2022 Around league

[Madmike90]

1 minute ago, StLunatic88 said:

Rodger can still come over the top with the hammer if he wanted to

He has too...suspending Calvin Ridley for a year for placing a bet on a game he had nothing to do with but 6 games for all Watson is accused off? Craziness...

 

 

[dll2000]

29 minutes ago, Madmike90 said:

He has too...suspending Calvin Ridley for a year for placing a bet on a game he had nothing to do with but 6 games for all Watson is accused off? Craziness...

 

 

Two different things.  

Gambling is zero tolerance with one penalty.  There are no appeals.  You do it you get it a year.  That's it.   $5 or $500k.  

This new thing is in subjective realm and is first deal with a mutually agreed arbitrator.   

Yes, you have power to overrule her decision, but if you choose to go that route it becomes a kangaroo court since the appellate judge is the NFL itself.   It would be make her a farce.   

I wouldn't overturn it were I Goodell or even add to it.   Not saying I agree with morality of Watson.

 

 

[Madmike90]

Just now, dll2000 said:

Two different things.  

Gambling is zero tolerance with one penalty.  There are no appeals.  You do it you get it a year.  That's it.   $5 or $500k.  

This new thing is in subjective realm and is first deal with a mutually agreed arbitrator.   

Yes, you have power to overrule her decision, but if you choose to go that route it becomes a kangaroo court since the appellate judge is the NFL itself.   It would be make her a farce.   

I wouldn't overturn it were I Goodell or even add to it.   Not saying I agree with morality of Watson.

 

 

Zero tolerance on gambling but not sexual assault? Sure that makes sense. 

[dll2000]

Just now, Madmike90 said:

Zero tolerance on gambling but not sexual assault? Sure that makes sense. 

Sexual assault is far from a given.  

If he committed sexual assault he should be in prison.  For years.  Not suspended from NFL.

 

 

[Madmike90]

2 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Sexual assault is far from a given.  

If he committed sexual assault he should be in prison.  For years.  Not suspended from NFL.

 

 

We he has committed sexual assault hence he has paid out a ton of money to make it go away...

The is zero argument for him to only be suspended 6 games...I mean Brady got 4 games for letting some air out a football.

[The_Romen]

23 minutes ago, Madmike90 said:

We he has committed sexual assault hence he has paid out a ton of money to make it go away...

The is zero argument for him to only be suspended 6 games...I mean Brady got 4 games for letting some air out a football.

Wasn't he found not guilty in criminal court? He settled out of civil court, I thought.

[The_Romen]

Just now, The_Romen said:

Wasn't he found not guilty in criminal court? He settled out of civil court, I thought.

Watson denied those claims and settled 23 of the 24 civil lawsuits accusing him of coercive and lewd sexual behavior during massage appointments, with two that alleged sexual assault. Grand juries in two Texas counties declined to charge him criminally.

[Madmike90]

3 minutes ago, The_Romen said:

Wasn't he found not guilty in criminal court? He settled out of civil court, I thought.

Mega rich people tend to find a way to buy themselves out of trouble…if he didn’t do it why did he feel the need to pay anyone?
 

Bottom line here is by giving him a six game suspension you are saying he did wrong because if he hadn’t you would have given him nothing…it also says that you feel the wrong doing wasn’t that bad because it’s only 6 games…he should have been suspended for the season at least.

[dll2000]

1 minute ago, Madmike90 said:

We he has committed sexual assault hence he has paid out a ton of money to make it go away...

The is zero argument for him to only be suspended 6 games...I mean Brady got 4 games for letting some air out a football.

You understand that people often settle civil lawsuits and accept plea bargains when they don't feel they are liable or guilty, right?

There are many other considerations in making those decisions.  

I think Watson did some really bad things.   To what extent I don't know entirely.  I wasn't there.   

We don't know what would have happened at civil trial.  What evidence would be presented.  We only have complaints.  A civil complaint is far less than half a story.   

I am certain if it these matters went to trial a lot of other things would be dredged up.   

If you asked me what I think happened, but don't know for sure it is this:

1) Step one pick out hot instagram girl advertising massages.

2) Book appointment.

3) Get her alone and try to make sexual advances.

Now allow me to play devil's advocate:

We all live in same culture.  Massage industry has been a thin cover for prostitution for forever.   Far or unfair, that is reality.  Yes there is also legitimate massage industry.   But those things are advertised as SPAs mostly for women or sports therapy.  He wasn't looking for that.  

