Thread: Culpepper, Williams claim discrimination in boat party case

"DaunteHOF" wrote:

how is it illegal to have sex with the crew watching? I mean if they sign privacy waivers then whats the problem, even if they didnt its sex, how is that illegal with consent?

They did not sign a waiver to have sex.

"2beersTommy" wrote:

"BigMoInAZ" wrote:

Well a sure sign that the $hit will hit the fan will be when Jesse Jackson makes his appearance and proclaims his opinion on this matter! :roll:

Johnny Cochran would have ate that case up in a heartbeat..I could hear him now.. "If da B!tch didnt spit..you must acquit" lmao

LMFAO!!!!! that is f'n priceless!!!!

if the captain admitted to suckin on a stripper/hookers nipple, he should be held to the law as pep and williams. i've had quite a few to drink tonight, but i could've sworn i read some saying that even though the captain admitted to it, it wasn't enough to convict b/c he didn't drop the hookers name. if this is true, how come it's so easy to convict murders who confess? bottom line, pep and williams jus need to pay the fine and move the hell on.

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"collegeguyjeff" wrote:

why don't us white people ever say we are discriminated against? maybe we should.

Hey, if you feel you must... I, as a white, protestant, middle class male, tend to find myself rather short on times I have actually been discriminated against.

Remember that prejudice and discrimination are different things...

i have been too by one seargent in the military, he treated everyone who wasn't the same color like crap. but hey i didn't go and make a big deal out of it. who knows maybe pepper was treated wrong but i think this term gets used too often this isn't the 60's

"whiteboy" wrote:

"2beersTommy" wrote:

"BigMoInAZ" wrote:

Well a sure sign that the $hit will hit the fan will be when Jesse Jackson makes his appearance and proclaims his opinion on this matter! :roll:

Johnny Cochran would have ate that case up in a heartbeat..I could hear him now.. "If da B!tch didnt spit..you must acquit" lmao

LMFAO!!!!! that is f'n priceless!!!!

if the captain admitted to suckin on a stripper/hookers nipple, he should be held to the law as pep and williams. i've had quite a few to drink tonight, but i could've sworn i read some saying that even though the captain admitted to it, it wasn't enough to convict b/c he didn't drop the hookers name. if this is true, how come it's so easy to convict murders who confess? bottom line, pep and williams jus need to pay the fine and move the hell on.

My problem has been & always will be, "Why weren't any of the strippers fined or charged?

If they're going to say the boat was a "public place" because it was on the lake, then they were stripping & giving lap dances & a lot more in public.

"vikesoto" wrote:

I garuntee Daunte and the other players will be sued. That is what I'm talking about.

Maybe so, the point being he isn't being sued yet. So until then I don't see how this is about money at all.

Unless of course this is pushed by the state hoping to subdue in part the vigorous push for a new stadium.

Don't mistake logic for me not liking the guy. I have no emotions towards him either way, I just want him to succeed or get off my favorite team. I could care less what he does on his own time. Apparently the law does that is why I am discussing it.

"DaunteHOF" wrote:

how is it illegal to have sex with the crew watching? I mean if they sign privacy waivers then whats the problem, even if they didnt its sex, how is that illegal with consent?

Probably the same way it would be illegal if you had sex up against your living room window for the whole world to see, you still get busted.

Only in this case when your neighbor walks by with her dog (waitress) you aren't pinching her ass and asking her to join in.

[size=18px]Culpepper, Williams face tough fight in proving racial bias[/size]

Two Minnesota Vikings who say the prosecutor discriminated in the boat party case are hoping a judge will make a rare move.

David Shaffer, Star Tribune
Last update: March 03, 2006 – 12:19 AM

Two Minnesota Vikings players who want their indecent conduct charges thrown out of court are asking a judge to take a rare step: second-guess a prosecutor over a decision on who gets charged.
Legal experts say courts have long shied away from wading into what's known as "prosecutorial discretion." One of the few times judges even consider doing so is when a criminal suspect alleges racially biased prosecution.

That's what quarterback Daunte Culpepper and running back Moe Williams asserted in a motion submitted by their attorneys Wednesday in the Lake Minnetonka boat party case. They say that four black football players were charged with misdemeanor lewdness, while two whites, including a boat captain, behaved badly but were not charged.

