executed immediately when captured.  Then thrown into unmarked graves with their exposes corpses covered with swine entrails.  No rigthts for them whatsoever.

While don't want to waste time arguing againist your astrisk, because could but don't want to start something I don't have time to finish...I'm going to say that O.J. did not do it. He most likely knew why they were killed, knew they were going to be killed, but he didn't do it. He just knows who did. And those families need to understand, no amount of money will bring them back.

On topic: Ray, are you sure this was Justice you were watching? I find it hard as hell to believe the pimp-and-half bomb as all hell* lawyers at TNT & G could lose a cause like that.

*Translation: Persons of superior talent; peerless in skill at thier occupation.

OJ was smart enough to get good lawyers;  Tyson wasn't. 
Which is why OJ....who IS guilty, walked free, and Tyson, who ISN'T guilty, served time.
Oh, and there's also the race issue. 
OJ walked because he's black.  And Tyson didn't walk.  Also because he's black.
--Ray

 It's interesting that Tyson has since been arrested for DUI and possession of cocaine.  So I guess he's finally getting what he deserves, although he didn't on the rape trial.

This statement presupposes that a person DESERVES to be punished for drinking and driving, and for possessing cocaine. 
I'm not willing to conceed either of those points.
--Ray

[BigOrangePred]

Ticky thing about reasonable doubt Ray is none of us were in the jury pool, didn't get to see or hear everything that was said and in particular didn't get to watch/listen to the victim's testimony, nor Tyson's for that matter, in its entirety.  This was purely a he said/she said case, despite all pretense of evidence aside.
Frankly as I understand it she, the victim, came off believable and Tyson came off looking and sounding like a spoiled brat turned thug.  
Given a retrospective look at Tyson's life before, during and after the rape trial, this seems to be a guy who doesn't take the word 'no' in stride very well and his propensity for violence, outside the ring that is, gives me pause and makes me wonder if he truly IS capable of rape.  At the time I thought he probably got hosed as well, mind you.  Unfortunately since then Tyson has forced a turn around on that front, with me anyway.
I don't buy the boxer/wrestler/lacrosse/football/basketball player = rapist or violent threat crap. ts not the sport that makes one violent.  What I see is a small class within the class of individuals/athletes who are so accustomed to getting their way that they continually make dumbass/bonehead decisions and too often don't figure the proverbial 'it' out until its too late.
Case in point, you take a disciplined, mature athlete, say Payton Manning, Albert Pujols, Michael Jordan, or even a Mike Singletary.  All premiere athletes.  All are/were at the top of their respective sports.  Manning and in particular Singletary make their living in a 'violent' manner.  Yet can anyone EVER see one of these guys placing themselves in a dangerous situation or charged with rape, i.e. Kobe Bryant, Ray Lewis, or the Denver Bronos player (SOOOOOO sorry his name escapes me) who was murdered over New Years?  don't know if these guys did anything wrong or not, though truthfully it looks like Ray Lewis got off light and WAS guilty of at least SOMETHING.  Or are/were they just so incredibly STUPID that they placed themselves in such a precarious situation?  
You can toss in the Duke players into this bunch.  Did they rape the alleged victim?  Well sans ANY proof, ESPECIALLY with LOADS of DNA/semen in her but none from the guys in question, I seriously doubt it.  Did these guys actually do anything illegal?  doubted it at first and now am all but convinced they are innocent of any criminal wrong doing.  
HOWEVER!!!!!!!
What they are DEFINETLY guilty of is a HUGE amount of poor judgement and thinking with their cocks instead of engaging CPU #1 and using the gray matter God provided.
Long story short, if you are Kobe Bryant, Mike Tyson, et al, and you don't have the sense to know that you have a MAJOR bullseye painted on your back, that there are those that will try and do you in for the money and fame, then you're dumb as a brick!

Ticky thing about reasonable doubt Ray is none of us were in the jury pool, didn't get to see or hear everything that was said and in particular didn't get to watch/listen to the victim's testimony, nor Tyson's for that matter, in its entirety.  This was purely a he said/she said case, despite all pretense of evidence aside.
Frankly as I understand it she, the victim, came off believable and Tyson came off looking and sounding like a spoiled brat turned thug.  
Given a retrospective look at Tyson's life before, during and after the rape trial, this seems to be a guy who doesn't take the word 'no' in stride very well and his propensity for violence, outside the ring that is, gives me pause and makes me wonder if he truly IS capable of rape.  At the time I thought he probably got hosed as well, mind you.  Unfortunately since then Tyson has forced a turn around on that front, with me anyway.
I don't buy the boxer/wrestler/lacrosse/football/basketball player = rapist or violent threat crap. ts not the sport that makes one violent.  What I see is a small class within the class of individuals/athletes who are so accustomed to getting their way that they continually make dumbass/bonehead decisions and too often don't figure the proverbial 'it' out until its too late.
Case in point, you take a disciplined, mature athlete, say Payton Manning, Albert Pujols, Michael Jordan, or even a Mike Singletary.  All premiere athletes.  All are/were at the top of their respective sports.  Manning and in particular Singletary make their living in a 'violent' manner.  Yet can anyone EVER see one of these guys placing themselves in a dangerous situation or charged with rape, i.e. Kobe Bryant, Ray Lewis, or the Denver Bronos player (SOOOOOO sorry his name escapes me) who was murdered over New Years?  don't know if these guys did anything wrong or not, though truthfully it looks like Ray Lewis got off light and WAS guilty of at least SOMETHING.  Or are/were they just so incredibly STUPID that they placed themselves in such a precarious situation?  
You can toss in the Duke players into this bunch.  Did they rape the alleged victim?  Well sans ANY proof, ESPECIALLY with LOADS of DNA/semen in her but none from the guys in question, I seriously doubt it.  Did these guys actually do anything illegal?  doubted it at first and now am all but convinced they are innocent of any criminal wrong doing.  
HOWEVER!!!!!!!
What they are DEFINETLY guilty of is a HUGE amount of poor judgement and thinking with their cocks instead of engaging CPU #1 and using the gray matter God provided.
Long story short, if you are Kobe Bryant, Mike Tyson, et al, and you don't have the sense to know that you have a MAJOR bullseye painted on your back, that there are those that will try and do you in for the money and fame, then you're dumb as a brick!

