Deshaun Watson is a Cleveland Brown

[DaWg_LB.]

On 6/10/2022 at 2:39 PM, BroncoSojia said:

.....I guess I should've expected a post like this from a guy with a Kevin Samuels pfp.

Not to mention there are only 2 of the 24 that allege sexual assault...now that is 2 too many.....but lets hold up, its not like he's Ben Rothlessburger (bathroom incident) or Robert Kraft (frequenting a spot being watched by the FBI for Human trafficking).....

I was one in here who never wanted the trade, but now its done, I have mostly stayed out of the fray. But NOW it feels like something different, they are trying to RAILROAD this dude, based on some BS and Counter Culture....

Ok he supposedly raped a chick, yet there is evidence that she initiated future sessions with Watson? How does that work....he's using Team Rented Facilities WITH an NDA provided by the team? I could keep going with inconsistencies here but I dont see a reason to, you've made up your mind, jumping on accusations instead of looking at ALL the facts, and there is too much sketchy ish going around this. Not saying Watson is right, but he didnt do ANYTHING Criminal...and TWO Grand Juries agree with me....being a creepy bloke, or cheating on your wife or littering is not a crime, if so, the jails would be more overflowing.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/deshaun-watson-sexual-assault-lawsuit.html

(just in case you think I'm joking about the facts).

Edited June 13, 2022 by DaWg_LB.

[Thomas5737]

2 hours ago, DaWg_LB. said:

but he didnt do ANYTHING Criminal...and TWO Grand Juries agree with me....

That isn't accurate. There wasn't enough evidence to realistically prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty so he wasn't tried. That is important so we don't have a lot of innocent people in prison. It doesn't mean you didn't do anything illegal.

Civil trials are decided by more likely than not of being guilty or not guilty. If he loses a civil trial it was determined he was more likely guilty than not. It obviously isn't and shouldn't be enough to criminally charge someone in that way but if he loses 20 civil cases where they find him most likely to be guilty it's pretty safe to say that he is guilty.

I don't think it will go that far. I think he settles. He obviously knows what happened and unless this is some crazy scheme where a bunch of people who don't know each other are fabricating something (it isn't) he will agree to settle without admitting guilt and they will get what they are asking for. 

It's pretty much at the point of other high profile cases where a lot of people just refuse to admit what they really think and keep defending a person. Now this isn't murder like O.J. but it seems to have a lot of people rejecting what appears obvious just like that case. It mostly comes from people who want to believe him (Browns fans) and it's understandable we have seen it many times in a sports setting. 

I think it you switched Watson's name to Jack Smith no one would hold out much hope that out of 25 people Smith is the one telling the truth and everyone else is lying. 

[mtmmike]

4 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

That isn't accurate. There wasn't enough evidence to realistically prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty so he wasn't tried. That is important so we don't have a lot of innocent people in prison. It doesn't mean you didn't do anything illegal.

Civil trials are decided by more likely than not of being guilty or not guilty. If he loses a civil trial it was determined he was more likely guilty than not. It obviously isn't and shouldn't be enough to criminally charge someone in that way but if he loses 20 civil cases where they find him most likely to be guilty it's pretty safe to say that he is guilty.

I don't think it will go that far. I think he settles. He obviously knows what happened and unless this is some crazy scheme where a bunch of people who don't know each other are fabricating something (it isn't) he will agree to settle without admitting guilt and they will get what they are asking for. 

It's pretty much at the point of other high profile cases where a lot of people just refuse to admit what they really think and keep defending a person. Now this isn't murder like O.J. but it seems to have a lot of people rejecting what appears obvious just like that case. It mostly comes from people who want to believe him (Browns fans) and it's understandable we have seen it many times in a sports setting. 

I think it you switched Watson's name to Jack Smith no one would hold out much hope that out of 25 people Smith is the one telling the truth and everyone else is lying. 

The biggest problem facing Deshaun is that every trial brings out more evidence plus all counter evidence if each trial takes 1 months that is 5.5 years .

Those attorneys are waiting for the real discovery process to begin.

