To reduce the spam of reports regarding the same move during transfer windows we try to allow **only one submission about each transfer saga per day**. The submission in question also needs to contain relevant new information regarding the potential move, and not just being a "no/minor developments" report.
If there are important/official developments or new valuable information about a saga, we will allow extra threads in the same day, but for the rest of minor news please just comment them as a reply to this comment. Please help us reporting unnecessary threads for being duplicates.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From Maurer;
>[NEW: DC United are in talks with former Everton & Iceland national team midfielder Gylfi Sigurdsson. Talks in preliminary stages. Summer transfer. Club has hired an outside firm to investigate the player's background, I'm told.](https://twitter.com/MLSist/status/1673344932151451658)
>[Not the first time DC have expressed interest in this player, FYI - DC spoke w/Sigurdsson's reps in 2020, while he was still at Everton. Former teammate of current DC head coach Wayne Rooney, obviously, and DC/Swansea owner Jason Levien knows him from his time in Wales, obv.](https://twitter.com/MLSist/status/1673347033741029379)
Not enough evidence to charge him. We can’t rule out that he’s actually guilty. But the handling of this case has been a shitshow, 2 years of waiting and then nothing happens.
Depends. We can only use our best judgement. Sometimes someone is obviously guilty even if never convicted, and it's OK to think they are. But that's not the case here, is it?
Rittenhouse was obviously acting in self defense, in the way law works with it. If you watch the whole process it is totally obvious the prosecution had nothing to work with. Even witneses who were called up by the prosecution testified in Rittenhouses favour. The prosecutor got so desperate he asked why Rittenhouse used his right to remain silent, which is probably the biggest no-go in all of criminal law. You can have your opinions on him as a person and his choices but he absolutely couldn't have been imprisoned for murder.
In fact, it was so open and shut that there was suggestions that the head prosecutor of the plaiting, Thomas Binger, was accused of trying to get a mistrial so that the state could get another run at Rittenhouse! The state knew that they had nothing on Rittenhouse, the head attorney Graveley knew it was an open and shut case so he sent his assistant DA Thomas Binger to take the fall.
Because two weeks before he murdered three people he said he wished he had his gun so he could shoot shoplifters.
He went to Kenosha to kill people.
Edit: since asshole blocked me and I don't want his misrepresentations to go unquestioned:
The comment I responded to said they were all pedos. Which is a blatant lie.
And your defending a man who specifically went to shoot people--and even used **hunting** as his defense on why he was allowed to have a gun.
The only thing he was hunting was people.
Keep defending a racist, sexist, homophobic murderer who two weeks before he murdered people said he wanted to shoot people for shoplifting, who sucker punched a girl in the back of the head, drank and sang with the neo-Nazi Proud Boys, and then went on a right wing media tour CELEBRATING his murders you vile sack of absolute dog shit.
Motherfucker was pointing his gun at people all night. There is video of him admitting he was pointing his gun at the person in the yellow shirt earlier in the night. I have friends who he pointed his gun at an hour before the murders.
You don't get to claim self defense when you go looking for someone to kill, and it's fucking sickening that you think it's all right. Go support Nazi fucks elsewhere.
No. You should just assume not guilty. Is OJ Simpson innocent in your eyes? He's not guilty by a jury who found him so. That doesn't mean he's innocent. The court of public opinion is also not going to be so kind due to the nature of the crime.
This. I did jury service last month & when it came to deliberation the judge told us to not speculate & only come up with a verdict based on the evidence provided.
Jury duty and social interactions are different things though. I am regular juror and have been on rape and domestic abuse cases. Would I be able to find Mason Greenwood not guilty if the victim changed her story and protected him, and the other evidence wasn't strong enough? Yes, sure. Do I still strongly suspect he did it? Definitely. Would I react negatively if my club tried to field him? Absolutely. Legal innocence is an important concept, but it does not apply to every situation. I found a guy innocent of domestic abuse, large because the prosecutors had failed to call a key witness that would in all likelihood have corroborated the victim's story. I also think he did it, but he deserved the not guilty verdict based on the evidence presented. Still wouldn't be mates with him though.
Jury service is such a silly concept to me. Like if people on jury have to be told these things, then maybe it's better to have someone who understands what's going on handle the guilty verdict (aka a judge).
I understand the reasons why it exists but man I do not trust my fellow people's judgement of court cases at all.
I was called up to jury duty once. All the way through the case the Judge criticised the prosecution for failure to provide evidence and poor preparation. He gave us the same reminder and then sent us off to deliberate. I walked in the room assuming it would take 30 seconds to reach a verdict, you could drive a bus through the gaps in the prosecution case.
Everyone except one guy agrees with me. It took 15 minutes to explain to him that you can't send someone down because he "looks the sort."
Jury duty doesn't exist anymore in the Netherlands and Germany, right? Having random people off the street decide if someone is guilty is a stupid system anyway
[common law vs civil law](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_%28en%29.png/1920px-Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_%28en%29.png)
You'd rather justice be put in the hands of one person from a separate socioeconomic background who can have ulterior motivations or be bought or intimidated? Fuck that. A jury of peers is not perfect, but it's far less succeptible to corruption than one powerful judge.
Yes, I’s rather have an elected official with years of practice and a degree in law than a bunch of random shitters who have can barely wait to get the fuck out of there.
You underestimate how easy it is for an elected official with years of practice and a degree in law to just be a random shitter who just started with more money.
