Marshall Faulk, 2 others suspended from NFL Network.

[Big Turk]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

Those articles address forfeitures different than assets seized pusuant to RICO convictions. 

Thats true, and they are ones no law enforcement wants to talk about because they know what they are doing and they know its wrong.

Edited December 12, 2017 by matter2003

[jrober38]

11 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

Now you're making a different argument. You're saying based on the evidence in this case specifically you believe these particular women.

 

That's a far removal from your previous statement that accusers should be believed.

 

Maybe I was unclear - my stance is that when these victims come forward the initial reaction is that they should be believed. The authorities, or their employer, or whoever is involved should treat them as telling the truth and fully investigate their claims assuming they are telling the truth. 

 

If during that process their stories wind up filled with holes, or there is a lack of supporting evidence, then they should be treated as having lied. It should be relatively easy for an employer to release a statement saying they fully investigated the incident and determined no wrong doing. 

 

In this situation, the NFL hasn't fired anyone. They've suspended a bunch of employees and are likely conducting their own investigation. If they deem the victims accusations to be credible, I imagine that they'll be fired. If they determine the victim was lying, then they'll likely get reinstated. 

 

The process can play out, but while under investigation of sexual assault, the NFL can't leave these guys on the air and pretend everything is normal. They need to figure out what happened and act accordingly. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by jrober38

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

Those articles address forfeitures different than assets seized pusuant to RICO convictions. 

When it comes to RICO convictions they are

Amazing how people accused of a crime are afforded more protection under the law than those not accused of a crime.

[LeviF]

17 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

If you didn't do something, you should be able to convince people of that. 

 

 

You're a !@#$ing moron.  I mean that sincerely.  I actually think you're stupid.

 

You're calling for people to automatically believe the accusers.

 

Then you say that the accused should be able to convince people to believe them.

 

Which is it, cuck?

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, matter2003 said:

Thats true, and they are ones no law enforcement wants to talk about because they know what they are doing and they know its wrong.

Anytime the government skirts due process, it is a problem and shouldn't go unchecked

[TakeYouToTasker]

17 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Maybe I was unclear - my stance is that when these victims come forward the initial reaction is that they should be believed. The authorities, or their employer, or whoever is involved should treat them as telling the truth and fully investigate their claims assuming they are telling the truth. 

 

If during that process their stories wind up filled with holes, or there is a lack of supporting evidence, then they should be treated as having lied. It should be relatively easy for an employer to release a statement saying they fully investigated the incident and determined no wrong doing. 

 

In this situation, the NFL hasn't fired anyone. They've suspended a bunch of employees and are likely conducting their own investigation. If they deem the victims accusations to be credible, I imagine that they'll be fired. If they determine the victim was lying, then they'll likely get reinstated. 

 

The process can play out, but while under investigation of sexual assault, the NFL can't leave these guys on the air and pretend everything is normal. They need to figure out what happened and act accordingly. 

Using your process, which is having it's proof of concept borne out through Title IX on college campuses throughout the country; the insistence on believing the accuser doesn't stop with the initial accusation.  It examines all evidence with the purpose of looking for guilt, not looking for truth impartially.  This leads to evidence not aligning with the claims of the accuser being dismissed, including inconsistent claims, holes in the story, etc. because this is a psychological issue that is common of women who have actually experienced the trauma of sexual assault.

 

When you treat claims prejudicially, you necessarily have to treat evidence prejudicially in pursuit of those claims. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[CardinalScotts]

not the first time for Faulk, Evans is a mouth breathing rock head

[Gugny]

28 minutes ago, teef said:

that's what's great about my staff.  no one is catty.  everyone gets along and does their job at a high level.  we even just hired another team member that is working out great.  still, i can't help but to think more of how i have to protect myself moving forward, even though i've never done anything remotely wrong.  it's just a reality now.

