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

[BradfordSteeler]

6 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

So the goal was a coordinated plot to have him thrown in prison just on the hopes of winning a civil suit later?  That makes more sense than him just, well, doing it?

Occam's Razor works differently for @MSURacerDT55and @SkippyX I guess. Whichever situation requires the largest number of assumptions is most likely to be true.

[ET80]

16 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

Enough to ask questions about a situation that doesn't add up, and having a bunch a keyboard warriors come at you. 

But also enough to ignore answers that don't fit what you want. 

[MSURacerDT55]

8 minutes ago, ET80 said:

But also enough to ignore answers that don't fit what you want. 

Those weren't answers, you cut and pasted and hid behind it 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

9 minutes ago, BradfordSteeler said:

Occam's Razor works differently for @MSURacerDT55and @SkippyX I guess. Whichever situation requires the largest number of assumptions is most likely to be true.

I don’t have it in me to crap on MSU, that’s my guy, but we don’t see eye to eye on this one.

I guess I can crap on Skippy though… 🤔 

[MSURacerDT55]

9 minutes ago, ET80 said:

But also enough to ignore answers that don't fit what you want. 

Also I don't want anything, as I stated previously 

[MSURacerDT55]

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I don’t have it in me to crap on MSU, that’s my guy, but we don’t see eye to eye on this one.

I guess I can crap on Skippy though… 🤔 

That's fair, that's how life is. We should be able to disagree and still be civil, at least that's how it used to be. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by MSURacerDT55

[Ragnarok]

1 hour 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.

I think Daniel nailed this response.

It in not uncommon for victims of sexual assault to not come forward for a long time.  In fact, some states have entirely removed the statute of limitations for sexual assault cases because this is so prevalent.  

In a situation like this, where the accused is a public figure, its not uncommon for no one to come forward until one person does...and then you get a flood of accusations.  Harvey Weinstein being a notable example.

[ET80]

6 minutes ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

Also I don't want anything, as I stated previously 

Bluntly - I don't believe you.

[MSURacerDT55]

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

Bluntly - I don't believe you.

 

[SkippyX]

34 minutes ago, Daniel said:

You don't get money from criminal accusations.

There were no criminal accusations until after they were all trying to get money.

The criminal charges would make it easier to get the money.

"Big rich men have no legal protections" Baker was actually deposed in the civil cases. So the criminal complaints gave more ammunition to the civil cases.

 

Its not a judgement on the validity of the cases, just the truck sized logic hole in not considering money as a possible motivation.

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by SkippyX

[BradfordSteeler]

5 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Bluntly - I don't believe you.

[Daniel]

7 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

There were no criminal accusations until after they were all trying to get money.

The criminal charges would make it easier to get the money.

"Big rich men have no legal protections" Baker was actually deposed in the civil cases. So the criminal complaints gave more ammunition to the civil cases.

 

Its not a judgement on the validity of the cases, just the truck sized logic hole in not considering money as a possible motivation.

Not really.  Criminal cases have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubts, where as the burden of proof in civil suits is just preponderance of the evidence, a much lower burden.

If Deshaun Watson weren't a multi-millionaire, then maybe.  You could put out criminal charges against someone, and then IF the DA works with you (which they're under no obligation to do), get him to settle the civil cases against you in exchange for a favorable plea deal or dismissing the charges.  But since he is a multi-millionaire, he's under no pressure to settle anything just because of the criminal cases.  He'll have high priced lawyers that can get lots of stuff excluded, make the DA's office go blind on paperwork, and then work the jury at trial.  He'll have rockstars working his case.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the rest of that.

[Spartacus]

4 hours ago, Tk3 said:

 

Imagine being in a topic regarding sexual misconduct and bragging about how you are all alone on the defensive side

So much cringe. 

[Glen]

6 hours ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

Imagine being in fear and not a single woman calling the police...🤔

Weird flex defending a rapist 

[Daniel]

And just to fight the completely illogical idea that this is a grab for money: if that's a thing, why do we not see it all the time, with every big athlete?  Why wasn't Big Ben targeted by a ton of women who saw the floodgates open after his multiple settlements.  What about Peyton Manning, after it came out that he did a massage-based sexual assault while at UT?  Where were the dozens of women that came after them after that money dinnerbell was rung publicly?

I guess Deshaun Watson is just a uniquely persecuted individual.

Or he just sexually assaulted a lot of women.