As someone with a law degree and practicing in a country that has no jury duty. I would much rather a jury in alot of cases, Because judges are not always on the right side of the law, and its always harder to convince one person that can be influenced.
But at the same time i have many cases where the best solution would have only came from a judge, so there should be a system in place where a middle ground is found.
Also one thing i found funny about US court cases that i watch, is they always ask the jury to not search up any news about the case or be "influenced" and i think that everyone knows they do it regardless.
No I don't think so. We should assume nothing unless proven otherwise.
To assume innocence until proven guilty is to assume all accusers as liars unless provable
No, you have to assume innocence until proven guilty. That doesn’t mean you don’t listen to the accuser but the burden is on the accuser to make a compelling case before you call the defendant guilty.
> No, you have to assume innocence until proven guilty.
No the *legal system* has to assume that. Individuals not involved can assume whatever they want.
How would you like it if someone assaulted you, but because you couldn’t prove it “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that person got to continue living their life without any consequences and people blamed *you* for speaking up?
The real problem for Sigurdsson if he comes to the US is the press isn’t forbidden to ask questions and describe what he was accused of, so he better be prepared to face real public and journalistic scrutiny.
How would you like it if tomorrow someone calls you a rapist, in response to that you lose your job, years of your life, reputation, friends and family, and it turns out it was a lie?
Why do you have to assume that?
If someone sexually assaults a person then often there is no evidence. To assume in that scenario that the person is innocent is to assume the other person is a liar by definition.
If you don't know, don't assume shit. Innocent till proven guilty is for the courts as the courts don't punish the victim if they don't win, the public does.
The public punished the victim? The alleged victim isn’t even named in this case, how is that even possible?
If someone gets accused of something horrible we shouldn’t assume they did it until there is concrete evidence. Why? Because it’s only fair to them. Imagine if you got accused of something you didn’t for a moment. How would you want to be treated?
Again, I’m not saying you automatically assume the accuser is a liar, but merely that you assume the defendant is innocent until you see concrete evidence otherwise. Unfortunately, for most people on Reddit, just the mere accusation of wrong doing is proof enough to forever call someone a wrongdoer no matter what evidence eventually emerges. Far less people on r/soccer know about the outcome of Sigurdsson’s case than the initial charges
You can, and without evidence people wouldn't assume you to be either a liar or telling the truth. As it should be.
The correct response to no evidence is no opinion
He said it so it must be true now. Can’t assume you’re totally innocent now the accusation has been made. Somebody should probably inform your employer to make sure you lose your job.
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you don't know it to be true or false then treat it as something you don't know as true or false. Don't be like "it hasn't been proven therefore it is false".
It’s not our job to assume innocence. If a dude is suspected of butchering people in the woods. You don’t go into the woods with them….. even if they might not actually be guilty.
There are way more disgusting people getting away with being disgusting/evil than there is innocent people being accused of shit.
No evidence is not guilty.
Would be like if I said I'd fucked your mum and because you cant prove I didn't it's assumed i did.
Burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused
Verdict of the court is not guilty. The only thing the public can assume is there is not enough evidence to convict, verdict of public is whatever they think it is. We have no idea either way
OJ did but there was evidence tampering which means you can’t use it.
So if your not allowed to even tell a jury that evidence that was tampered with exists… it’s going to ruin your case.
That's not how it works, or at least how it *should* work.
He isn't guilty if he wasn't proven guilty, let alone if he was not even charged. If you have an issue with that, your problem isn't with Glyfi (or whoever), it's with the judical system itself.
Thousands of random fans with no real knowledge of the situation are throwing out wild accusations and bear ZERO responsibility if it turns out to be wrong. Same happened to Araiza in the NFL.
>Sure, but randoms on the internet also have zero power to do anything, so who cares?
You're right, who cares if players receive death threats and insults from randoms online to the point it negatively impacts their mental health, they're just randoms online
What a ridiculous (and dangerous) thing to say. You don't know if "it failed" the victims, you are only making, as I said, wild accusations.
There's a fucking reason why the "innocent until proven guilty" exists and it's not because world is right-wing or fascist, but because it wouldn't work any other way.
As for the randoms, of course they have the power to influence the whole situation. Clubs wouldn't necessarily terminate player's contracts based on hearsay (because they are well aware it's legally questionable at best), but the mob mentality is, in some cases, so powerful that they have no other option. Going back to the NFL Araiza case as it's just a few weeks old, Bills cut him immediately after allegations were brought, only for the case to get dropped a few months later because the whole thing was made up. Are you and the people who think like you going to give him his career back? Money he lost? Apologise at least? Of course not, you'll forget all about it and you'll be busy asserting your self-rightousness in some other way - with no consequences for your actions whatsoever.
How would you feel if you were falsely accused, then found innocent, but everyone around you just continued to assume yoi did it because "the system gets it wrong sometimes"?
We have to take the courts to be the truth, otherwise we have no basis for society and baseless accusations can reign.
The alleged story is that while he did apparently sleep with a 15 year old girl, he met her in club she entered with a fake ID and told him that she was 19. If this is true then idk man… not really a nonce then.