Yes maybe these girls wanted to get clients by being sexy, but didn't want sex just to do a massage.  But they weren't working in a strip mall spa.   They were making house calls or doing private sessions (from what I read).

Given totality of circumstances and Watson's fame and money is it so unreasonable for him to think maybe these particular girls would be interested in doing something of a sexual nature if he was bold enough to suggest it?  I have a lot of buddies in my early 20s that would have suggested it, that did in fact suggest it, and they were dirt poor and not famous.    Especially since it seemed to be a thing, from his point of view, that was working for him again and again.   

From his point of view that would not be rape or assault.   These situations would be more akin to a girl coming home with you or back to your hotel room after meeting you at a club.   She didn't agree to do anything sexual in coming home with you, but making sexual advances is not a crazy thought in those particular circumstances.   

I am not blaming victim, but if you do choose to advertise yourself as a sexy instagram masseuse willing to do private massages that is going to give men ideas and fantasies of possibility of something more happening than just a massage.   What message do you think that conveys?      

The prosecutors couldn't get past a grand jury.  EVERYTHING gets past a grand jury.  A grand jury is a rubber stamp most of time.   They had nothing.   They had less than nothing.  Criminally speaking.   

I doubt they had enough to win a civil suit had it gone to trial.   

What they did have was enough to embarrass Watson, endanger his career and get a big pay day.  You read one side of story you get fired up.   But remember it is just one side.  

/Devil's advocate off./

Bottom line is if he was living morally he wouldn't be in this situation.  He was an idiot trying to get laid in stupidest way possible.   Neither would Kraft or Snyder.   They are also idiots and morally bankrupt.  

I think a lot of morally wrong things happen in NFL.  Openly.   Especially by my morals.  

Is it really that big a difference to you if he gets suspended for 6 games or 8 games or a year?

You think he committed rape, but you would be okay with a year suspension?  I think if he committed rape I am okay with the death penalty.  I could care less about his football career. 

But you have to prove it.   These girls are likely not baking cookies and singing in choirs.   A lot of grey would come out at a trial and you would probably find many of players involved are not so great.

 

 

[Madmike90]

6 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

You understand that people often settle civil lawsuits and accept plea bargains when they don't feel they are liable or guilty, right?

There are many other considerations in making those decisions.  

I think Watson did some really bad things.   To what extent I don't know entirely.  I wasn't there.   

We don't know what would have happened at civil trial.  What evidence would be presented.  We only have complaints.  A civil complaint is far less than half a story.   

I am certain if it these matters went to trial a lot of other things would be dredged up.   

If you asked me what I think happened, but don't know for sure it is this:

1) Step one pick out hot instagram girl advertising massages.

2) Book appointment.

3) Get her alone and try to make sexual advances.

Now allow me to play devil's advocate:

We all live in same culture.  Massage industry has been a thin cover for prostitution for forever.   Far or unfair, that is reality.  Yes there is also legitimate massage industry.   But those things are advertised as SPAs mostly for women or sports therapy.  He wasn't looking for that.  

Yes maybe these girls wanted to get clients by being sexy, but didn't want sex just to do a massage.  But they weren't working in a strip mall spa.   They were making house calls or doing private sessions (from what I read).

Given totality of circumstances and Watson's fame and money is it so unreasonable for him to think maybe these particular girls would be interested in doing something of a sexual nature if he was bold enough to suggest it?  I have a lot of buddies in my early 20s that would have suggested it, that did in fact suggest it, and they were dirt poor and not famous.    Especially since it seemed to be a thing, from his point of view, that was working for him again and again.   

From his point of view that would not be rape or assault.   These situations would be more akin to a girl coming home with you or back to your hotel room after meeting you at a club.   She didn't agree to do anything sexual in coming home with you, but making sexual advances is not a crazy thought in those particular circumstances.   

I am not blaming victim, but if you do choose to advertise yourself as a sexy instagram masseuse willing to do private massages that is going to give men ideas and fantasies of possibility of something more happening than just a massage.   What message do you think that conveys?      

The prosecutors couldn't get past a grand jury.  EVERYTHING gets past a grand jury.  A grand jury is a rubber stamp most of time.   They had nothing.   They had less than nothing.  Criminally speaking.   

I doubt they had enough to win a civil suit had it gone to trial.   

