Carl Granderson sentenced to 6 months (1 Viewer)

[StudioSaint]

The old school way of actually quoting someone is by adding quotation marks, and attributing the quote to the person that made the statement, so I did “actually quote” you.

I'm a 54 year old writer. You're 48. I lived "old school" just as much as you have. I've also adapted to the times. Adapt or perish, my friend. That includes adapting to new norms on what is acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior, my friend.

Stalk much?

You've only posted in this thread and you keep replying to every post I make. Yet, you accuse me of stalking.

I misunderstood the question when I initially answered it as Oklahoma City. I have lived here in Wyoming since December 2000 after I got out of the Army. If you want me to send pictures I will gladly do so.

I don't care where you live and was just pointing out to you that it doesn't matter where either one of us live.

Each time that I made the equivalent of Littering and “Unlawful Touching” I explained that it was the Class C Misdemeanor Charge that I was referring to.

You never made a clear distinction between the classes of Sexual Battery and Unlawful Contact. Each time you mentioned the class of Unlawful Contact, you piggy backed it off also mentioning Sexual Battery and you did it in a way that implied Sexual Battery was also a Class C Misdemeanor charge. That's how you were conflating Unlawful Contact with Sexual Battery and then equating both to littering.

Sexual Battery is a more serious offense than littering. I'm glad we both agree on that factual truth.

And as a heads up, the that charge, is called Unlawful Contact and doesn’t even fall under the header of Sexual Assault.

Thanks for the clarification on Unlawful Contact being the legal term. I already said that Unlawful Contact does not fall under the Sexual Assault statutes, so we are in agreement on that.

And each time I made the legal comparison, you lost your shirt and started screeching...

Not in the least. What you think and say is not important enough for me to get upset over. I've only been calmly correcting the false and inaccurate things you have said.

While all I was doing was stating the legal fact that they are both; the same class of misdemeanor, and hold the same sentencing guidelines.

There seems to have been an issue of miscommunication. Hopefully, we are both in clear and complete agreement now that Sexual Battery is without question a more serious offense than littering, both legally and morally.

The problems that I had with your statements were your original claims that he “plead guilty” and that he plead guilty to Sexual Assault.

I misspoke once by saying he plead guilty. You pointed out that he plead no contest. I have correctly stated that he plead no contest since the point that you corrected my inaccuracy. I also very consistently and clearly said that Granderson was accused of, charged with and plead no contest to Sexual Battery which is a form of Sexual Assault.

I'm glad the miscommunication has been cleared up and that we are both in complete agreement that Granderson was accused of, charged with and plead no contest to Sexual Battery which is a form of Sexual Assault.

...you still are under the belief that the charge and sentencing of Sexual Battery is somehow the same as Sexual Assault simply because both crimes fall under the header of Sexual Assault.

I'm under the belief that the truth is the truth and it's important to be completely truthful. Sexual Battery is just one of many Sexual Assault offenses. That's an irrefutable fact. To avoid misrepresenting what Granderson was accused of and charged with, I have mentioned several times the specific acts that he was accused of committing and that those acts do not rise to the level of rape and other more brutal forms of Sexual Assault. There's no vagueness, confusion or deception on my part.

The 6 month sentencing guidelines aren’t even the the Sexual Battery charge, it is the Unlawful Contact (Class C Misdemeanor Simple Battery charge) that has a max of 6 months.

That's correct and it's also correct that Sexual Battery carries up to a 1 year prison sentence. It's also correct that Granderson was charged with and plead no contest to Sexual Battery as well as Unlawful Contact. It's also correct that both his initial sentence and his amended sentence is for both charges.

They are legally different: 62302, 62303, 62304. Sexual assault 62313. Sexual battery

They are legally different statutes, because Sexual Battery is a subsection of Sexual Assault. The fact that Sexual Battery is a subsection of Sexual Assault means that Sexual Battery is in fact a form of Sexual Assault. Every time you've agreed to the fact that Sexual Battery is legally a form of Sexual Assault, you turn around and try to find another way to say that it isn't.

It's clear that for whatever reason you won't accept the factual truth that Sexual Battery is legally a form of Sexual Assault.