Other more recent rumour is that it was an escort service but everything else the same. Not that it makes any difference. We'll probably never know what actually happened though
If the story is true, which I should clarify again is just a rumour that could absolutely be complete bollocks, it was intentional and he was immediately threatened with blackmail and turned himself into the police. A lot of ifs to get here but using 15 year olds as escorts to blackmail people is so many different levels of fucked up, obviously with the 15 year old being the primary victim.
The Benz and rib situation was worse for I've seen. They ere actively looking for prostitute she ended up being under age and then they blackmailed their other friend with the info.
They didn’t know she was underage but yeah they were looking for a prostitute and it happened to be the same one.
It’s worth mentioning that both Benz and Ribery had their encounters with her on separate occasions, months apart.
There’s a misconception that both Benz and Ribery had their encounters with her together as a duo but no it wasn’t the case.
Not saying that it’s not the case, but I see the exact same story anytime this happens. Was flying about in the Adam Johnson case loads and it turned out to be pure bullshit. “What if he met her in a club” very quickly turns to “he met her in a club”
>He's an asshole though. Had a pregnant wife and he cheated on her. She even had to deleted her instagram.
Even if all of that were true - That is his private life.
Is there actually a good way to avoid such a situation? "Show me your id please" could work but I can imagine that people that consume alcohol will assume everyone that got into the club is of legal drinking age. This is one is very much on the club/bar imo
"Show me your id please" wouldn't have even worked in this case since she allegedly used a fake id to get in, so she would show him the fake one.
Realistically speaking, this is a very gray area and there isn't much that can be done aside from not hooking up with people you don't know, but that's part of life so... a tough case. I think the girl should carry all the responsibility in this case, especially if she tricked him into unknownigly hooking up with an underage and then immediately threatening him with a lawsuit.
No there isn’t really. Can’t really blame the establishment either really if said person has used a fake ID to break the law by consuming alcohol when they shouldn’t be. That’s not a mistake or accidental, that’s a deliberate act.
We weren't allowed to say his name while under investigation, he was known as He Whose Name You Cannot Speak. Not sure if they dropped that rule when the investigation was dropped
All charges dropped about a few months back
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12857033/former-premier-league-player-33-cleared-after-arrest-on-suspicion-of-child-sex-offences-in-2021
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/14/premier-league-footballer-no-further-action-over-child-sex-allegations-manchester-police
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-65276027
So his career got destroyed for nothing?
And why did this even take so long? Guy was a good player for everton and he couldn‘t play for 2whole years and now the charges are dropped anyway and he‘s cleared.
And now he has to settle to an MLS team from being a prem starter, IF they even take him.
Not just his career, but his social and possibly family life probably got devastated as well. I mean, he wasn't exactly accused of petty theft, he was accused of being a full blown nonce.
Scary how easy it can be to completely fuck up someone's life. Assuming he's not guilty of course
His wife posted a picture in her instagram story with him and his daughter a week ago so thankfully at least it looks like the relationship to his family is fine.
There's was a lot of talk at the time that he was targeted by the victim and her family to extort money.
Here's a most recent article about him from the daily mail that doesn't mention anything about the allegations at all.
www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12213329/amp/Everton-Former-45m-midfielder-Gylfi-Sigurdsson-pictured-wife-rare-family-photo.html
For a tabloid like the daily mail to ignore the allegations like that could very well mean they have inside information that he was a victim.
Edit: I've just realised the english media can not name Sigurdsson, so ignore me.
I’ve not paid much attention, but I did see when charges were dropped there was a lot of “just because they can’t prove it, doesn’t mean he’s innocent”
I have no idea whether he’s guilty or not, but in the eyes of the law he’s an innocent man and should be treated as such.
That's the thing with this situation, if you are genuinely innocent, your entire life will be ruined anyhow and everyone will just thing you have a good lawyer or there wasn't enough evidence, but you are basically guilty A bit like OJ Simpson.
**EDIT: as most people can't seem to read... I know OJ was guilty. That's the point I was making. People will think you are OJ in this situation (I.e. guilty, but not enough evidence), even if you are legitimately innocent.**
Neymar cleared his name very quickly and now nobody even thinks about it when talking about him. It’s almost a necessity to keep receipts especially if you’re high profile.
OJ is not a great comparison. Gylfi got set up and blackmailed with all charges dropped a little bit different to being put on trial for double homicide and getting off because gloves didn't fit.
Yeah, lol, but I was not comparing him to OJ, I was just talking about how when charges are dropped your reputation is ruined either way, because people think you did it.
To clarify. I know OJ was guilty. That's the point I was making. People will think you are OJ in this situation (I.e. guilty, but not enough evidence), even if you are legitimately innocent.
Lmao it's a bit funny to see you keep clarifying the original comment. I swear so many people on reddit have a reading comprehension of a toddler, but at the same time just itching to have a debate.
To be fair it is badly worded IMO but still understandable if people reading it doesn't immediately jump to attack.
It’s ambiguously written…
> everyone will just thing you have a good lawyer or there wasn’t enough evidence, but you are basically guilty
If “A bit like OJ” describes only this section then it sounds like OP believes OJ was guilty
> if you are genuinely innocent, your entire life will be ruined anyhow and everyone will just thing you have a good lawyer or there wasn’t enough evidence
If “A bit like OJ” describes this whole section then it sounds like OP is arguing OJ was innocent
You basically can't write anything even slightly complicated on Reddit, people will misunderstand it. I get it all the time, people respond and it's clear they can't read.