Legal experts said it's not easy to make a case for prosecutor discrimination, and not everyone agrees on what proof is needed. It may take more than proving that similar conduct by the white men wasn't prosecuted, legal experts said.

"You have to show bad faith" by the prosecutor, said Prof. Joseph Daly of Hamline Law School in St. Paul. "It's almost like getting inside the head of the prosecutor. What was his intention? Did he intentionally go after black people?"

The party thrown by Vikings players in October took place on two chartered boats. The evening cruise drew about 90 guests, including out-of-state strippers flown in for the event. Some women gave lap dances or engaged in sex with partygoers in front of stunned crew members, according to the criminal charges.

Only the four players were charged with misdemeanor lewdness and indecent conduct. Culpepper and Williams allegedly got lap dances, while two other players, Fred Smoot and Bryant McKinnie, allegedly engaged in sexual acts. All are awaiting trial.

The prosecutor, Steven Tallen, who handles misdemeanor cases committed on Lake Minnetonka, has said evidence against the two white men -- a boat captain and a strip club manager who was a party guest -- wasn't enough to bring charges over contact with a female guest.

That contention is certain to be challenged by the two players' attorneys, Earl Gray and Joseph Friedberg. They say there's plenty of evidence to charge the two men -- more proof than exists against their clients.

Friedberg said that in 40 years of practicing law he has never before brought a motion alleging discriminatory prosecution. The motion will be argued March 22 in Hennepin County District Court.

Judges usually have no say in who gets charged with crimes.

"The prosecution has almost complete discretion in the charging decision," said Bradford Colbert, an adjunct professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul. That includes filing criminal complaints or bringing cases to a grand jury for possible charges.

And judges are wary of second-guessing prosecutors because "you open up a can of worms," said University of Minnesota law Prof. Steve Simon. If judges routinely reviewed who got charged with crimes, "the system could grind to a halt," he added.

The exceptions apply when such things as race or religion are alleged to factor into the filing of charges. Then judges must rule on the motion, relying on written filings and oral arguments at a hearing. The judge can only dismiss the charges against the players, not compel new charges to be filed against others.

David Shaffer • 612-673-7090

Culpepper, Williams face tough fight in proving racial bias

They were charged because they were the biggest named Vikings that they could prove any wrong doing against! The were charged because of that not because they were black!



"whackthepack" wrote:

If the defense lawyer had come out and said that his clients had been charged because they were celebrities, I would agree with that! Their were 90 some people on the boat, only 4 were charged and they were big name Viking, what about the friends of the players that were invited on the boat? What about the other 15 or so Vikings on the boat, why were they not charged? Were they all are white and that is why they are not being charged? Or was it, because they do not have as big as names as the defendants? This argument I would have bought, but I am not buying the race one!

"collegeguyjeff" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"collegeguyjeff" wrote:

why don't us white people ever say we are discriminated against? maybe we should.

Hey, if you feel you must... I, as a white, protestant, middle class male, tend to find myself rather short on times I have actually been discriminated against.

Remember that prejudice and discrimination are different things...

i have been too by one seargent in the military, he treated everyone who wasn't the same color like crap. but hey i didn't go and make a big deal out of it. who knows maybe pepper was treated wrong but i think this term gets used too often this isn't the 60's

I agree that the term is abused to an extent. And we have come a long way since the sixties. I have already stated that I doubt that any discrimination took place in this incident (although I don’t know all the facts yet). In fact, I would say that the vast majority of the time, discrimination does not take place. This was done because this is pretty much the only way their attorney's could get the case thrown out before the trial. This type of tactic annoys me as much as I think it annoys you, and I also think it hurts them in the public eye more than it helps.

But my point earlier was that "us white people", as a whole, simply do not endure discrimination to the degree that any other ethnic group does in the United States. For your old sergeant's action to qualify as discrimination he would have had to "through action or inaction create an unfair condition based on prejudice." He very well may have been prejudiced, which is not illegal. But you need to decide whether or not he acted on that prejudice and actually created some type of unfair condition before it can be discrimination. Just being an asshole to you doesn't qualify. If he was behaving illegally, then you dropped the ball by not reporting him.

I encountered many incidents and claims like this in my nearly a decade long stint in the military, and I can’t remember ever finding that discrimination had actually taken place against a white person because of the color of their skin. Discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, or age was much more prevalent. I am not disputing your claim, just pointing out how rare it actually is.