And I took your advice and read all of your prior posts. So it is interesting to find out that you are simply a guilt ridden prior sexual abuser.

And this is who you are and what you are all about. Thanks for exposing yourself yet again. You quoted what I said with no context so that you could paint me as a "sexual abuser" in a futile attempt to discredit me and what I've been saying. It's an ultimate low in ad hominem attacks. The full context of my comments you quoted were in response to this:

One of the takeaways I wish people would arrive at is that ‘the way things were’ was probably not the best What is most likely is that most of us engaged in sexual intimidation and maybe even sexual assault when we thought girls were ‘playing hard to get’ They were just socialized to go along instead of risking anger or the eventual social shaming.

My actions I was referring to in my post, of which you are insinuating were a confession of "sexual abuse", were less severe than even placing a hand on a woman's buttocks without her permission. So if you think I'm guilty of "sexual abuse" and want to falsely label me as a "guilt ridden prior sexual abuser," then you need to seriously reconsider your defense of Granderson.

By the way, it's right there in my quote that I have resolved any guilt I had by making amends with the few women that I realized I put in uncomfortable positions. So, no, I'm not guilt ridden at all. That's why I don't feel compelled to irrationally defend or condemn Granderson. I leave that to others.

I have been a victim of sexual assault and abuse, and what happened to these girls wasn’t sexual assault.

I have sympathy for you for being sexually assaulted. However, that doesn't give you the right to say what is and isn't sexual assault. Only the laws of Wyoming have that right. Under the laws of Wyoming, Sexual Battery is a subsection of Wyoming's laws against Sexual Assault, which logically, legally and morally mean that Sexual Battery is a type of Sexual Assault. Nothing you've experienced or say is going to change that fact.

Granderson was accused of actions that are Sexual Battery which is a type of Sexual Assault.
Granderson was charged by the DA with Sexual Battery which is a type of Sexual Assault.
Granderson, as part of plea agreement, plead no contest to Sexual Battery which is a type of Sexual Assault.
Granderson was sentenced partly for Sexaul Battery which is a type of Sexual Assault.

Those are the simple and irrefutable facts of this case.

 

[El Caliente]

I'm a 54 year old writer. You're 48. I lived "old school" just as much as you have. I've also adapted to the times. Adapt or perish, my friend. That includes adapting to new norms on what is acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior, my friend.

You've only posted in this thread and you keep replying to every post I make. Yet, you accuse me of stalking.

I don't care where you live and was just pointing out to you that it doesn't matter where either one of us live.

You never made a clear distinction between the classes of Sexual Battery and Unlawful Contact. Each time you mentioned the class of Unlawful Contact, you piggy backed it off also mentioning Sexual Battery and you did it in a way that implied Sexual Battery was also a Class C Misdemeanor charge. That's how you were conflating Unlawful Contact with Sexual Battery and then equating both to littering.

Sexual Battery is a more serious offense than littering. I'm glad we both agree on that factual truth.

Thanks for the clarification on Unlawful Contact being the legal term. I already said that Unlawful Contact does not fall under the Sexual Assault statutes, so we are in agreement on that.

Not in the least. What you think and say is not important enough for me to get upset over. I've only been calmly correcting the false and inaccurate things you have said.

There seems to have been an issue of miscommunication. Hopefully, we are both in clear and complete agreement now that Sexual Battery is without question a more serious offense than littering, both legally and morally.

I misspoke once by saying he plead guilty. You pointed out that he plead no contest. I have correctly stated that he plead no contest since the point that you corrected my inaccuracy. I also very consistently and clearly said that Granderson was accused of, charged with and plead no contest to Sexual Battery which is a form of Sexual Assault.

I'm glad the miscommunication has been cleared up and that we are both in complete agreement that Granderson was accused of, charged with and plead no contest to Sexual Battery which is a form of Sexual Assault.

I'm under the belief that the truth is the truth and it's important to be completely truthful. Sexual Battery is just one of many Sexual Assault offenses. That's an irrefutable fact. To avoid misrepresenting what Granderson was accused of and charged with, I have mentioned several times the specific acts that he was accused of committing and that those acts do not rise to the level of rape and other more brutal forms of Sexual Assault. There's no vagueness, confusion or deception on my part.

