Austin Scott go away, please!
Note that they are argue that he would have been a 3-4th round pick in the NFL draft. He played like a 3-4th stringer on the Lions.
about 1 month ago
PaJoe
43 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
The fact that he was a 5* recruit and was beat out by Tony Hunt couldn’t have helped his NFL career either
How could Nixon know so little about Watergate and so much about football ?
by psupride on Oct 15, 2009 8:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
The comments from the Lehigh Valley locals are about 90% against Scott and his suit. He was “great” HS back, but he blew chance after chance to succeed as a Lion.
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
Vince Lombardi
by PaJoe on Oct 15, 2009 8:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Starting with
Fumbles. In fact fumbling seemed to be the only thing he was good at. Scott was given the golden chance to start for a big D-I nationally ranked program at a featured position. He was given the keys to a Benz and he drove it straight into a lake and now he wants to sue the people who gave him the keys?.
He will forever be remembered as having played for, and been a leading reason for one of the most disappointing teams in PSU history: a team that with just a little bit more offense could have been 10-2 or 11-1.
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
by millzners on Oct 15, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree
See what I said below. Austin would have had the same season that Rodney Kinlaw had in 2006, probably a little bit better. Given his “talent” that would have gotten him drafted. Not in the first round, but drafted.
Where’s the Beer and the Bar-b-Que?
by jesse. on Oct 15, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Metaphor
Scott was given the golden chance to start for a big D-I nationally ranked program at a featured position. He was given the keys to a Benz and he drove it straight into a lake and now he wants to sue the people who gave him the keys?.
Perhaps a more apt metaphor would be: He was given the keys to a Benz and he drove it straight into a lake. On his frustrated walk home he was arrested for jaywalking and now he wants to sue the person who accused him of that.
by ednax1 on Oct 15, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems to me....
That the lawsuit is premised on “I would have had Rodney Kinlaw’s numbers plus 10% and as a result I would have been drafted and got ____ as a signing bonus”
I think he’s right.
Clowns like Mike Maderia need to learn that their actions have consequences. He couldn’t even get the Scott case to trial, but by the time it got resolved he lost his Senior season. That’s total bullshit.
Penn State is the deep pocket, but is in the clear. Austin got suspended for breaking curfew, not raping a girl, if you recall. Joe Paterno gets to do pretty much whatever he wants in that situation.
Where’s the Beer and the Bar-b-Que?
by jesse. on Oct 15, 2009 8:42 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
Clowns like Mike Maderia need to learn that their actions have consequences.
Saying Scott was a potential 2nd- or 3rd-rounder is pushing it, but I’d love to see Maderia get his comeuppance finally. Right now, there are a half dozen players whose charges were later dismissed lining up to file lawsuits if this gets any traction. (Not to mention a Collegian photographer.)
by ednax1 on Oct 15, 2009 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you said.
Penn State isn’t liable for jack shit here. But the DA’s office and the accuser? Well…
by Run Up The Score on Oct 15, 2009 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's what I don't get
Why would Scott sue Penn State? Paterno said he booted him for violating a team rule of curfew. His beef is with the prosecutor who pushed the case with no evidence.
I guess this is a case of the lawyers going after the people who have the money hoping to get a settlement. Doesn’t he have an ambulance to chase or something?
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on Oct 15, 2009 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand what type of evidence you claim the DA didn't have
He had the alleged victim’s testimony that she was raped. That is pretty strong evidence to charge Scott. I mean think about the backlash that would have ensued had the DA held off the charges. People would be claiming they held of charging him so he could play in X game. DA’s career is ruined at that point.
How could Nixon know so little about Watergate and so much about football ?
by psupride on Oct 15, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He also had the evidence
That she had made the exact same false allegation a few years prior, and no physical evidence to support the allege victims testimony.
I’ve said this a million times. Just because a woman gets drunk and willingly goes to a mans apartment to make out with him doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped. It just means she can’t prove it.
Maderia’s job is to prove things, not accuse people of things. In my opinion, bringing a charge you can’t prove, that ruins (or severely limits) a persons chance to have a lucrative signing bonus, should be actionable. I don’t know that it is in this case. But I think it should be.
Where’s the Beer and the Bar-b-Que?
by jesse. on Oct 15, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't recall how long it was before the charges were dropped
But it is not the DA’s job to dig up the dirt on the victim and see if she ever filed a rape report that was false.
And as far as the lack of physical evidence – the nurse testified at the preliminary hearing and the District Judge held that there was enough evidence to go to trial.
How could Nixon know so little about Watergate and so much about football ?
by psupride on Oct 15, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. It was several months. And it merits repeating that the charges were dropped. Not plead down and/or out. Dropped, as in completely dismissed.