What they did have was enough to embarrass Watson, endanger his career and get a big pay day.  You read one side of story you get fired up.   But remember it is just one side.  

/Devil's advocate off./

Bottom line is if he was living morally he wouldn't be in this situation.  He was an idiot trying to get laid in stupidest way possible.   Neither would Kraft or Snyder.   They are also idiots and morally bankrupt.  

I think a lot of morally wrong things happen in NFL.  Openly.   Especially by my morals.  

Is it really that big a difference to you if he gets suspended for 6 games or 8 games or a year?

You think he committed rape, but you would be okay with a year suspension?  I think if he committed rape I am okay with the death penalty.  I could care less about his football career. 

But you have to prove it.   These girls are likely not baking cookies and singing in choirs.   A lot of grey would come out at a trial and you would probably find many of players involved are not so great.

 

 

You sorta are dude…

Clearly if you truly believe some of the above views we aren’t going to agree on this so let’s leave it there.

[StLunatic88]

1 hour ago, Madmike90 said:

Zero tolerance on gambling but not sexual assault? Sure that makes sense. 

Not to mention that’s an ancient rule about gambling. Way before the NFL has (publicly) gotten In bed with all the gambling companies.

Not that they care, but it’s another bad look for the league 

[dll2000]

19 minutes ago, Madmike90 said:

You sorta are dude…

Clearly if you truly believe some of the above views we aren’t going to agree on this so let’s leave it there.

I am not really sure  how I offended you.   I should have avoided whole topic and not said anything.   

Let me state that my personal beliefs above were/are:

I think Watson was behaving morally bankrupt along with Kraft and Snyder  based on their actions.  (Not that I am perfect).  

That I wouldn't mind death penalty for rapists.  

That if you act morally sexually and stay out of bad situations you don't typically have these problems. 

That I don't care if he gets 6 games or a season for what he did.   I probably would given him a full season if it was me making call. 

That if he is a rapist he shouldn't be here at all.   

If that offends anyone, then I can't help that.  That is what I think.  

When I am being 'devil's advocate'.    Those aren't my personal beliefs.  I am giving another side or another argument that people will make if it escalated.  That is purpose of the term.   

I gave an example of arguments that would be made in Watson's defense by his attorney's.  

Watson's attorney's at a trial aren't going to sit on their hands and play politically correct games.  Every witness is going to be destroyed on every side.  They are absolutely going to 'victim' blame.  They won't see it that way though.  It will be a vigorous defense of their client and/or an attempt to out a false accuser.    

They are going to find people to testify that say awful things about everyone that accuses someone of anything when the evidence is he said/she said.  That is what these types of trials are all about. 

I will also say it is a fact that not every accuser of someone is telling the truth or the whole truth.  Even if accusation itself is really, really heinous. 

  I have, no, not just me, we have all, seen lies come out many, many times in trials or other stages or an investigation.  Accusers break down and admit they lied for this reason or that reason.  

 If one's preferred policy is 'believe all women' - that is a very dangerous policy to base a justice system.   People, both men and women, are liars and can have various motivations for lying.

 

 

[JAF-N72EX]

I certainly don't believe all women, especially in this current era, but when it's 20+ people making virtually the same claim then that's way too much smoke to just ignore.

Ask R kelly, he'll tell you all about it. Remember when he tried the angle that every accuser were just scorned exes and parents and they all secretly colluded against him?

[beardown3231]

1 hour ago, JAF-N72EX said:

I certainly don't believe all women, especially in this current era, but when it's 20+ people making virtually the same claim then that's way too much smoke to just ignore.

Ask R kelly, he'll tell you all about it. Remember when he tried the angle that every accuser were just scorned exes and parents and they all secretly colluded against him?

And then he settles with all but 1 woman despite "doing nothing wrong." Call me crazy but settling to pay boat loads of money to so many women just so it all goes away doesn't make me believe he did nothing wrong

[JAF-N72EX]

13 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

And then he settles with all but 1 woman despite "doing nothing wrong." Call me crazy but settling to pay boat loads of money to so many women just so it all goes away doesn't make me believe he did nothing wrong

Me either. In fact, the way I see it is, paying out hush money or even attempting to, is almost an admittance of guilt alone because no innocent person in their right mind is going to pay someone thousands of dollars to keep quiet about something that never happened.  Epstein is another example --albeit on a much larger scale.