Houston Texans added as defendants in Deshaun Watson sexual misconduct civil trials

[MSURacerDT55]

9 minutes ago, ET80 said:

The only thing I'll answer is that you do not understand how our legal system works - and your questions reflect this.

I was trying to avoid this to spare you the embarrassment, but you seem persistent to show how much you don't understand, so here we do.

- First off - none of these questions are relevant, because "statutes of limitations" exist. This means that you have a window of time to file a sexual assault; most states it's 2-4 years. With the crimes alleged (misdemeanors) there is a two year window to file, per the state of Texas:

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/criminal-case-statute-of-limitations/TX-felonies-misdemeanors.htm#:~:text=Statute of Limitations%3A Felonies and,two years for misdemeanors.

So the "contexts" you're alluding to doesn't matter - by law, it doesn't matter when the cases are filed. They're going to be handled the same way. Which brings me to my second point:

- There is no scenario where Watson is just "arrested" after a case is filed. Once a criminal complaint is filed, it's given to a detective (such as Det. Kamisha Baker - the detective who worked this case at HPD) and they investigate the facts behind the case. Once that investigation is complete, the details are sent to the Grand Jury to determine whether or not charges would be pressed - so he's not "getting arrested" until after these steps took place.

(All of which actually happened prior to the trade - Baker submitting a case stating Watson committed a crime).

So, before you accuse me of deflecting (with facts and actual understanding of the legal system) let me specifically respond:

Why would they need to submit immediately, given statutes of limitations in Texas - and even if they did, Watson wouldn't be arrested.

Yes - which still fell within the statues of limitations for said allegations. We already explained why he wasn't arrested.

That's speculation on your part, not really backed up by anything. Everything I provided is backed up by legal precedenceand sworn under oath - so if you really feel this is the case, I need you to find something that refutes what Det. Kamisha Baker found and provided to the Grand Jury.

Until that can be done, I'll trust Sex Crimes detective with HPD over you, thanks.

Does any of this register with you? Legally speaking - not speculatively speaking - nothing you said hokds true, and everything I said is validated under oath and provided to media outlets via the Freedom of Information act.

What's your source, again?

@Ragnarok, @Daniel - both of you are lawyers, and I'm just a caveman here. Can you fact check what I've just said? I have a feeling it's not going to matter, because some people feel as if thinking on their own outweighs actual, tangible experience. But, humor us.

First of all, of course I'm not supposed to know, im not in that field, I don't live in TX nor do I try to get on message boards and act like I do. I just asked a simple question. Second of all, you are not a lawyer so you look weird trying to act and speak as if you are one. Being a normal person asking question should not be demonized, but I guess acting as if you are an expert at something you never done is the thing nowadays.

Sometimes, simple questions require simple answers. Being able to answer a question about if they were encouraged by Buzbee should not be hard, and from what I read they did not initially go to the police, they waited until Buzbee went on instagram and announced he was filing criminal charges, this is when the women started coming forward. That is suspect to me, that's it, that's all

 

[Scoundrel]

17 minutes ago, ET80 said:

The only thing I'll answer is that you do not understand how our legal system works - and your questions reflect this.

I was trying to avoid this to spare you the embarrassment, but you seem persistent to show how much you don't understand, so here we do.

- First off: none of these questions are relevant, because "statutes of limitations" exist. This means that you have a window of time to file a complaint of sexual assault; most states it's 2-4 years. With the crimes alleged (misdemeanor sexual misconduct) there is a two year window to file, per the state of Texas:

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/criminal-case-statute-of-limitations/TX-felonies-misdemeanors.htm#:~:text=Statute of Limitations%3A Felonies and,two years for misdemeanors.

So the "contexts" you're alluding to doesn't matter - by law, it doesn't matter when the cases are filed. They're going to be handled the same way. Which brings me to my second point:

- There is no scenario where Watson is just "arrested" after a case is filed. Once a criminal complaint is filed, it's given to a detective (such as Det. Kamisha Baker - the detective who worked this case at HPD) and they investigate the facts behind the case. Once that investigation is complete, the details are sent to the Grand Jury to determine whether or not charges would be pressed - so he's not "getting arrested" until after these steps took place.

(All of which actually happened prior to the trade - Kamisha Baker submitting a case stating Watson committed a crime).

So, before you accuse me of deflecting (with facts and actual understanding of the legal system) let me specifically respond:

Why would they need to submit immediately, given statutes of limitations in Texas - and even if they did, Watson wouldn't be arrested.

Yes, they did wait and file - which still fell within the statues of limitations for said allegations. We already explained why he wasn't arrested.

That's speculation on your part, not really backed up by anything. Everything I provided is backed up by legal precedenceand sworn under oath - so if you really feel this is the case, I need you to find something that refutes what Det. Kamisha Baker found and provided to the Grand Jury.

Until that can be done, I'll trust the thoughts of the Sex Crimes detective with HPD over your half baked thoughts, thanks.

Does any of this register with you? Legally speaking - not speculatively speaking - nothing you said holds true, and everything I said is validated under oath and provided to media outlets via the Freedom of Information act.

What's your source, again?

 

 

 

 

@Ragnarok, @Daniel - both of you are lawyers, and I'm just a caveman here. Can you fact check what I've just said? I have a feeling it's not going to matter, because some people feel as if thinking on their own outweighs actual, tangible experience. But, humor us.

[Scoundrel]

1 minute ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

I guess acting as if you are an expert at something you never done is the thing nowadays.

What you, myself and others do in the draft thread all the time?

[Scoundrel]

2 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

First of all, of course I'm not supposed to know, im not in that field, I don't live in TX nor do I try to get on message boards and act like I do. I just asked a simple question. Second of all, you are not a lawyer so you look weird trying to act and speak as if you are one. Being a normal person asking question should not be demonized, but I guess acting as if you are an expert at something you never done is the thing nowadays.

Sometimes, simple questions require simple answers. Being able to answer a question about if they were encouraged by Buzbee should not be hard, and from what I read they did not initially go to the police, they waited until Buzbee went on instagram and announced he was filing criminal charges, this is when the women started coming forward. That is suspect to me, that's it, that's all

 

Have you been in their shoes? Have you experienced their trauma? Why is that suspect to you if you haven’t been through that? Saying it’s suspect is just another machismo way to muffle a woman’s voice. Way to go bud.

[ET80]

9 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

@ET80waiting on his answer like 

Wait, I forget you're a lawyer too! (I figured you as a caveman as well, so that's probably why I didn't include you).

Your thoughts, counsel?

[Scoundrel]

I’m leaving this thread back to my only thread I really frequent this time of year before I go down a rabbit hole. Good day!
 

[Daniel]

21 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Can you fact check what I've just said? I have a feeling it's not going to matter, because some people feel as if thinking on their own outweighs actual, tangible experience. But, humor us.

Well, there is one thing that's incorrect.

Quote

- There is no scenario where Watson is just "arrested" after a case is filed. Once a criminal complaint is filed, it's given to a detective (such as Det. Kamisha Baker - the detective who worked this case at HPD) and they investigate the facts behind the case. Once that investigation is complete, the details are sent to the Grand Jury to determine whether or not charges would be pressed - so he's not "getting arrested" until after these steps took place.

At least in Tennessee (most other states too, but I don't know about Texas specifically), the charges don't have to go through the grand jury for someone to be charged and arrested.  Many cases go through the General Sessions Court first, where misdemeanors and other small matters can be settled, but felonies can't be, and jury trials can't happen.  Most cases do.

If the case goes beyond General Sessions, or for any other reason the prosecutor wants, it would then be presented to a grand jury.  Then it could be taken up at the trial court level, where the rules of procedure apply and where jury trials can happen.

Oftentimes, once a complaint is filed, the person is arrested.  For less serious charges, they may only be served with a criminal summons giving them their court date.  However, the police can simply take the report and never take out a charge.  Our firm had an incident where we tried to get the local PD to charge a guy after he shot a realtor trying to sell our client's home (because they live next to the kind of guy who shoots realtors) and they refused, because they didn't want to deal with it.  There was nothing we could do.

In this case, Watson's celebrity status would likely prevent the police from acting normally.  That happens a lot too.

That said, sexual assault cases are notoriously handled arbitrarily, cop to cop.  Some will be gung ho about it, even in cases where the proof is extremely poor, or the alleged victim is (provably) lying, where others will ignore cases with even good proof because "they were asking for it" or whatever dumb reason, while others fall anywhere else in that spectrum.

As for going immediately, you very rarely see that.  I do mostly criminal law, and I've probably handled 30 or 40 sexual assault cases at least, and I can't recall one where the victim went straight to the police.  Being sexually assaulted is an extremely traumatic event, and it's very common for victims to not go to the police for years, or even to blame someone else at first only to recant later because they're scared of the actual perpetrator.

[ET80]

9 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

That is suspect to me, that's it, that's all

Say you don't understand our legal system without saying you don't understand our legal system.

10 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

First of all, of course I'm not supposed to know, im not in that field, I don't live in TX nor do I try to get on message boards and act like I do.

See - I do live in Texas. So I sorta know, no acting required.

11 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

Second of all, you are not a lawyer so you look weird trying to act and speak as if you are one.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand statutes of limitations or how criminal proceedings work. All of this information is readily available to look into. I know I've been reading a lot of it.

13 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

Being a normal person asking question should not be demonized, but I guess acting as if you are an expert at something you never done is the thing nowadays.

Nothing is wrong with asking questions - but when you start ignoring the answers you get because it doesn't fit the outcome you desire, then we have a problem.

Everything I provided - statistics on sexual assault cases, procedural protocol on sex crimes, testimony from HPD Detectives - are all based on FACT. Which one of those facts are you refuting, and why?

16 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

Sometimes, simple questions require simple answers.

Sometimes, simple answers are too complex for people such as you. Which is why we are here.

[Scoundrel]

4 minutes ago, Daniel said:

As for going immediately, you very rarely see that.  I do mostly criminal law, and I've probably handled 30 or 40 sexual assault cases at least, and I can't recall one where the victim went straight to the police.  Being sexually assaulted is an extremely traumatic event, and it's very common for victims to not go to the police for years, or even to blame someone else at first only to recant later because they're scared of the actual perpetrator.

Alright I came back but I’ll leave after this. Thank you for this education. Some individuals needed to hear this. 

[ET80]

7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

At least in Tennessee (most other states too, but I don't know about Texas specifically), the charges don't have to go through the grand jury for someone to be charged and arrested.  Many cases go through the General Sessions Court first, where misdemeanors and other small matters can be settled, but felonies can't be, and jury trials can't happen.  Most cases do.

Appreciate the response - as stated, Watson wasn't facing any felony charges, everything was misdemeanor level. Per legal people here in Houston, the cases were investigated by HPD and findings would be shared with the Grand Jury, and only then would an arrest be made if necessary (which is why the contact between Joana Stallings and Rusty Hardin was so odd).

Everything was shared with them, and Stallings elected to not proceed.

[MSURacerDT55]

3 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Say you don't understand our legal system without saying you don't understand our legal system.

See - I do live in Texas. So I sorta know, no acting required.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand statutes of limitations or how criminal proceedings work. All of this information is readily available to look into. I know I've been reading a lot of it.

Nothing is wrong with asking questions - but when you start ignoring the answers you get because it doesn't fit the outcome you desire, then we have a problem.

Everything I provided - statistics on sexual assault cases, procedural protocol on sex crimes, testimony from HPD Detectives - are all based on FACT. Which one of those facts are you refuting, and why?

Sometimes, simple answers are too complex for people such as you. Which is why we are here.

I am in no way offended btw, The fact that you are personally attacking me shows I struck a nerve...

 

[Daniel]

Just now, ET80 said:

Appreciate the response - as stated, Watson wasn't facing any felony charges, everything was misdemeanor level.

For clarity, any level charge can be presented to a grand jury.  But the normal procedure is complaint, warrant, arrest/summons, general sessions court.  If it goes further, that's when it's presented to a grand jury.

There are things called pickup indictments where the cops just go straight to the grand jury.  Usually those are in undercover drug buy cases and sexual assaults or kiddie porn cases.

[MSURacerDT55]

10 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Well, there is one thing that's incorrect.

At least in Tennessee (most other states too, but I don't know about Texas specifically), the charges don't have to go through the grand jury for someone to be charged and arrested.  Many cases go through the General Sessions Court first, where misdemeanors and other small matters can be settled, but felonies can't be, and jury trials can't happen.  Most cases do.

If the case goes beyond General Sessions, or for any other reason the prosecutor wants, it would then be presented to a grand jury.  Then it could be taken up at the trial court level, where the rules of procedure apply and where jury trials can happen.

Oftentimes, once a complaint is filed, the person is arrested.  For less serious charges, they may only be served with a criminal summons giving them their court date.  However, the police can simply take the report and never take out a charge.  Our firm had an incident where we tried to get the local PD to charge a guy after he shot a realtor trying to sell our client's home (because they live next to the kind of guy who shoots realtors) and they refused, because they didn't want to deal with it.  There was nothing we could do.

In this case, Watson's celebrity status would likely prevent the police from acting normally.  That happens a lot too.

That said, sexual assault cases are notoriously handled arbitrarily, cop to cop.  Some will be gung ho about it, even in cases where the proof is extremely poor, or the alleged victim is (provably) lying, where others will ignore cases with even good proof because "they were asking for it" or whatever dumb reason, while others fall anywhere else in that spectrum.

As for going immediately, you very rarely see that.  I do mostly criminal law, and I've probably handled 30 or 40 sexual assault cases at least, and I can't recall one where the victim went straight to the police.  Being sexually assaulted is an extremely traumatic event, and it's very common for victims to not go to the police for years, or even to blame someone else at first only to recant later because they're scared of the actual perpetrator.

Thank you for an explanation from an actual person in the field

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

14 minutes ago, Daniel said:

As for going immediately, you very rarely see that.  I do mostly criminal law, and I've probably handled 30 or 40 sexual assault cases at least, and I can't recall one where the victim went straight to the police.  Being sexually assaulted is an extremely traumatic event, and it's very common for victims to not go to the police for years, or even to blame someone else at first only to recant later because they're scared of the actual perpetrator.

Does the concern that they won’t be believed factor in to them waiting to file charges/seek medical care?  Asking for half of a forum.

[seriously27]

This thread now makes me want to vomit. Maybe I'm a little too close to the idea behind this, but in the future, if you ever find yourself trying to understand what is going on in the mind of someone who has just be sexually harrassed. Immediately stop. 

If you ever start questioning why they would take money to get the hell out of the room? Immediately stop.

If you ever start questioning why a female would be embarrassed/scared/worried to come forward about that situation. Immediately stop doing anything and read one of the thousands of papers and reports on this.

Stop focusing on how a few women could possibly be lying and start worrying about why there isn't more talk about him going to jail instead of wondering whether the suspension would be 8 games or a whole season.