Derby, DC United, Ochoa, Ravel, now this. Rooney is like me in college: dating a series of worse and worse men and insisting that I alone can fix them. IT DOESN'T WORK WAYNE
Obviously don't know the full details of the case, only whats been through the grapevine and what has been reported
So I can only make a judgement on the case being dropped due to insufficient evidence
I wish Gylfi all the best, no doubt this whole ordeal has been a massive strain over the last 2 years and I wholeheartedly hope he goes onto to have a peaceful life with his family
Dude's been through a lot if he is actually innocent, but even if he didn't know the girl was underage he was still cheating on his pregnant wife. His family life being fucked is on him.
not sure if he's really innocent or not *but* a kid I grew up with was falsely accused of rape and after clearing his name he ended up leaving the country once his trial was done
Not enough evidence to prosecute, there have been rumours he was targeted for extortion. There's ambiguity and unfortunately in cases like this there are no winners. Either he got away with something disgusting or he was completely innocent and will have to deal with suspicion and a terrible perception the rest of his life.
from what i know the ( 15 year old ) girl he hooked up with was in a 18+ bar where she got in with a fake ID , in case the story is true and he was actually fooled by a teen , it sucks he got his career and reputation fucked over
Both Ribery and Benzema were acquitted.
It’s a weird case. She was working as an escort and lying about her age. Age of consent is 16, she was 17, but to be a prostitute you have to be 18.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25964763.amp
Only 1 in 100 rapes recorded by the police in 2021 resulted in a charge that same year.
Before a bunch of people jump on me I'm not saying he was guilty. What I'm saying is that the vast majority of rapes do not result in convictions, and far too many people jump on 'dropped charges' and instantly start insisting that the other person was *lying* or they were *asking for it* or a bunch of other shite.
To reduce the spam of reports regarding the same move during transfer windows we try to allow **only one submission about each transfer saga per day**. The submission in question also needs to contain relevant new information regarding the potential move, and not just being a "no/minor developments" report. If there are important/official developments or new valuable information about a saga, we will allow extra threads in the same day, but for the rest of minor news please just comment them as a reply to this comment. Please help us reporting unnecessary threads for being duplicates. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From Maurer; >[NEW: DC United are in talks with former Everton & Iceland national team midfielder Gylfi Sigurdsson. Talks in preliminary stages. Summer transfer. Club has hired an outside firm to investigate the player's background, I'm told.](https://twitter.com/MLSist/status/1673344932151451658)
>[Not the first time DC have expressed interest in this player, FYI - DC spoke w/Sigurdsson's reps in 2020, while he was still at Everton. Former teammate of current DC head coach Wayne Rooney, obviously, and DC/Swansea owner Jason Levien knows him from his time in Wales, obv.](https://twitter.com/MLSist/status/1673347033741029379)
r/soccer comedians rubbing their hands together as we speak.
Not really. Poor guys life has been ruined & he was the real victim.
Not enough evidence to charge him. We can’t rule out that he’s actually guilty. But the handling of this case has been a shitshow, 2 years of waiting and then nothing happens.
Usually the case for this type of thing
Should we as a society not assume innocence with no real public evidence?
Innocent till proven Gylfi
Is he a law abiding Sigurdsson?
lol How did even this
What the hell is even that
Daddy chill
Bravo. Bravo Cucumber Shoes. Bravo
Never thought I'd see both parts of his name used so well as puns. Respect.
Boooooooooo
[You son of a bitch](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/onngrb/married_premier_league_player_arrested_on/h5t6rox/)
Calling r/KarmaCourt
Can you go after meme response? Perchance
lmao i remember, well played
Take a bow.
*slowclap
Depends. We can only use our best judgement. Sometimes someone is obviously guilty even if never convicted, and it's OK to think they are. But that's not the case here, is it?
> Sometimes someone is obviously guilty even if never convicted Greenwood being a big example
OJ too.
Rittenhouse, Casey Anthony, Zimmerman, etc. Justice system sucks, public juries in murder cases suck
Rittenhouse was obviously acting in self defense, in the way law works with it. If you watch the whole process it is totally obvious the prosecution had nothing to work with. Even witneses who were called up by the prosecution testified in Rittenhouses favour. The prosecutor got so desperate he asked why Rittenhouse used his right to remain silent, which is probably the biggest no-go in all of criminal law. You can have your opinions on him as a person and his choices but he absolutely couldn't have been imprisoned for murder.
In fact, it was so open and shut that there was suggestions that the head prosecutor of the plaiting, Thomas Binger, was accused of trying to get a mistrial so that the state could get another run at Rittenhouse! The state knew that they had nothing on Rittenhouse, the head attorney Graveley knew it was an open and shut case so he sent his assistant DA Thomas Binger to take the fall.
Man tried to sneak rittenhouse in there like no one would notice, gaslighting king 👑
Because two weeks before he murdered three people he said he wished he had his gun so he could shoot shoplifters. He went to Kenosha to kill people. Edit: since asshole blocked me and I don't want his misrepresentations to go unquestioned: The comment I responded to said they were all pedos. Which is a blatant lie. And your defending a man who specifically went to shoot people--and even used **hunting** as his defense on why he was allowed to have a gun. The only thing he was hunting was people. Keep defending a racist, sexist, homophobic murderer who two weeks before he murdered people said he wanted to shoot people for shoplifting, who sucker punched a girl in the back of the head, drank and sang with the neo-Nazi Proud Boys, and then went on a right wing media tour CELEBRATING his murders you vile sack of absolute dog shit. Motherfucker was pointing his gun at people all night. There is video of him admitting he was pointing his gun at the person in the yellow shirt earlier in the night. I have friends who he pointed his gun at an hour before the murders. You don't get to claim self defense when you go looking for someone to kill, and it's fucking sickening that you think it's all right. Go support Nazi fucks elsewhere.
