Jump to content

The #Patriots have released WR Antonio Brown, as he indicated on Twitter. They have moved on.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa.  F*ck that POS.  Oh, and f*ck Tom Brady. 

If I’m the Raiders I put a claim in for him so they can offer him a $1 contract 😁

Brought him in to defeat the Dolphins and then he was no longer needed.  BB playing 3D chess.

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Just heard on Michael Kay, if the league put him on the exempt list they’d have to pay him. And they owed him $5 mill on Monday. 

Pats got ahead of it but cutting him now. 

They made a money decision. 

wow, they timed the payment perfectly.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TNJet said:

He'll have a better season than AB. Book it. 🤣

QFT

At this point, Antonio Brown has more TDs than every Jets WR combined.  You probably would have said the same thing about Quincy Enunwa and Antonio Brown and I both have more yards receiving for 2019. In fact, I currently also have more than Demaryius Thomas. Fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Losmeister said:

so...   with the metoo movement and all...  i have come to ponder the use of the word "assault" ...   

i mean, if he jizzed on some womans back its obviously sick and wierd and creepy and wrong...  i dunno..  i consider assualt more violent...

but his acts are of a aggravated sexual sort...   he certainly deserves to get a royal beatdown by the men in these womens families...

thatd be a nice headline to read, actually...

 

All this shows is a lack of understanding the definition of assault.  Even the simple wikipedia definition should be enough - 

Quote

An assault is the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability.

Pulling your dick out on somebody seems to fit the legal definition of sexual assault pretty well and spraying on her back certainly would be "unwanted physical contact."  

It's true that in the neighborhood, this kind of stuff was self-policed, but that doesn't change the fact that it fits the definition of sexual assault, and it has since long before #metoo.  

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

All this shows is a lack of understanding the definition of assault.  Even the simple wikipedia definition should be enough - 

Pulling your dick out on somebody seems to fit the legal definition of sexual assault pretty well and spraying on her back certainly would be "unwanted physical contact."  

It's true that in the neighborhood, this kind of stuff was self-policed, but that doesn't change the fact that it fits the definition of sexual assault, and it has since long before #metoo.  

In case there were ever any doubt, you are of course correct.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

All this shows is a lack of understanding the definition of assault.  Even the simple wikipedia definition should be enough - 

Pulling your dick out on somebody seems to fit the definition of sexual assault pretty well and spraying on her back certainly would be "unwanted physical contact."  

It's true that in the neighborhood, this kind of stuff was self-policed, but that doesn't change the fact that it fits the definition of sexual assault, and it has since long before #metoo.  

my bad. 

like i said, i always associated it with violence. and in no way was i ever excusing the behavior....

 

so when robby said he'd nut in someones eye that....... is also sexual assault...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

It's my understanding that they have an above and beyond morals clause in his contract too. I dont think their exposure was ever more than the sum of his game checks.

he's really an idiot then.  he should have stayed in OAK.

honestly i don't think this would have been an issue if he just kept his nose out of the press with all the training camp stuff.  show up and just play.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Losmeister said:

my bad. 

like i said, i always associated it with violence. and in no way was i ever excusing the behavior....

 

so when robby said he'd nut in someones eye that....... is also sexual assault...

i believe AB actually did it.  Robbie wanted to.

is this nutting thing a WR thing?  Our QB likes to make out with girls like a good boy it appears.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, batman10023 said:

i believe AB actually did it.  Robbie wanted to.

is this nutting thing a WR thing?  Our QB likes to make out with girls like a good boy it appears.

the definition above says the threat of unwanted touching can be considered assault.

fwiw by that legal definition i have been the victim of multiple incidents of sexual assault...    im so wounded

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Crusher said:

Signs with Cleveland in 3, 2, 1....

Simply with OBJ, Landry and him, you would theoretically have a black hole of mega douchebaggery, sucking in all in it's path. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

he's really an idiot then.  he should have stayed in OAK.

honestly i don't think this would have been an issue if he just kept his nose out of the press with all the training camp stuff.  show up and just play.  