2. Being a lawyer, especially a District Attorney, isn’t a game. It’s a job that deals with peoples lives and livelihoods. To say “it’s not his job” is the worst kind of copout. It is his job. This is the man who is charged with determining whether or not to prosecute crimes, and to say he doesn’t have an obligation to investigate a claim before bringing charges is wrong.
3. You know why they say a DA can indict a ham sandwich? Because he can. These people have tremendous amounts of power, it needs to be checked and scrutinized. Regularly and heavily scrutinized. There is probably enough physical evidence to indict every couple in the world that had had three or four drinks and a good roll in the hay last night.
Where’s the Beer and the Bar-b-Que?
by jesse. on Oct 15, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So....
Is if a girl makes a prior false report of rape, she can never be actually raped?
The DA also had the testimony of the nurse and it bears repeating that the District Judge determined that there was enough evidence to stand trial. So he wasn’t quite “indicting a ham sandwhich”
How could Nixon know so little about Watergate and so much about football ?
by psupride on Oct 15, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it is not the DA’s job to dig up the dirt on the victim and see if she ever filed a rape report that was false.
I think it kind of is. The defense is going to, and the DA shouldn’t be bringing charges they know they can’t win; that’s called “pulling a stunt.” The credibility of the testimony, when the testimony is the only evidence you have, means you have to “dig up the dirt,” or, do put another way, do a background check.
BSD
by Kevin HD on Oct 15, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
right
but he thought that the evidence would not be admissible.
How could Nixon know so little about Watergate and so much about football ?
by psupride on Oct 15, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then he's an idiot.
Evidence regarding credibility is almost always admissible. Evidence like, “she dressed like whore”, or “she’s a whore” [and I’m not saying she did or she is] is not admissible. Evidence that she is a liar is.
That’s pretty basic 2L Evidence and/or Criminal Procedure.
Where’s the Beer and the Bar-b-Que?
by jesse. on Oct 15, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what changed between when he filed charges and when he dropped them? He thought he had a case, then no new information became available (correct me here if I’m wrong), then he decided he didn’t have a case.
BSD
by Kevin HD on Oct 15, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think your timing is a little off
I think he filed the charges after she reported the rape and had the testimony of the nurse. After which the defense probably found the information of the prior false statements gave them to the prosecutor who had already invested countless hours in this case and tried to not get the testimony admitted. Once he knew it would be admitted and ruin his case he drops the charges
How could Nixon know so little about Watergate and so much about football ?
by psupride on Oct 15, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you fundementally misuderstand what an arraignment is.
The standard is, pretty much is it possible to prove a crime occured.
Vicitim says; “I was raped”, Nurse says “It’s possible she was raped” equals rape indictment.
That indictment is about 10 million miles away from sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. And it showed.
Where’s the Beer and the Bar-b-Que?
by jesse. on Oct 15, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't believe I fundamentally misunderstand anything
All I was saying is you can’t claim that the DA had “no evidence” he had testimony from the alleged victim and teh nurse saying that it is possible a rape occured. I’m not sure if you fundamentally understand what type of evidence is usually rpesent for a rape case. What else would you expect there to be? a video of the alleged attacker holding a gun to the alleged victim’s head?
How could Nixon know so little about Watergate and so much about football ?
by psupride on Oct 15, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exept I never said he had no evidence
I said he had shitty evidence, and that he has an obligation to know the difference.
Where’s the Beer and the Bar-b-Que?
by jesse. on Oct 15, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I originally went off on this huge tangent in response to Mike’s claim of no evidence and like the DA in this case didn’t know when to let it go.
working as an attorney for the gov they tell us to never get married to a case. It seems that this was this guy’s problem to me
How could Nixon know so little about Watergate and so much about football ?
by psupride on Oct 15, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you got married to this thread?
"For me the game wasn’t grounded in reality. It was about the uniform you put on that turned you into a warrior. It was about the mythology of the battle, the victory, the defeat, the struggle." - Mike Reid, PSU '69
by jtothep on Oct 15, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't be so defensive
if I didn’t kind of feel bad for AS. I mean yes, he didn’t live up to the star ranking, but he didn’t give himself five stars, and it would have been nice if a guy who didn’t work out was able to move on without having to deal with the CC DA and claims that didn’t appear to have much merit to them.
BSD
by Kevin HD on Oct 15, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No to both
The nurse can only testify that there was physical evidence of sexual intercourse, NOT that a rape occurred. The nurse only collects the physical evidence and reports what it shows. There is no way to “prove” that sex was consensual or non-consensual.