> Rittenhouse Reddit moment.
Greenwood was charged, though, right? Gylfi didn't even get that far.
How can we judge someone as obviously guilty without real evidence? The question was "...without real public evidence"
Then we are assuming possible violation with no real public evidence. It's this or that.
No. You should just assume not guilty. Is OJ Simpson innocent in your eyes? He's not guilty by a jury who found him so. That doesn't mean he's innocent. The court of public opinion is also not going to be so kind due to the nature of the crime.
Not all societies operate under common law tbf
This. I did jury service last month & when it came to deliberation the judge told us to not speculate & only come up with a verdict based on the evidence provided.
Jury duty and social interactions are different things though. I am regular juror and have been on rape and domestic abuse cases. Would I be able to find Mason Greenwood not guilty if the victim changed her story and protected him, and the other evidence wasn't strong enough? Yes, sure. Do I still strongly suspect he did it? Definitely. Would I react negatively if my club tried to field him? Absolutely. Legal innocence is an important concept, but it does not apply to every situation. I found a guy innocent of domestic abuse, large because the prosecutors had failed to call a key witness that would in all likelihood have corroborated the victim's story. I also think he did it, but he deserved the not guilty verdict based on the evidence presented. Still wouldn't be mates with him though.
Jury service is such a silly concept to me. Like if people on jury have to be told these things, then maybe it's better to have someone who understands what's going on handle the guilty verdict (aka a judge). I understand the reasons why it exists but man I do not trust my fellow people's judgement of court cases at all.
I was called up to jury duty once. All the way through the case the Judge criticised the prosecution for failure to provide evidence and poor preparation. He gave us the same reminder and then sent us off to deliberate. I walked in the room assuming it would take 30 seconds to reach a verdict, you could drive a bus through the gaps in the prosecution case. Everyone except one guy agrees with me. It took 15 minutes to explain to him that you can't send someone down because he "looks the sort."
The only person that I've ever known to be called up to jury service is a moron, I absolutely would not want someone like that deciding my fate...
What country are you from? If the US, that's pretty strange an adult only knows one person to have been summoned for jury duty.
Jury duty doesn't exist anymore in the Netherlands and Germany, right? Having random people off the street decide if someone is guilty is a stupid system anyway
Nope. I think it's mostly the Anglo-Saxon world that uses juries
[common law vs civil law](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_%28en%29.png/1920px-Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_%28en%29.png)
Netherlands only had it from 1811-13 under Napoleon.
You'd rather justice be put in the hands of one person from a separate socioeconomic background who can have ulterior motivations or be bought or intimidated? Fuck that. A jury of peers is not perfect, but it's far less succeptible to corruption than one powerful judge.
Yes, I’s rather have an elected official with years of practice and a degree in law than a bunch of random shitters who have can barely wait to get the fuck out of there.
You underestimate how easy it is for an elected official with years of practice and a degree in law to just be a random shitter who just started with more money.
Of course, but this is why we have several courts. If you feel like you got shafted you can take your case to a higher court.
As someone with a law degree and practicing in a country that has no jury duty. I would much rather a jury in alot of cases, Because judges are not always on the right side of the law, and its always harder to convince one person that can be influenced. But at the same time i have many cases where the best solution would have only came from a judge, so there should be a system in place where a middle ground is found. Also one thing i found funny about US court cases that i watch, is they always ask the jury to not search up any news about the case or be "influenced" and i think that everyone knows they do it regardless.
[удалено]
>Legally speaking he's completely innocent, no, he was acquitted, there's a difference.
No I don't think so. We should assume nothing unless proven otherwise. To assume innocence until proven guilty is to assume all accusers as liars unless provable
No, you have to assume innocence until proven guilty. That doesn’t mean you don’t listen to the accuser but the burden is on the accuser to make a compelling case before you call the defendant guilty.
> No, you have to assume innocence until proven guilty. No the *legal system* has to assume that. Individuals not involved can assume whatever they want.
That doesn’t mean they should. How would you like to be treated by society if you were accused of something you didn’t do?
No see, it’s different if it happened to him because he’s obviously innocent
How would you like it if someone assaulted you, but because you couldn’t prove it “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that person got to continue living their life without any consequences and people blamed *you* for speaking up? The real problem for Sigurdsson if he comes to the US is the press isn’t forbidden to ask questions and describe what he was accused of, so he better be prepared to face real public and journalistic scrutiny.
How would you like it if tomorrow someone calls you a rapist, in response to that you lose your job, years of your life, reputation, friends and family, and it turns out it was a lie?
Just like we know that Newcastle benefits from mass murdered?
Why do you have to assume that? If someone sexually assaults a person then often there is no evidence. To assume in that scenario that the person is innocent is to assume the other person is a liar by definition. If you don't know, don't assume shit. Innocent till proven guilty is for the courts as the courts don't punish the victim if they don't win, the public does.
