A few questions for you. First, as someone with a JD, how can you equate a "not guilty" finding in a criminal case, which means only that the jury found that the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, with "exonerated and vindicated?" Those concepts are in no way the same and that's taught in first year Criminal Law class. Second, even assuming that you believe that the conduct on the video does not rise to the level of criminal sexual assault, do you find it to be acceptable conduct, something which you would condone if done by your kid, sibling, dad, buddy, etc.? If not, who is being tribal here when you rush to defend an MSU athlete doing something you don't condone? Finally, do you really think that due process precludes people from forming opinions based upon what they know or observe, and even disagreeing with a jury verdict? OJ was found not guilty--do you think that those who believe he was guilty despite the verdict are somehow violating due process? How about Casey Anthony? Or how about Al Capone, who only went to jail for tax evasion--if I think that Capone actually ordered the murders of dozens of people, and likely became a made man by killing some himself, does this mean that I (or "people like [me]") are "tribalistic" or haters of due process?