It is the DA’s job to look at the victim to see how credible they are. After all, in a he-said-she-said rape case all that you have as the DA is the victim’s credibility. If you saw and heard the actual evidence in this case, you’d realize pretty quickly that these charges were going nowhere fast.
by PSUesq on Oct 15, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Why he's suing Penn State
Other lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong, but this is why he is suing Penn State. In a case like this, where there is bound to be multiple defendants (Penn State, the county, individual DA, etc.), if Scott were to get an award, he would be entitled to collect from anyone of the defendants. Further, if any one of the defendants had the means, they would have to foot the entire bill if Scott requested and then seem contribution from the other defendants, to the extent they could pay. Thus, say Scott gets a 10 million dollar award. Let’s further assume that the jury finds PSU 1% at fault (any less and they are in the clear). Thus, PSU owes Scott 100K. However, PSU will be forced to pay the ENTIRE 10M at Scott’s request, and then go after the other defendants to cover. It’s sneaky as hell, but it’s the law. The same thing happened to the Mellon Arena a while back over a slip and fall case where they were determined to be like 2% at fault. The problem is that the jury doesn’t know (and isn’t allowed to learn) these rules, so deeming PSU 1% at fault, while it might seem fair to slap them on the wrist, is actually a death knell for them.
Then again, I could be wrong.
by PSUJunny05 on Oct 15, 2009 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's correct
there was a bill to reform this but Slick Eddy vetoed it.
How could Nixon know so little about Watergate and so much about football ?
by psupride on Oct 15, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're almost there.
They name PSU as a defendant because…well, because. For a guy like Karoly, it gets more media attention, makes PSU have to defend it in the press, etc. It’s really just a shotgun approach to civil suits. I’m not a civil lawyer, but I imagine PSU will get dropped from the suit in approximately 15 seconds.
As for the ambulance, yeah, look into this guy’s history. That’s pretty much what he does. He’s probably the most infamous lawyer in the Lehigh Valley, for all sorts of reasons.
by Run Up The Score on Oct 15, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like he hired Jackie Chiles
"For me the game wasn’t grounded in reality. It was about the uniform you put on that turned you into a warrior. It was about the mythology of the battle, the victory, the defeat, the struggle." - Mike Reid, PSU '69
by jtothep on Oct 15, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Your face is my case"
"The sea was angry that day, my friends." G. Costanza
by NJ lion on Oct 15, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The law is a tricky lady
He had to sue Penn State because that’s who employs the police that he also sued. You have to look to who actually signs the paychecks. While I agree that on its face PSU has no culpability, it might actually have some liability because it employs the folks in the police department. Plus, you always sue everyone you can (anyone who has ever touched ANYTHING in a case) in order to get the most out of it. Those who are truly free of liability will get out in due time under the law. Those who are not or who are close will offer up some kind of settlement to get rid of the nuisance.
by PSUesq on Oct 15, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
PSU also has the deepest pockets
You always go after the deepest pocket in the hope of getting something out of the them, even if it is settlement prior to trial. If the university police department was involved in the investigation (which I belive they were), they do have culpability. I seem to remember that investigators had the alleged “victim” call Scott the day after the incident and recorded a conversation he had with her. In that conversation he denied any wrong doing to the victim and instead went through the night’s prior events. Cops seemed to know from the get-go that Austin denied any wrong-doing. As for the nurse, I could be wrong but I don’t believe she testified in the arraigment about any evidence of forced pentration. Don’t remember the victim having any defensive wounds either.
Scott may have indeed been drafted….he was the starting PSU back and would have had a 1000 + yard season. 3-4 round sounds high but he does have the physical intagibles. I expect he will get a decent settlement out of this suit.
I thought only safeties played 15 yards off the ball?
by pic15 on Oct 15, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hadn’t he been in the doghouse numerous times before this all happened?
Lucky gun, fake fifth, 8XY bitch
Daryll Clark, The Penn State Football Story Is...
by letsgopsu on Oct 15, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
If I remember right he came back out of shape and unmotivated, which is why Tony Hunt won the starting job.
by dawsonPSU10 on Oct 16, 2009 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't remember this tort from law school.
“destroyed his chances for an NFL career” is the reason behind the suit. If that’s an actual cause of action, I’m suing Anheuser and Miller Brewing Co. for destroying my chances at NFL, MLB, etc. Those bastards tricked me!
by PSUJunny05 on Oct 15, 2009 9:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Austin Scott's not in football because...
He did not have the dedication and “correct attitude” to be an NFL player. That is what was said about Austin Scott by a coach with the Cleavland Browns. I searched but could not find the quote. :-(
This is the same reason he did not succeed at Penn State.
Peter
by psuboy on Oct 15, 2009 12:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
But that’s not why he didn’t get drafted. He didn’t get drafted because he missed pretty much his eintire senior year because of the rape charges.
If he got drafted, he would have gotten a signing bonus. Not 10 million bucks, but something.
Where’s the Beer and the Bar-b-Que?
by jesse. on Oct 15, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
and according to the collegian article on this whole thing, he’s only suing for 300,000. I don’t think that’s at all unreasonable.
by PSUisMyHeart on Oct 16, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