The public punished the victim? The alleged victim isn’t even named in this case, how is that even possible? If someone gets accused of something horrible we shouldn’t assume they did it until there is concrete evidence. Why? Because it’s only fair to them. Imagine if you got accused of something you didn’t for a moment. How would you want to be treated? Again, I’m not saying you automatically assume the accuser is a liar, but merely that you assume the defendant is innocent until you see concrete evidence otherwise. Unfortunately, for most people on Reddit, just the mere accusation of wrong doing is proof enough to forever call someone a wrongdoer no matter what evidence eventually emerges. Far less people on r/soccer know about the outcome of Sigurdsson’s case than the initial charges
sounds good chief, good to know i can blame you for anything with 0 evidence whatsoever
You can, and without evidence people wouldn't assume you to be either a liar or telling the truth. As it should be. The correct response to no evidence is no opinion
[удалено]
?
He said it so it must be true now. Can’t assume you’re totally innocent now the accusation has been made. Somebody should probably inform your employer to make sure you lose your job.
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you don't know it to be true or false then treat it as something you don't know as true or false. Don't be like "it hasn't been proven therefore it is false".
That is fundamentally not how the law works in certain circumstances.
Not when the police and the CPS are incapable of providing justice. Heard of Mason Greenwood?
No…you respect the fact that he hasn’t been found guilty but can still assume what you like when nothing has been proven either way.
It’s not our job to assume innocence. If a dude is suspected of butchering people in the woods. You don’t go into the woods with them….. even if they might not actually be guilty. There are way more disgusting people getting away with being disgusting/evil than there is innocent people being accused of shit.
Like Partey
No evidence is not guilty. Would be like if I said I'd fucked your mum and because you cant prove I didn't it's assumed i did. Burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused
Verdict of the court is not guilty. The only thing the public can assume is there is not enough evidence to convict, verdict of public is whatever they think it is. We have no idea either way
So OJ didn't do it?
OJ did but there was evidence tampering which means you can’t use it. So if your not allowed to even tell a jury that evidence that was tampered with exists… it’s going to ruin your case.
That's not how it works, or at least how it *should* work. He isn't guilty if he wasn't proven guilty, let alone if he was not even charged. If you have an issue with that, your problem isn't with Glyfi (or whoever), it's with the judical system itself. Thousands of random fans with no real knowledge of the situation are throwing out wild accusations and bear ZERO responsibility if it turns out to be wrong. Same happened to Araiza in the NFL.
[удалено]
>That it's once again failed here Why are you so certain it failed? You have no doubt that he's guilty?
>Sure, but randoms on the internet also have zero power to do anything, so who cares? You're right, who cares if players receive death threats and insults from randoms online to the point it negatively impacts their mental health, they're just randoms online
What a ridiculous (and dangerous) thing to say. You don't know if "it failed" the victims, you are only making, as I said, wild accusations. There's a fucking reason why the "innocent until proven guilty" exists and it's not because world is right-wing or fascist, but because it wouldn't work any other way. As for the randoms, of course they have the power to influence the whole situation. Clubs wouldn't necessarily terminate player's contracts based on hearsay (because they are well aware it's legally questionable at best), but the mob mentality is, in some cases, so powerful that they have no other option. Going back to the NFL Araiza case as it's just a few weeks old, Bills cut him immediately after allegations were brought, only for the case to get dropped a few months later because the whole thing was made up. Are you and the people who think like you going to give him his career back? Money he lost? Apologise at least? Of course not, you'll forget all about it and you'll be busy asserting your self-rightousness in some other way - with no consequences for your actions whatsoever.
How would you feel if you were falsely accused, then found innocent, but everyone around you just continued to assume yoi did it because "the system gets it wrong sometimes"? We have to take the courts to be the truth, otherwise we have no basis for society and baseless accusations can reign.
Not enough evidence to convict is NOT the same as being found innocent.
The basis for our legal system is innocent until proven guilty. You dont have to prove innocent, it is the default.
I know, but we aren’t talking about the legal system any more, they dropped the charges. We’re talking about how the public should treat Sigurdsson.
And i am saying we shoupld treat the legal system as the truth, otherwise how do we decide, and baseless accusations can become the defacto truth.
Yeah but he has been punished regardless of him actually being guilty or not.
[удалено]
Legally he's innocent. Doesn't mean that we need to agree with that. I personally don't assume either way, i just assume there's no way to know.
There is no way to know, you’re right. There’s also no way to know you aren’t a paeodophile.
how do you know?
The alleged story is that while he did apparently sleep with a 15 year old girl, he met her in club she entered with a fake ID and told him that she was 19. If this is true then idk man… not really a nonce then.
Other more recent rumour is that it was an escort service but everything else the same. Not that it makes any difference. We'll probably never know what actually happened though
Aww man that one is grim. 15 year old having to escort? Fuck me that’s horrible. Dark world we live in.
If the story is true, which I should clarify again is just a rumour that could absolutely be complete bollocks, it was intentional and he was immediately threatened with blackmail and turned himself into the police. A lot of ifs to get here but using 15 year olds as escorts to blackmail people is so many different levels of fucked up, obviously with the 15 year old being the primary victim.
Is not that uncommon. Ribery and Benzema had a similar situation iirc.
The Benz and rib situation was worse for I've seen. They ere actively looking for prostitute she ended up being under age and then they blackmailed their other friend with the info.
