One more on rape

I don't like "beating a dead horse" but I've never let it stop me. This one isn't about Stanford but it is about rape, a specific rape.

Ben Roethlisberger.

Love him or hate him, he's a great NFL quarterback. However, if you hate him, I'm guessing you also think he's a rapist. For the record, yes, he did pay a settlement to one woman who was interviewed by police after they had been together one night. However, it's also the record that he's never been charged with a crime for that or any other incident.

My past two posts have been an effort to get people to make a distinction between "reasons" and "excuses" and I want to use Roethlisberger as an illustration.

I'd like to think we still operate under the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Well, to prove guilt, you have to ascertain the facts and then use judgment to determine guilt or innocence based on those facts.

With Roethlisberger, the facts are:

1. His party went to three separate bars that night.
2. The girl was already at the first bar and was one of several who accepted free drinks from Roethlisberger.
3. The girl followed his party to the other two bars and continued to accept free drinks from him.
4. The girl interacted (flirted) with him throughout the night.
5. She was led to a secluded area but was not forced to stay, where she and Roethlisberger had physical relations.
6. When she rejoined her friends, she was disheveled and shaken and they later contacted the police on her behalf.
7. She and Roethlisberger were separately interviewed and he wasn't charged.

Those are the facts. Is it enough information to determine if it was rape? Well, that's where judgment takes over. What's your judgment?