Jump to content
Grandy

AB Accused Of Sexual Assault (MERGED)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, jgb said:

You're welcome to extricate yourself from the thread whenever you wish if you feel unqualified to discuss the subject at hand.

I'm very comfortable discussing my position, that you're generally an idiot if you're trying to litigate the credibility of a human being you've never met and know nothing about, in situation you have almost no information about.  But, I appreciate your permission to post or not post.  It's very important to me.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jgb said:

 Step 1: Call out others

 Step 2: Try to shut down the discussion once others push back

Yeah, that's what's happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TeddEY said:

I'm very comfortable discussing my position, that you're generally an idiot if you're trying to litigate the credibility of a human being you've never met and know nothing about, in situation you have almost no information about.  But, I appreciate your permission to post or not post.  It's very important to me.

I will add Step 3 to my previous post: Go for ad hominems when others disagree with you in a convincing way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Yeah, that's what's happening.

I commend your self-awareness to admit you're wrong. Very rare on the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jgb said:

I will add Step 3 to my previous post: Go for ad hominems when others disagree with you in a convincing way

Indeed, you're very convincing.  Tell me more about the facts of this case.  I'm eager to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

You don't find what plausible? This is gonna come up, you know. An explanation for why the incidents were not contemporaneously reported (as roughly two thirds of cases aren't) is going to be demanded and provided. How exactly does one assess the credibility of such explanation before it has even been offered?

Does happen victims come forward after time has passed. Those victims still go to the police, which she has not done. Only caveat is if she was so disraught she was fearful.   I do not find that plausible in this case because rather than go to the police she made her way to some shyster's office and happened to file her lawsuit and release this information on the very day Brown was set to get a huge payday . I don't know the woman, but those are the facts we do know. Based on those admittedly limited facts, can draw some inferences about her, which is rather than call the cops, she is looking for money. Have no doubt Brown is a nasty piece of work, but that's not by itself prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a rapist. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bugg said:

Does happen victims come forward after time has passed. Those victims still go to the police, whcih she has not done. Only caveat is if she was so disraught she was fearful.   I do not find that plausible because rather than go to the police she made her way to some shyster's office and happened to file her lawsuit and release this information on the very day Brown was set to get a huge payday . 

What's to say she didn't want to **** him over, and/because it really happened?

What's to say him being in the news so much wasn't triggering, that she finally decided to do something.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Indeed, you're very convincing.  Tell me more about the facts of this case.  I'm eager to hear.

I don't proclaim to know the facts, hence my questioning of them. Unlike you, who seems to have it all figured out. Good for you, but some of us prefer a more deliberate method of forming our opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jgb said:

I don't proclaim to know the facts, hence my questioning of them. Unlike you, who seems to have it all figured out. Good for you, but some of us prefer a more deliberate method of forming our opinions.

Purposefully obtuse at this point?  Because, I'm literally saying we don't know what happened, and that we personally can't know what happened, so we probably ought not to have a take on what happened, including attacking the credibility of someone we don't know in a situation we weren't privy to, especially when there's a long history of women not coming forward in these situations for a myriad of reasons, including, mostly notably, not being believed.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

What's to say she didn't want to **** him over, and/because it really happened?

What's to say him being in the news so much wasn't triggering, that she finally decided not to do something.

So because he is a celebrity, that made her make a rape allegation, and not to the police?

Not going to lay out my background, but I have dealt with rape victims "professionally". To be so personally violated, it's awful. By the same token, to so accuse someone without a real legal basis is as bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bugg said:

So because he is a celebrity, that made her make a rape allegation, and not to the police?

Not going to lay out my background, but I have dealt with rape victims "professionally". To be so personally violated, it's awful. By the same token, to so accuse someone without a real legal basis is as bad. 

Have you read what AB wrote? It's pretty damning. This doesn't seem like a story she made up out of thin air. 

It is odd to not report to the police, but reporting sexual assault to the police is not a prerequisite to filing a civil action. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bugg said:

So because he is a celebrity, that made her make a rape allegation, and not to the police?

 Not going to lay out my background, but I have dealt with rape victims "professionally". To be so personally violated, it's awful. By the same token, to so accuse someone without a real legal basis is as bad. 

I'm not saying that's the reason.  I'm saying there may be a reason, and we don't know it.  So, lets reserve judgment until we do.  The fact is, at this point, there's essentially no way she could prove this criminally, there's no kit.  Any physical damage is likely healed, so you just have two people pointing at each others.  Perhaps that's why there's no police.

I agree it's awful to wrongfully accuse someone of rape.  Both for the man, and to the thousands of women who will be raped/assaulted for real.  My point is, everyone's looking for a reason not to believe her.

And, so have and do I.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Purposefully obtuse at this point?  Because, I'm literally saying we don't know what happened, and that we personally can't know what happened, so we probably ought not to have a take on what happened, including attacking the credibility of someone we don't know in a situation we weren't privy to, especially when there's a long history of women not coming forward in these situations for a myriad of reasons, including, mostly notably, not being believed.

I asked a question. I took no takes, conclusions, positions, opinions, or speculations. I asked a question that all free-thinking folk should before making any of the above.

Not going to wade into the whole “not believed thing,” because it could get political. I will just cite back to why we need “innocent until proven guilty” to protect against the passions of the day. It’s in fact the most despicable that need this protection. And for good reason lest they be convicted on reputation alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jgb said:

I asked a question. I took no takes, conclusions, positions, opinions, or speculations. I asked a question that all free-thinking folk should before making any of the above.

No need to explain. We all free to have our own opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JetsFanatic said:

No need to explain. We all free to have our own opinions.