[mtmmike]

4 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

That isn't accurate. There wasn't enough evidence to realistically prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty so he wasn't tried. That is important so we don't have a lot of innocent people in prison. It doesn't mean you didn't do anything illegal.

Civil trials are decided by more likely than not of being guilty or not guilty. If he loses a civil trial it was determined he was more likely guilty than not. It obviously isn't and shouldn't be enough to criminally charge someone in that way but if he loses 20 civil cases where they find him most likely to be guilty it's pretty safe to say that he is guilty.

I don't think it will go that far. I think he settles. He obviously knows what happened and unless this is some crazy scheme where a bunch of people who don't know each other are fabricating something (it isn't) he will agree to settle without admitting guilt and they will get what they are asking for. 

It's pretty much at the point of other high profile cases where a lot of people just refuse to admit what they really think and keep defending a person. Now this isn't murder like O.J. but it seems to have a lot of people rejecting what appears obvious just like that case. It mostly comes from people who want to believe him (Browns fans) and it's understandable we have seen it many times in a sports setting. 

I think it you switched Watson's name to Jack Smith no one would hold out much hope that out of 25 people Smith is the one telling the truth and everyone else is lying. 

The biggest problem facing Deshaun is that every trial brings out more evidence plus all counter evidence if each trial takes 1 months that is 5.5 years .

Those attorneys are waiting for the real discovery process to begin.

[Thomas5737]

13 minutes ago, mtmmike said:

The biggest problem facing Deshaun is that every trial brings out more evidence plus all counter evidence if each trial takes 1 months that is 5.5 years .

Those attorneys are waiting for the real discovery process to begin.

I think all the evidence out there is probably already known from the criminal hearings. There won't be a smoking gun because I doubt you can legally record a massage and if you could and did it would have been out there in the criminal case.

It likely will always be he said she said, with a lot of shes.

[mtmmike]

7 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

I think all the evidence out there is probably already known from the criminal hearings. There won't be a smoking gun because I doubt you can legally record a massage and if you could and did it would have been out there in the criminal case.

It likely will always be he said she said, with a lot of shes.

Your saying no new evidence if there is 66 hearings.

Besides that the new York and Washington newspapers are going to want a conviction. 

 

[NudeTayne]

4 minutes ago, mtmmike said:

Your saying no new evidence if there is 66 hearings.

Besides that the new York and Washington newspapers are going to want a conviction. 

I personally think this will drag on for a bit, Watson will start off on the exempt list (getting paid but on leave) and then will settle. He'll be suspended for up to the rest of this season and that'll be that. That's my guess.

Social media goes ballistic at the news of the NFL slap on the wrist. Then it so happens "new"--previously intentionally withheld to leak at a moment like this--evidence in favor of the women surfaces. Backed into a corner, the league has no other choice but to make an example of Watson, extending the suspension. 

[NateDawg]

At this point I am going to be very surprised if he plays in 2022. If he does I think it will be through an appeal. 

[Thomas5737]

30 minutes ago, NudeTayne said:

I personally think this will drag on for a bit, Watson will start off on the exempt list (getting paid but on leave) and then will settle. He'll be suspended for up to the rest of this season and that'll be that. That's my guess.

Social media goes ballistic at the news of the NFL slap on the wrist. Then it so happens "new"--previously intentionally withheld to leak at a moment like this--evidence in favor of the women surfaces. Backed into a corner, the league has no other choice but to make an example of Watson, extending the suspension. 

They only put you on the exempt list if it is a criminal case. Or at least that's how it has always been done. I suspect they will suspend him for whatever length and then he will pay an undisclosed amount to the "victims" (probably around 50 million) and settle out of court. If nothing new comes to light that will be it.

That all seems pretty cut and dry to me, I'm wrong a lot so it doesn't mean anything but I'd put money on it going down that way. I also think his suspension will start week 1 of this season unless new info or cases appear. Then the NFL will have to do more investigating.

[NudeTayne]

Two more lawsuits: 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/06/13/report-two-more-lawsuits-to-be-filed-against-deshaun-watson/amp/

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

12 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

I think all the evidence out there is probably already known from the criminal hearings. There won't be a smoking gun because I doubt you can legally record a massage and if you could and did it would have been out there in the criminal case.

