After reading today's article in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette regarding the current status of the Santonio Holmes matter in an Orlando bar, I'm still shaking my head.
Any criminal charges that might have been made are moot as the Orlando Police Department made a decision to close their case. The plaintiff has decided not to press charges. It is unclear whether any money exchanged hands.
However, the article states the civil suit against him will proceed and the plaintiff's attorneys see no reason to "back down". The reason may be as simple as the legal requirement of reasonable doubt in a criminal case as opposed to the much smaller requirement to convict in a civil matter. (see O.J.)
While there is no guarantee criminal charges couldn't be made later - nor that a out-of-court settlement might be reached - this appears to be an ideal time for Holmes to countersue if the matter continues.
Given that the young attorney contended in his complaint that the Orlando Police Department and Holmes conspired and pressured the "victim" not to pursue charges, one wonders why the City of Orlando doesn't also research legal remedies.
Holmes contends that the incident for which he - a professional football player - is being charged was not committed by him, but, by a female guest at the Orlando bar he attended. In addition, coincidental with the police departments decision not to prefer charges - several details of the "victims" criminal past emerged.
We live in a legal environment where local financially strapped government seems to disdain prosecuting celebrities who can afford the quality of defense counsel that will end up costing the taxpayers money.
Even on a federal level it's hard to find the report of a financial settlement that is not accompanied by the words "no admission of guilt". Therefore, white collar crime stats are skewed as we seldom put the offenders behind bars.
"Settling out of court" appears to be more prevalent in a civil matter than a criminal case. In the latter the popular term is "plea bargaining". Regardless of the fancy legalese used to describe this by the media - the word that they chose to exclude from their report is that of "blackmail.".
Okay, enough of the pseudo-legal opinion of this writer. I readily admit I occasionally fail to recognize the difference between a tort and a tart. - so let's switch gears.
What is it about celebrity status that these Pittsburgh Steelers athletes don't appear to understand?
Holmes and Rothlisberger are one half of a tandem act that won a Super Bowl. Both are previously and presently involved in legal actions agains them. Should we also conclude that their success as professional athletes is the result of some weird strain of "idiot savant"?
Rothlisbergers transgression was committed in Georgia on March 5. Holmes is allegedly involved in a felonious act that took place in a Florida bar two days later on March 7.
Now, as a bona-fide resident of Florida, I realize mail service between Florida and Georgia could be compared favorably with the Pony Express system employed between Sacramento and St. Joe, but, doesn't anybody watch ESPN any more?
Why in the name of everything holy would you hear about your "tandem buddy's" latest problems in a bar and go visit a bar two nights later? I mean, at least give it a week.
How can we convince these two that they are in a celebrity category because God gave them the genetics that allows one - with training - sacrifice - good coaching -etc to achieve greater things athletically than your average Joe?
How can we convince them that there is a quid pro-quo expected of them in exchange for their genetic gift - vast fortunes - and celebrity status?
Answer: We obviously can't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment