tarrant is back!

I'm happy for Tarrant. Hopefully, now he will be able to move on and learn a lesson. I sure hope that girl learns a lesson, too.

I'm also hopeful that Jerrard will make the most of his opportunity to play. Tech really needs him in the secondary.
 
beej67 said:
If adding him makes our D as good as it was vs Clemson and before, then I'm especially stoked.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to say the defense wasn't better at that time, but I think we might be overestimating how much better they were because of the contrast of what happened afterward. It's just because of who we played before Clemson. Jax State and GW our defense better be able to stop if they want to be respectable. VT and BC were teams that never really got great offenses, I dont think VT ever scored more than 25 points against a BCS team. Miss State lost a head coach because they couldn't do **** on offense. Duke is, well, Duke.

Don't get me wrong, our defense did very well in that we kept all but one of those teams under 20 points, that one being Clemson who probably had the most potent offense out of the bunch (a sad fact for those other teams after this season). Jusy saying that it shouldn't of been surprising that teams like FSU, Georgia and LSU scored a lot more on us. (UNC was an exception, in that our defense played pretty damn well. Can't entirely blame them when UNC gets the ball off TO on our 25)
 
ramblinwise1 said:
You know, I'm not very kind to ambulance chasers, but I would love to see Tarrant file a civil suit against whoever made these false accusations....
Click to expand...

I'm not an ambulance chaser, but I do represent injured plaintiff's. Most folks aren't that kind to clients like mine until they find themselves in a similar situation.

If you're ever on my jury panel, let me know so I can strike you first!! :D On the other hand, if you ever make it on a jury, try to base your decision on the evidence and not your prejudices against the plaintiff. We have a hard enough time as it is with politicians blaming everything under the sun on us.
 
...And not to belabor the point, but the girl could still file a civil action against Tarrant. Just because the charges were dropped doesn't mean they were baseless. It just means the district attorney felt there was not enough evidence to show Tarrant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It could mean the girl changed her story, but not necessarily. If Tarrant brings charges, or if the girl does, its still a he said/she said situation, and the jury is likely to leave the parties where they find them.

If the girl did acknowledge that she wasn't raped, and Tarrant did sue her and win, he'd still have a problem collecting on the judgment.
 
BuzzLaw said:
I'm not an ambulance chaser, but I do represent injured plaintiff's. Most folks aren't that kind to clients like mine until they find themselves in a similar situation.

If you're ever on my jury panel, let me know so I can strike you first!! :D On the other hand, if you ever make it on a jury, try to base your decision on the evidence and not your prejudices against the plaintiff. We have a hard enough time as it is with politicians blaming everything under the sun on us.
Click to expand...

I've been on several juries, BL. I'm usually pro-prosecution in criminal trials and pro-defendant in civil trials to help balance out the "for profit" attorneys excessive strikes.
 
BuzzLaw said:
The NCAA didn't dismiss him, did they? I thought it was GT's decision alone.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that if Tech petitioned the NCAA with the evidence that he was charged with a felony and they held him out because of school policy, but that the charges were later dropped, there's no telling what they might do. Maybe nothing, but maybe they give him the year back. I mean, they gave the Duke Lax team members another year.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
I've been on several juries, BL. I'm usually pro-prosecution in criminal trials and pro-defendant in civil trials to help balance out the "for profit" attorneys excessive strikes.
Click to expand...

That is painful to my eyes to read. Unfortunately, you and the rest of Georgia feel the same way. It is extremely difficult to get a jury to just look at the evidence without bias or prejudice. All I ever ask for is a fair jury, but I know that is impossible in Georgia. Next time you're on a jury, pay attention to the oath you take at the beginning of the case. Your oath requires you to set aside biases and prejudices and base your decision on the evidence you hear in the case. If you walk into a trial leaning one way or the other, you are not following your sworn oath and not doing your duty as a juror.

I'll get off my soapbox and get back to talking Tech football. I'm sure we can agree on one thing: TO HELL WITH GEORGIE!!!:biggthumpup:
 
BuzzLaw said:
That is painful to my eyes to read. Unfortunately, you and the rest of Georgia feel the same way. It is extremely difficult to get a jury to just look at the evidence without bias or prejudice. All I ever ask for is a fair jury, but I know that is impossible in Georgia. Next time you're on a jury, pay attention to the oath you take at the beginning of the case. Your oath requires you to set aside biases and prejudices and base your decision on the evidence you hear in the case. If you walk into a trial leaning one way or the other, you are not following your sworn oath and not doing your duty as a juror.

I'll get off my soapbox and get back to talking Tech football. I'm sure we can agree on one thing: TO HELL WITH GEORGIE!!!:biggthumpup:
Click to expand...


Georgian's only take oaths seriously when they are using them against other people.

People shouldn't lie when they take oaths or on their tax forms.
 
BerryGT said:
Very good point. What would it hurt to ask? I'm sure the FB staff and AA are considering it.
Click to expand...
Biggest question to me is whether Tarrant would want to stay around another year. Not sure I would in his case, but who knows.
 
the Dook case has set a precedent and the fact that the DA stated that "Tarrant was NOT guilty of a crime" may warrant him getting another year.

But the fact he has 3 years left means that he will have opportunities.
 
Petitions to the NCAA for an extra year usually come about after the player has exhausted the eligibility they had. So, if Tarrant wants to play another year after his RS-Sr year, then that's when it would happen. It may be irrelevant at that point for any number of reasons. He may want to go to the NFL, may just be done with football, etc.
 
56Jacket said:
so the girl gets off without any penalty for falsely accusing him?
Click to expand...

You will hardly ever see this happen, for a couple of reasons:

1. While rape cases can be difficult to prove, they can also be equally difficult to DISprove. Only two people really know what happened that night, and they have conflicting stories. Also remember that because charges were dropped doesn't mean that nothing happened. It just means that the DA knows they can't actually prove anything happened.

2. Many many rapes already go unreported across the country. A fairly high profile false accusation trial would make this number rise even more, and no DA wants that.
 
56Jacket said:
so the girl gets off without any penalty for falsely accusing him?
Click to expand...
At this point the best case for everyone is probably for this to fade away. We don't really know if she falsely accused him, we just know the DA doesn't think it can be proven in court.
 
56Jacket said:
so the girl gets off without any penalty for falsely accusing him?
Click to expand...

Technically it isn't a "false accusation" yet. It just got dropped because the DA didn't think there was enough evidence to pursue it.
 
ncjacket said:
At this point the best case for everyone is probably for this to fade away. We don't really know if she falsely accused him, we just know the DA doesn't think it can be proven in court.
Click to expand...

From the AJC article:

Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard wrote in an e-mail that investigators found that “after a thorough evaluation of the case,” Tarrant had not committed a crime.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that Tarrant should go after the girl as it would likely be difficult to prove, but the DA doesn't only think it couldn't be proven in court but that Tarrant did not commit a crime.
 
GT Adamni said:
From the AJC article:



I'm not saying that Tarrant should go after the girl as it would likely be difficult to prove, but the DA doesn't only think it couldn't be proven in court but that Tarrant did not commit a crime.
Click to expand...


Very good point. The DA didn't say there wasn't sufficient evidence. He said Tarrant didn't commit the crime. I had not read that and that is significant.
 
"not committed a crime" isn't in quotes, though, so it could very easily be typical AJC sloppy journalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top