That's correct and it's also correct that Sexual Battery carries up to a 1 year prison sentence. It's also correct that Granderson was charged with and plead no contest to Sexual Battery as well as Unlawful Contact. It's also correct that both his initial sentence and his amended sentence is for both charges.

They are legally different statutes, because Sexual Battery is a subsection of Sexual Assault. The fact that Sexual Battery is a subsection of Sexual Assault means that Sexual Battery is in fact a form of Sexual Assault. Every time you've agreed to the fact that Sexual Battery is legally a form of Sexual Assault, you turn around and try to find another way to say that it isn't.

It's clear that for whatever reason you won't accept the factual truth that Sexual Battery is legally a form of Sexual Assault.

And this is who you are and what you are all about. Thanks for exposing yourself yet again. You quoted what I said with no context so that you could paint me as a "sexual abuser" in a futile attempt to discredit me and what I've been saying. It's an ultimate low in ad hominem attacks. The full context of my comments you quoted were in response to this:

​

My actions I was referring to in my post, of which you are insinuating were a confession of "sexual abuse", were less severe than even placing a hand on a woman's buttocks without her permission. So if you think I'm guilty of "sexual abuse" and want to falsely label me as a "guilt ridden prior sexual abuser," then you need to seriously reconsider your defense of Granderson.

By the way, it's right there in my quote that I have resolved any guilt I had by making amends with the few women that I realized I put in uncomfortable positions. So, no, I'm not guilt ridden at all. That's why I don't feel compelled to irrationally defend or condemn Granderson. I leave that to others.
I have sympathy for you for being sexually assaulted. However, that doesn't give you the right to say what is and isn't sexual assault. Only the laws of Wyoming have that right. Under the laws of Wyoming, Sexual Battery is a subsection of Wyoming's laws against Sexual Assault, which logically, legally and morally mean that Sexual Battery is a type of Sexual Assault. Nothing you've experienced or say is going to change that fact.

Granderson was accused of actions that are Sexual Battery which is a type of Sexual Assault.
Granderson was charged by the DA with Sexual Battery which is a type of Sexual Assault.
Granderson, as part of plea agreement, plead no contest to Sexual Battery which is a type of Sexual Assault.
Granderson was sentenced partly for Sexaul Battery which is a type of Sexual Assault.

Those are the simple and irrefutable facts of this case.

You forgot to conclude you post with “thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.”

You old people need to get with the times.

 

[livefromDC]

Reejer, Studio is arguing wording. You're arguing about the severity of the plea deal in the case. The intent of the plea that was agreed to by the prosecution and defense was not to delineate how to what extent is sexual battery an assault. That is really just semantics. In a vacuum? Sure, but in this case? Once the two sides began to bargain...no longer the point of contention.

The plea bargain was all about sentencing and finding a palatable sentence for both parties to accept. The plea, that was agreed to, has more to do with the sentencing versus the charge. Once a plea was agreed to this hang up on the definition of the charge is kind of pointless. The fascination with the charge is pointless.

I'm only pointing this out because it's obvious y'all are talking to different things and I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every time SS argument goes back to pointing out definitions. Reejer is talking about the severity of the plea reached as a result of the prosecution lessening the charge and SS keeps saying, "yeah but you did you know battery is assault?"

"A plea bargain is an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty or "no contest" (nolo contendere) in exchange for an agreement by the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence acceptable to the defense."

After a deal was made. This is what the case was about. The plea deal. And given what the deal was, the charges were dropped to one where probation could be given. In other words, the severity of the sentencing is at the center and not the charge itself. He plead no contest as a result of the sentencing that was agreed to by both parties. The semantics is trying to tie the textbook definition of original charge or the plea charge to the decision reached by both parties.

 

[StudioSaint]

Reejer, Studio is arguing wording. You're arguing about the severity of the plea deal in the case. The intent of the plea that was agreed to by the prosecution and defense was not to delineate how to what extent is sexual battery an assault. That is really just semantics. In a vacuum? Sure, but in this case? Once the two sides began to bargain...no longer the point of contention.

The plea bargain was all about sentencing and finding a palatable sentence for both parties to accept. The plea, that was agreed to, has more to do with the sentencing versus the charge. Once a plea was agreed to this hang up on the definition of the charge is kind of pointless. The fascination with the charge is pointless.