It wouldn't matter.  The Raiders contract had offset language.  He will probably be filing grievances about the bonus money from the Raiders, but the Pats money would have offset that anyway.

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

Cmon over AB - you can have all the targets you want. Just one thing - gotta have your tongue cut out first. Don't worry - doctors will reattach it after the season.

Would have to cut off dick and balls too.  Make him a full on eunuch.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

I dunno whether I'd rather see the other conspiracy theorist show up and embarrassingly try to hoodsplain this or just stay away and shut up. Hackenberg deserves some company looking dumb and incoherently muttering about how this is all part of the illuminati's plan.

I got you my G. Im always in the mood for sum hoodsplainin'

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Losmeister said:

my bad. 

like i said, i always associated it with violence. and in no way was i ever excusing the behavior....

 

so when robby said he'd nut in someones eye that....... is also sexual assault...

The problem is that the terms are not consistent between civil and criminal law. But no, it's not. If Anderson had said it to the cop's wife and she sincerely and reasonably believed that he was imminently going to do it, then it would have been. But you see how there are any number of operative distinctions here.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, More Cowbell said:

Care to tell us again how the media made this all up?

Care to tell me again how you can prove it actually happened? Other than saying "I read it in nationally approved media, therefore it's' true....? Mocking me while unable to prove it's real, equals a failed argument. Equals failed/no proof.

 

 

  • Thumb Down 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

The problem is that the terms are not consistent between civil and criminal law. But no, it's not. If Anderson had said it to the cop's wife and she sincerely and reasonably believed that he was imminently going to do it, then it would have been. But you see how there are any number of operative distinctions here.

this is where i get into the weeds..

assualt=physical attack is first english language definition...  so for me in many of these cases the word misconduct seems more appropriate/actually accurate than assault...

but then the LEGAL def goes and says any unwanted physical contact = assault.

its just a language thing...

 

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

this is where i get into the weeds..

assualt=physical attack is first english language definition...  so for me in many of these cases the word misconduct seems more appropriate/actually accurate than assault...

but then the LEGAL def goes and says any unwanted physical contact = assault.

its just a language thing...

 

Actually, the legal definition is threat or use of force on another that causes reasonable fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact.  Battery is the actual striking or "offensive contact."  That is why you always  hear assault and battery.    

The English language definition you mention is actually referring to battles and warfare, like Assault on Precinct 13.  The fact is, we are discussing the legal definitions because this relates to a legal case - Brown is being sued for the tort. 

While we are on the lesson, the legal definition of mayhem is the wanton removal of a body part.  You would think that wouldn't come up much, but think of Lorena Bobbit or that time in the 80's when some dude we were talking to started brawling outside a club and the dude Mike Tyson'ed the guys ear off.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

All this shows is a lack of understanding the definition of assault.  Even the simple wikipedia definition should be enough - 

Pulling your dick out on somebody seems to fit the legal definition of sexual assault pretty well and spraying on her back certainly would be "unwanted physical contact."  

It's true that in the neighborhood, this kind of stuff was self-policed, but that doesn't change the fact that it fits the definition of sexual assault, and it has since long before #metoo.  

Thank You.....

The very fact that you have to post this says something is deeply wrong. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

The fact is, we are discussing the legal definitions because this relates to a legal case - Brown is being sued for the tort.

right on ...   my mind has trouble moving from the definition i feel familiar with and how it differs from the legal.

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

is says something is deeply wrong. 

so, what?, you are rock solid on your all your legal definitions?

i never defended AB or questioned that if the allegations against AB are true, the acts would be illegal. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Hackenberg said:

Care to tell me again how you can prove it actually happened? Other than saying "I read it in nationally approved media, therefore it's' true....? Mocking me while unable to prove it's real, equals a failed argument. Equals failed/no proof.

 

 

This is getting old.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...