You and I believe that. But some do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I just read this whole thread from start to finish and I have come away with two things:

1. Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land even for an a-hole like Brown. He's perceived as a bad guy so he must be guilty right? Even if he is an a-hole he should get the benefit of the doubt? Hmmmmmmm

2. The young lady has to prove her case. Simple as that. I'm not saying AB is innocent or she is lying. Used to be thats how it went. Now just being accused seems to be enough to convict you.

 I doubt anything will come of this. They will talk a whole bunch of crap about it but it will eventually go away with an out of court settlement and you won't hear anymore of it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jgb said:

You and I believe that. But some do not.

Who cares?? Don't let others bother you, I don't. The same person that quoted you also quoted me, I feel no need to respond and neither should you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JetsFanatic said:

Who cares?? Don't let others bother you, I don't. The same person that quoted you also quoted me, I feel no need to respond and neither should you.

Bothered? Hardly. Entertained? Definitely. Although I do appreciate the advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jgb said:

I asked a question. I took no takes, conclusions, positions, opinions, or speculations. I asked a question that all free-thinking folk should before making any of the above.

 Not going to wade into the whole “not believed thing,” because it could get political. I will just cite back to why we need “innocent until proven guilty” to protect against the passions of the day. It’s in fact the most despicable that need this protection. And for good reason lest they be convicted on reputation alone.

And, I answered your question, fairly thoughtfully, and respectfully, I thought, and you seemed to agree.  I take no issue with your initial question.  Because, it was an actual question and not something veiled as challenging her credibility.

I took issue with people who are, and again, not you, taking your question, and other similar ones, to say that this didn't happen.  You went in on me for that.  I hold my ground that that next step is harmful, and have no problem calling someone an idiot who does so.

And without getting political, it's really sad that this is, in any way, something that could get political.  That's a part of, if not the biggest problem.  I agree with due processes, but we need to remember that AB is not innocent of this until he's proven guilty.  He either did it, or he didn't.  He's innocent in the legal system and sense until proven guilty, and that's just fine.  No disagreements.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JetsFanatic said:

No need to explain. We all free to have our own opinions.

While true, most millennials don't really think like this.... They think they are free to have their own opinions, and you are free to have your own opinion as long as it agrees with their opinion, and if not, they will throw a hissy fit, temper tantrum and cry and scream at you and try to prove you wrong. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Post of the Week 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

And, I answered your question, fairly thoughtfully, and respectfully, I thought, and you seemed to agree.  I take no issue with your initial question.  Because, it was an actual question and not something veiled as challenging her credibility.

I took issue with people who are, and again, not you, taking your question, and other similar ones, to say that this didn't happen.  You went in on me for that.  I hold my ground that that next step is harmful, and have no problem calling someone an idiot who does so.

And without getting political, it's really sad that this is, in any way, something that could get political.  That's a part of, if not the biggest problem.  I agree with due processes, but we need to remember that AB is not innocent of this until he's proven guilty.  He either did it, or he didn't.  He's innocent in the legal system and sense until proven guilty, and that's just fine.  No disagreements.

Amigo. You called me an idiot. Add “the definition of respectfully” to the list of things we disagree about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

While true, most millennials don't really think like this.... They think they are free to have their own opinions, and you are free to have your own opinion as long as it agrees with their opinion, and if not, they will throw a hissy fit, temper tantrum and cry and scream at you and try to prove you wrong. 

Probably one of the most accurate descriptions of the millennial mindset. BRAVO Sir, Bravo.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jgb said:

Amigo. You called me an idiot. Add “the definition of respectfully” to the list of things we disagree with. 

I did not.  And (here's something you don't see on the internet) I apologize if it came off that way.  Because, I didn't view your question/position/take as "trying to litigate the credibility of a human being you've never met and know nothing about, in situation you have almost no information about." The "you" was not meant to be specific in my post, more like "a person is an idiot."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

I did not.  And (here's something you don't see on the internet) I apologize if it came off that way.  Because, I didn't view your question/position/take as "trying to litigate the credibility of a human being you've never met and know nothing about, in situation you have almost no information about." The "you" was not meant to be specific in my post, more like "a person is an idiot."

I am too lazy to click back a page and re-quote you thus I will accept your explanation and apology. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

 we don't know what happened, and that we personally can't know what happened, 

this

and it applies to wild conjecture about motives for moves in the NFL... Gase power grab story and all...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jgb said:

Amigo. You called me an idiot. Add “the definition of respectfully” to the list of things we disagree about. 

Can either one of you kick?  We need a kicker!!!!

  • Post of the Week 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

AB is practicing with the Patriots today.  Classy organization they have up there.  

Did you expect anything less?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fantasy Island said:

Can either one of you kick?  We need a kicker!!!!

During my ribald youth I kicked a TV during a Jets game. Then I became a darksider and the circus surrounding this team only serves to amuse me.

4 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

AB is practicing with the Patriots today.  Classy organization they have up there.  

They had a five minute meeting before practice.

BILL

Did you do it?

AB

Naw, coach.

BILL

Good enough. See you out there in five.

If they find out later he lied (about any of it), they'll have to cut him.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, New York Mick said:

Did you expect anything less?

I kind of expected them to give him the day off so he could go get happy endings with Kraft.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

I agree with due processes, but we need to remember that AB is not innocent of this until he's proven guilty.  He either did it, or he didn't.  He's innocent in the legal system and sense until proven guilty, and that's just fine.  No disagreements.

Emphasis on due. This is a civil suit, not a criminal case. The presumption of innocence and a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not process to which Brown is entitled here. The plaintiff only needs to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence (essentially, more likely than not) and Boomin better have my money.

This is of course one of any number of perfectly good explanations as to why a victim might not file criminal charges but still pursue civil redress. The different legal standards involved are going to lead to O.J. outcomes in a broad range of situations.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...