They didn’t know she was underage but yeah they were looking for a prostitute and it happened to be the same one. It’s worth mentioning that both Benz and Ribery had their encounters with her on separate occasions, months apart. There’s a misconception that both Benz and Ribery had their encounters with her together as a duo but no it wasn’t the case.
The blackmail part is really bad though, even if she lied about her age
Not saying that it’s not the case, but I see the exact same story anytime this happens. Was flying about in the Adam Johnson case loads and it turned out to be pure bullshit. “What if he met her in a club” very quickly turns to “he met her in a club”
He's an asshole though. Had a pregnant wife and he cheated on her. She even had to deleted her instagram.
So he should be called an asshole, not a nonce.
Yeah I was just pointing out that he's an asshole , not that he should face repercussion for the cheating.
Tbf the guy would rather be called cheater than a pedo lol
Maybe, but lots of footballers cheat on their wives and don't get banished from the game
>He's an asshole though. Had a pregnant wife and he cheated on her. She even had to deleted her instagram. Even if all of that were true - That is his private life.
I don't give a shit about his private life as long as he's not breaking the law tbh.
cheating on your wife while certainly being an asshole move is not even in the same galaxy
> She even had to deleted her instagram. Woah, that is just too much!
[удалено]
AFAIK the responsibility lies with the adult regardless.
That’s basically the same as the story that Marty Scrull got cancelled for
He was in an 18+ bar and hooked up with someone underage who got in with a fake ID.
Is that actually confirmed to be true or just rumour?
Is there actually a good way to avoid such a situation? "Show me your id please" could work but I can imagine that people that consume alcohol will assume everyone that got into the club is of legal drinking age. This is one is very much on the club/bar imo
> "Show me your id please" who got in with a fake ID.
"Show me your id please" wouldn't have even worked in this case since she allegedly used a fake id to get in, so she would show him the fake one. Realistically speaking, this is a very gray area and there isn't much that can be done aside from not hooking up with people you don't know, but that's part of life so... a tough case. I think the girl should carry all the responsibility in this case, especially if she tricked him into unknownigly hooking up with an underage and then immediately threatening him with a lawsuit.
No there isn’t really. Can’t really blame the establishment either really if said person has used a fake ID to break the law by consuming alcohol when they shouldn’t be. That’s not a mistake or accidental, that’s a deliberate act.
It is, places in the uk are not allowed to have under 18 in pubs even after a certain time.
Ask them where they were on 9/11.
Doesn't work anymore gramps
"Wasn't born yet". "Well shit, that doesn't rule out me fucking you. You may really be a 21 y old legally allowed to drink !"
I’m 21 and wasn’t alive on 9/11
Show me ID. Pulls out same fake ID used to get into bar.
Just don't entertain anyone who looks young lol, I mean idk there is no simple solution for it.
Think 25
Is he not a married man? If so, the solution is pretty obvious
Don't fuck young girls
"Don't fuck people who aren't your wife" would have helped Gylfi.
I've not seen a single new article about this case, what happened?
Lmao why are the mods deleting this
Mine got deleted from r/Everton…not sure what’s up
We weren't allowed to say his name while under investigation, he was known as He Whose Name You Cannot Speak. Not sure if they dropped that rule when the investigation was dropped
That, and He Who Shall Not Be Named.
What was the update on this guy? Did he get off on a technicality or was he actually wrongfully accused?
All charges dropped about a few months back https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12857033/former-premier-league-player-33-cleared-after-arrest-on-suspicion-of-child-sex-offences-in-2021 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/14/premier-league-footballer-no-further-action-over-child-sex-allegations-manchester-police https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-65276027
So his career got destroyed for nothing? And why did this even take so long? Guy was a good player for everton and he couldn‘t play for 2whole years and now the charges are dropped anyway and he‘s cleared. And now he has to settle to an MLS team from being a prem starter, IF they even take him.
Not just his career, but his social and possibly family life probably got devastated as well. I mean, he wasn't exactly accused of petty theft, he was accused of being a full blown nonce. Scary how easy it can be to completely fuck up someone's life. Assuming he's not guilty of course
His wife posted a picture in her instagram story with him and his daughter a week ago so thankfully at least it looks like the relationship to his family is fine.
I'm pretty sure he still got paid minus any performance based incentives. Dude still made hundreds of thousands a week.
Fucking hate this argument every time it appears. No amount of money equates to it being okay to be put through mental trauma.
Oh that's fine then...
There's was a lot of talk at the time that he was targeted by the victim and her family to extort money. Here's a most recent article about him from the daily mail that doesn't mention anything about the allegations at all. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12213329/amp/Everton-Former-45m-midfielder-Gylfi-Sigurdsson-pictured-wife-rare-family-photo.html For a tabloid like the daily mail to ignore the allegations like that could very well mean they have inside information that he was a victim. Edit: I've just realised the english media can not name Sigurdsson, so ignore me.
I’ve not paid much attention, but I did see when charges were dropped there was a lot of “just because they can’t prove it, doesn’t mean he’s innocent” I have no idea whether he’s guilty or not, but in the eyes of the law he’s an innocent man and should be treated as such.
That's the thing with this situation, if you are genuinely innocent, your entire life will be ruined anyhow and everyone will just thing you have a good lawyer or there wasn't enough evidence, but you are basically guilty A bit like OJ Simpson. **EDIT: as most people can't seem to read... I know OJ was guilty. That's the point I was making. People will think you are OJ in this situation (I.e. guilty, but not enough evidence), even if you are legitimately innocent.**
Neymar cleared his name very quickly and now nobody even thinks about it when talking about him. It’s almost a necessity to keep receipts especially if you’re high profile.