I'm only pointing this out because it's obvious y'all are talking to different things and I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every time SS argument goes back to pointing out definitions. Reejer is talking about the severity of the plea reached as a result of the prosecution lessening the charge and SS keeps saying, "yeah but you did you know battery is assault?"

"A plea bargain is an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty or "no contest" (nolo contendere) in exchange for an agreement by the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence acceptable to the defense."

After a deal was made. This is what the case was about. The plea deal. And given what the deal was, the charges were dropped to one where probation could be given. In other words, the severity of the sentencing is at the center and not the charge itself. He plead no contest as a result of the sentencing that was agreed to by both parties. The semantics is trying to tie the textbook definition of original charge or the plea charge to the decision reached by both parties.

Whatever final charges are applied in a plea bargain are never higher than the original charges. They always go down and there is never an overcharge. If the plea bargain included a charge of sexual battery, then the DA believed that at the very least that sexual battery was committed, regardless of how lenient the sentencing recommendations were.

The DA would not have charged Granderson with sexual battery, even in the plea agreement, if the DA thought Granderson hadn't committed sexual battery. The DA would not have charged Granderson with that misdemeanor sexual assault charge if they didn't think Granderson had committed that misdemeanor sexual assault charge. I don't see how this is a matter of semantics. It's a matter of legal reality.

The semantic problem is people seem to incorrectly think that only rape is sexual assault. That is not true.

 

[livefromDC]

Whatever final charges are applied in a plea bargain are never higher than the original charges. They always go down and there is never an overcharge. If the plea bargain included a charge of sexual battery, then the DA believed that at the very least that sexual battery was committed, regardless of how lenient the sentencing recommendations were.

The DA would not have charged Granderson with sexual battery, even in the plea agreement, if the DA thought Granderson hadn't committed sexual battery. The DA would not have charged Granderson with that misdemeanor sexual assault charge if they didn't think Granderson had committed that misdemeanor sexual assault charge. I don't see how this is a matter of semantics. It's a matter of legal reality.

The semantic problem is people seem to incorrectly think that only rape is sexual assault. That is not true.

1. I missed where people said only rape is assault so forgive me for not addressing that if that's the case. Can you point to where people are saying that?

2. I think, won't argue for him, but I think Reejer is talking about how the plea that both sides agreed to resulted in a misdemeanor level sentencing. Perhaps poor example on his part, but I believe that's where he was going with the littering (or whatever) example. He's not comparing the charges but the sentencing. And rightfully so, because in a plea deal...that's what both sides are ultimately after. That's why "no contest" exists...

no contest
phrase of contest

1. 1.
   US•LAW
   a plea by which a defendant in a criminal prosecution accepts conviction but does not plead or admit guilt.
   "he pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor counts"

That's why I found the hangups on definitions to be a strawman. Of course, it's fact...just not relevant to the deal in this case. But if all you need everyone to know is what the laws of this state says, by God you have done so multiple times. We get it.

 

[StudioSaint]

I have said several times that Granderson might not have done what he was accused of doing.

I have only refuted claims and arguments that were actually made by another person.

This is specifically what Granderson is accused of having done:

• Victim 2
  • woke up to him touching her right breast, he touched her breast three times even though she moved his arm and hand away after each touch
  • pulled her back toward him and pressed his genitals against her body and put his hands in her pants after she had moved away from him
• Victim 1
  • woke up to his hand touching her buttocks
  • touched her genitals under her pants

Granderson might not have committed any of those acts.

I've simply been saying that those actions are sexual battery which is a misdemeanor sexual assault. They are worse than only putting one's hands on someone's buttocks without permission and they are worse than littering. They are worse both in the legal and moral sense.

That's all that I've been saying in a nutshell.

 

[livefromDC]

I have said several times that Granderson might not have done what he was accused of doing.

I have only refuted claims and arguments that were actually made by another person.

This is specifically what Granderson is accused of having done:

• Victim 2
  • woke up to him touching her right breast, he touched her breast three times even though she moved his arm and hand away after each touch
  • pulled her back toward him and pressed his genitals against her body and put his hands in her pants after she had moved away from him
• Victim 1
  • woke up to his hand touching her buttocks
  • touched her genitals under her pants

Granderson might not have committed any of those acts.