Maybe, but you SHOULD be able to get chix with fame....it's part of the American Dream.  And the women of America have done their part to make this clear. College kids SHOULD be able to hire strippers.  And the Boxing Stars, and Basketball Stars, and Football and Baseball stars, and TV and Movie stars SHOULD be able to allow women to come into their rooms at night.   And when those star-struck women DO go there, following it the night up with a rape indictment SHOULD be as futile as suing a McDonalds when you spill their hot coffee in your own lap SHOULD have been.

I think it all comes back to a broken judicial system in which prosecutors think (often correctly) that the jurors in their districts are, as you put it, dumb as bricks. 

Perhaps the solution is to hold jurors responsible:  Delivera bonehead verdict, that turns out to be wrong, then YOU do the time.  Make a bonehead financial award, then YOU pay the fine. 

Christ I saw a case where a man was released from prison after serving 6 years for a murder he had nothing to do with. The case had been circumstancial---and weak.  But they interviewed one of the jurors after his exoneration.  She had the gall to show her face on TV.  And they named her.  And she actually said "Well, if I had it to do all over again, and they showed me the same evidence, i'd have to vote guilty again."  HUH????? In other words, she has since seen that it would have, in fact, been REASONABLE to DOUBT the evidence that she was shown (what with him being innocent, and all), but she STILL doesn't see the amount of evidence they had as not sufficient to prove guilt.  How do we not throw this woman in prison, just on general principle?  ARRRGGGHHH!!!!

--Ray

All this other stuff aside, rape is too often he said, she said.  It is a terrible crime, but there should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't agree that when a woman goes into a hotel room she is free game to rape, but it seems if women don't want sex they shouldn't allow themselves to be in that position.

I am big on analogies to prove a point, and this is not gay bashing.  But if I met a gay guy, and he made it obvious he was very attracted to me, I wouldn't go to his hotel room.  And I am a man that is far less likely to be overpowered than a woman.  I just wouldn't put myself in a precarious position, yet beauty queens do it?  It doesn't make sense.

[prey4me]

For starters, Emily responded to a post of mine with the sobrique,

Tee Hee!  Be warned you old geezer!

 "old geezer" indeed!!  What about "sexy senior citizen" or "D.O.M."  or my favorite, "Old Goat"??  A little respect, you brat!

Now, Ray's extravagent futuristic scenario is quite intriguing.  He may be on to something.  It may well be--especially with a more liberalized atmosphere of sexual conduct--that the context of a sexual event may be more scrupulously litigated than the actual event itself.  Gentlemen Rapists, just be sure you don't rip clothes or leave bruises.

But it's not quite so simple, and this depends greatly on the jurisdiction in which it occurs.  What I'm talking about is the rules of evidence.  In some areas, the victim's previous sexual experience is absolutely precluded.  In others, it's admissible but only with certain arguments or circumstances.  And in other areas, the prosecution must pro-actively move to exclude it.  

The same applies for testimony and evidence about the nature of the relationship that preceeded the rape, and so on.  these vary from state to state, and are based upon statutory law and case law (judicial precedents) as well.

But you'd think the previous record of Tyson's alleged victim would have been available to the jury.  And, Emily, it's reassuring  that the manhating bitch got her come-uppance, regarding...

this girl who made fantasy rape dates.  To make it more 'real' she then followed up with real rape charges!  Two guys were in jail when the third one managed to prove it was consensual and she got busted and is now serving jail time.  

I hate to think of the men out there in divorce and custody litigation who have been burned to a legal crisp by women who come up with trumped-up abuse, rape, child endangerment (etc.etc.etc!!) charges to gain revenge and legal advantage.

[prey4me]

Just a couple more points, and I'll try to be brief:

OJ had better lawyers, true.  I think he also had more $$, since he was successful pimping for Hertz.  Tyson has been in trouble more, had few resources, and less access to the "A" list legal team OJ got.

BigOrangePeel and Raymond Pist bring up a very large issue that's a bit of a tangent, but very interesting:  the matter of Jock Culture and its role in Western culture.  The unfortunate fact is, successful jocks are adored and honored, and from a very early age!  BigOrangePeel's point is well taken:  

What I see is a small class within the class of individuals/athletes who are so accustomed to getting their way that they continually make dumbass/bonehead decisions and too often don't figure the proverbial 'it' out until its too late.
 

They are set aside, given special privileges, excused from hard course work so they can practice, and are often protected from the consequences of misbehavior!  There's just too much temptation and not enough punishment for their excesses.

So you get a large population group of men who behave like spoiled brats.  Not all, not even most, but enough so that it's a common and recurring problem.

And you're right on target, Ray:

  And when those star-struck women DO go there, following it the night up with a rape indictment SHOULD be as futile as suing a McDonalds when you spill their hot coffee in your own lap SHOULD have been.
 

You know, I'm kind of inclined to think, "a plague on both their houses!"