It likely will always be he said she said, with a lot of shes.

He said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said.

[DaWg_LB.]

19 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

That isn't accurate. There wasn't enough evidence to realistically prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty so he wasn't tried. That is important so we don't have a lot of innocent people in prison. It doesn't mean you didn't do anything illegal.

Civil trials are decided by more likely than not of being guilty or not guilty. If he loses a civil trial it was determined he was more likely guilty than not. It obviously isn't and shouldn't be enough to criminally charge someone in that way but if he loses 20 civil cases where they find him most likely to be guilty it's pretty safe to say that he is guilty.

I don't think it will go that far. I think he settles. He obviously knows what happened and unless this is some crazy scheme where a bunch of people who don't know each other are fabricating something (it isn't) he will agree to settle without admitting guilt and they will get what they are asking for. 

It's pretty much at the point of other high profile cases where a lot of people just refuse to admit what they really think and keep defending a person. Now this isn't murder like O.J. but it seems to have a lot of people rejecting what appears obvious just like that case. It mostly comes from people who want to believe him (Browns fans) and it's understandable we have seen it many times in a sports setting. 

I think it you switched Watson's name to Jack Smith no one would hold out much hope that out of 25 people Smith is the one telling the truth and everyone else is lying. 

I respect your point of view....at the same time, 24 Jurors (2 separate grand juries) appointed by the Court confirmed there was a lack of evidence that ANY Criminal activity took place, like I said "Criminal" not "Illegal".....I use to bang a lawyer and it was ALWAY's a verbal fight there lol....so I do know a couple of things, like the difference level needed of "preponderance of evidence" in Civil vs Criminal Court. I double down on my original point.....Nothing Criminal Took place, or at least two grand juries see it that way.....if something illegal happened in the massages, then civil court bang on....not absolving Watson of any "Wrong doing" or Quasi creepy behavior (sad now a rich young man getting laid is now Toxic Masculinity LOL) i.e. Like Robert Kraft, but if 2 Grand Juries both decline to indict, AND all the funny little details about the case that keep getting ignored (Texans setting up the place and giving him an NDA), the lack of 1 police report among the 26 Women and a Justice system that has always been skewed in one direction.....I choose to believe nothing criminal happened....if nothing criminal happened, it might as well be kids spray painting graffiti on the principles car.....

Stop trying to make Make Watson out to be some Mad out of Control Rapist based off some very weak he said, she said, that two grand juries declined to level ANY charges on (even reduced ones). I double down on my original stance

EOF:

Edited June 14, 2022 by DaWg_LB.

[brooks1957]

1 hour ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

He said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said.

I like how one of the new plaintiffs said she only came forward now because she was motivated after watching the HBO special........

Translation......

I don't wanna miss out on MY chance to get a seat on that gravy train....

I am sure she graduated from Eddie Murphy's SNL course.

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by brooks1957

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

3 minutes ago, brooks1957 said:

I like how one of the new plaintiffs said she only came forward now because she was motivated after watching the HBO special........

Translation......

I don't wanna miss out on MY chance to get a seat on that gravy train....

I am sure she graduated from Eddie Murphy SNL course.

Eh, if it’s true I don’t care what her motives are tbh.

I mean, why come forward initially?  People don’t believe he’s in the wrong when 26 women are claiming he was out of line, who’s gonna believe just one woman?  This is why women don’t come forward lol.
 

This is a situation where people accept that what looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc., is a duck or they start with the mental gymnastics.

[mtmmike]

13 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

They only put you on the exempt list if it is a criminal case. Or at least that's how it has always been done. I suspect they will suspend him for whatever length and then he will pay an undisclosed amount to the "victims" (probably around 50 million) and settle out of court. If nothing new comes to light that will be it.

That all seems pretty cut and dry to me, I'm wrong a lot so it doesn't mean anything but I'd put money on it going down that way. I also think his suspension will start week 1 of this season unless new info or cases appear. Then the NFL will have to do more investigating.

No worries