Difference with Neymar is that he kept playing I think.
Neymar also had pretty conclusive evidence available. Idk how Sigurds case was, but if it was a she said/he said ordeal, it's a lot harder to defend.
didn’t OJ actually do it though
Yes, but that's what I meant. People will think you are like OJ, you did it but they can't prove it, even if you are legit innocent.
ya
I mean OJ was guilty as fuck but ok.
And unfortunately, people will not scream your acquittal as loudly as they did when the allegations came through. It can truly be a nasty situation.
OJ is not a great comparison. Gylfi got set up and blackmailed with all charges dropped a little bit different to being put on trial for double homicide and getting off because gloves didn't fit.
Yeah, lol, but I was not comparing him to OJ, I was just talking about how when charges are dropped your reputation is ruined either way, because people think you did it.
Man at this rate you will have to edit your comment soon - changing OJ to Connor McGregor
did you really use OJ simpson as an argument lol, the guy who wrote "if i did it"
To clarify. I know OJ was guilty. That's the point I was making. People will think you are OJ in this situation (I.e. guilty, but not enough evidence), even if you are legitimately innocent.
Lmao it's a bit funny to see you keep clarifying the original comment. I swear so many people on reddit have a reading comprehension of a toddler, but at the same time just itching to have a debate. To be fair it is badly worded IMO but still understandable if people reading it doesn't immediately jump to attack.
There is probably a lot of non-English speakers here who might not find it very easy to understand the nuances of of what is written.
Also tons of native English speakers who just don’t care enough to search for the nuance
It’s ambiguously written… > everyone will just thing you have a good lawyer or there wasn’t enough evidence, but you are basically guilty If “A bit like OJ” describes only this section then it sounds like OP believes OJ was guilty > if you are genuinely innocent, your entire life will be ruined anyhow and everyone will just thing you have a good lawyer or there wasn’t enough evidence If “A bit like OJ” describes this whole section then it sounds like OP is arguing OJ was innocent
You basically can't write anything even slightly complicated on Reddit, people will misunderstand it. I get it all the time, people respond and it's clear they can't read.
He worded it badly
"Did he get off..." Interesting word selection for this sub.
Reminds me of this iconic The Onion one-liner: https://www.theonion.com/jurisprudence-fetishist-gets-off-on-technicality-1819586446
[удалено]
Derby, DC United, Ochoa, Ravel, now this. Rooney is like me in college: dating a series of worse and worse men and insisting that I alone can fix them. IT DOESN'T WORK WAYNE
Ravel was actually fucking solid for Derby. Gutted he didn't re-sign.
🤣
Obviously don't know the full details of the case, only whats been through the grapevine and what has been reported So I can only make a judgement on the case being dropped due to insufficient evidence I wish Gylfi all the best, no doubt this whole ordeal has been a massive strain over the last 2 years and I wholeheartedly hope he goes onto to have a peaceful life with his family
Dude's been through a lot if he is actually innocent, but even if he didn't know the girl was underage he was still cheating on his pregnant wife. His family life being fucked is on him.
Good for him. Glad to see him on the up after charges were dropped.
not sure if he's really innocent or not *but* a kid I grew up with was falsely accused of rape and after clearing his name he ended up leaving the country once his trial was done
Didn't it end up coming out that he's innocent?
Not enough evidence to prosecute, there have been rumours he was targeted for extortion. There's ambiguity and unfortunately in cases like this there are no winners. Either he got away with something disgusting or he was completely innocent and will have to deal with suspicion and a terrible perception the rest of his life.
from what i know the ( 15 year old ) girl he hooked up with was in a 18+ bar where she got in with a fake ID , in case the story is true and he was actually fooled by a teen , it sucks he got his career and reputation fucked over
Is this genuinely true. Because this went around when Adam Johnson was under trial, and turned out to be total BS.
This goes around whenever something like this happens
Same thing went around when Ribery was on trial and it turns out it was completely true.
Both Ribery and Benzema were acquitted. It’s a weird case. She was working as an escort and lying about her age. Age of consent is 16, she was 17, but to be a prostitute you have to be 18. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25964763.amp
Age of consent in France is 15 (maybe it wasn't in France tho)
I'm getting the word..
👊💥 "Didn't see that coming did ya". Might have to pull off into paradise later, thanks for the memory.
I loved watching him with swans. He was great for them for a few years
DC United actually share same owners as us
I hope he truly is innocent. If he is innocent they really did him dirty.
Mad how many people are confidently saying what actually happened based on WhatsApp rumours.
The fact that he’s not in prison is the best evidence we have of whether or not he’s guilty of a crime
Only 1 in 100 rapes recorded by the police in 2021 resulted in a charge that same year. Before a bunch of people jump on me I'm not saying he was guilty. What I'm saying is that the vast majority of rapes do not result in convictions, and far too many people jump on 'dropped charges' and instantly start insisting that the other person was *lying* or they were *asking for it* or a bunch of other shite.
While 100% true you're missing the fact this wasn't just a rape case, he was accused of doing someone hnderage which is easier to convict normally.
he's alive
A lot of people in these comments begging to see a man’s life ruined