I've simply been saying that those actions are sexual battery which is a misdemeanor sexual assault. They are worse than only putting one's hands on someone's buttocks without permission and they are worse than littering. They are worse both in the legal and moral sense.

That's all that I've been saying in a nutshell.

Like a broken record. Okay, is a sentence for a misdemeanor worse or better than a sentence for a misdemeanor?

 

[StudioSaint]

...is a sentence for a misdemeanor worse or better than a sentence for a misdemeanor?

If you can point out anything that is factually or contextually incorrect with what I said, then please do so. Base everything I wrote on the assumption that Granderson is completely innocent.

This thread has had two ongoing discussions with several people involved in both discussions. One was over Granderson's innocence and the other was on whether or not what the women described was sexual assault.

Go ahead and assume Granderson's completely innocent. I'm okay with that, because that's not what I've been discussing. I've been discussing whether or not what the women described is sexual assault.

So the first question is resolved, Granderson is completely innocent. No disagreement and no argument from me at all on that point.

Let's now consider the question of whether or not what the women described happening to them is considered sexual assault.

When the 2 women initially told the DA what allegedly had been done to them (which is detailed out in my previous post) the DA filed one of these charges based solely on what the 2 women said was done to them:

Granderson charged with sexual assault

Carl Granderson, a former star University of Wyoming defensive end, was charged this week with sexual assault and sexual battery in Albany County Circuit Court.

www.laramieboomerang.com

According to UW’s press release, Granderson has been charged with third-degree sexual assault. Third-degree sexual assault involves “sexual contact … without inflicting sexual intrusion on the victim and without causing serious bodily injury to the victim.”

The public terminal at circuit court, however, indicates Granderson is charged with second-degree sexual assault, meaning Granderson allegedly inflicted sexual intrusion through “submission of the victim by any means that would prevent resistance by a victim of ordinary resolution.”

Again, we are all in agreement that Granderson is completely innocent of what he was accused of doing. However, if someone else were guilty of doing the specific things these 2 women alleged happened to them, then it is very clear that that person would be guilty of either third or second degree sexual assault.

That's all I've been saying. Granderson being completely innocent of the allegations does not change the fact that the actions described by the women are sexual assault.

Hope you have a good weekend.

 

[livefromDC]

If you can point out anything that is factually or contextually incorrect with what I said, then please do so. Base everything I wrote on the assumption that Granderson is completely innocent.

This thread has had two ongoing discussions with several people involved in both discussions. One was over Granderson's innocence and the other was on whether or not what the women described was sexual assault.

Go ahead and assume Granderson's completely innocent. I'm okay with that, because that's not what I've been discussing. I've been discussing whether or not what the women described is sexual assault.

So the first question is resolved, Granderson is completely innocent. No disagreement and no argument from me at all on that point.

Let's now consider the question of whether or not what the women described happening to them is considered sexual assault.

When the 2 women initially told the DA what allegedly had been done to them (which is detailed out in my previous post) the DA filed one of these charges based solely on what the 2 women said was done to them:

Granderson charged with sexual assault

Carl Granderson, a former star University of Wyoming defensive end, was charged this week with sexual assault and sexual battery in Albany County Circuit Court.

www.laramieboomerang.com

Again, we are all in agreement that Granderson is completely innocent of what he was accused of doing. However, if someone else were guilty of doing the specific things these 2 women alleged happened to them, then it is very clear that that person would be guilty of either third or second degree sexual assault.

That's all I've been saying. Granderson being completely innocent of the allegations does not change the fact that the actions described by the women are sexual assault.

Hope you have a good weekend.

Ignored question to answer question you've answered at least 10 times, LOL.

 

[StudioSaint]

Ignored question...

You're free to answer your own question, if you think it's important.

You're free to point out anything I said that's not true.

Every time I take the time to answer your questions and explain myself, you reply with another question and some snide remark.

I'm done with that.

If you have something to say, you're completely free to say it.

 

[Dan in Lafayette]

Locking thread for the complete ******* match of the last few pages. Guys, cut it out!