 

In my staff of ~60, I have 7 men.  It's been that way most of my professional career.  Rules I've always lived by:  don't go to lunch, for a walk, anywhere with any one female.  Keep all conversations either work-related, or if about other subjects, G-rated.  I always bring a Supervisor in for any closed-door meetings.  Keep eye contact at all times; if they have nice breasts and your eyes want to wander ... FOREHEAD!

 

It's just common sense.  And, unfortunately, my staff is incredibly catty and immature.  I wish I had a staff like yours.

[reddogblitz]

7 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Wow those details are disturbing. You would think she has the text messages as proof at least. No response from the accused yet.

 

Seems in this day and age where everyone  has a cell phone with video and audio recording at the touch of a button, this stuff should be easy to prove.

 

There has to be some middle ground between yes,  men (and women) can't do this kind of stuff, and someone coming out 10 years later and saying (s)he pinched me on the butt and the accussee has to quit or be fired.

[RaoulDuke79]

8 hours ago, Steptide said:

It's going to get to a point where if you look at an attractive woman it's gonna be sexual harassment 

Coincidently sex robot sales are skyrocketing. 

[Bakin]

8 hours ago, Steptide said:

It's going to get to a point where if you look at an attractive woman it's gonna be sexual harassment 

It's already there. 

The pendulum is swinging too far on this one. 

 

Buy stock in sex robots boys....

I forsee much lower birth rates and a lot more alone time for men and the she-cyborg in his closet.   

 

Pretty soon the lonely women of the world will be begging to be sexually harassed. 

[SoCal Deek]

43 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

You're a !@#$ing moron.  I mean that sincerely.  I actually think you're stupid.

 

You're calling for people to automatically believe the accusers.

 

Then you say that the accused should be able to convince people to believe them.

 

Which is it, cuck?

Apparently the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty is no longer taught in schools.

22 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

In my staff of ~60, I have 7 men.  It's been that way most of my professional career.  Rules I've always lived by:  don't go to lunch, for a walk, anywhere with any one female.  Keep all conversations either work-related, or if about other subjects, G-rated.  I always bring a Supervisor in for any closed-door meetings.  Keep eye contact at all times; if they have nice breasts and your eyes want to wander ... FOREHEAD!

 

It's just common sense.  And, unfortunately, my staff is incredibly catty and immature.  I wish I had a staff like yours.

As a company Owner myself I hear you!  Now what happens to you, if after living by your own rules, one or more of these catty immature 'ladies' comes after you with an allegation something like FORTY YEARS after the alleged incident?  Apparently the today's answer is......You're Screwed!

[teef]

25 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

In my staff of ~60, I have 7 men.  It's been that way most of my professional career.  Rules I've always lived by:  don't go to lunch, for a walk, anywhere with any one female.  Keep all conversations either work-related, or if about other subjects, G-rated.  I always bring a Supervisor in for any closed-door meetings.  Keep eye contact at all times; if they have nice breasts and your eyes want to wander ... FOREHEAD!

 

It's just common sense.  And, unfortunately, my staff is incredibly catty and immature.  I wish I had a staff like yours.

you're doing the right thing.  we do have one on one meetings with staff when we're alone.  often times i'm at work with one other staff member closing up, mostly because i don't want them to be in the building by themselves.  even on weekends i come in to see people, often times women by themselves.  lately i have seen the younger women bring someone with them if they come in on the weekend, and i always thank them for it.  i'm lucky with my staff.  we're not that big at this point, but as we grow, i think i have to put systems in place.  i'm just not a big systems guy.

[mjt328]

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies to criminal cases. 

 

No one is sending any of these guys to jail. Unfortunately for them, most of them are facing multiple accusers and they have no defense. These cases, if they even get to civil court, just need to show that something is more likely true than not true, which is how most opinions are formed. 

 

Even if a person isn't going to jail, getting falsely accused can completely ruin their life.

The accused person's reputation becomes sexual predator.  They can get fired (just because the company doesn't want to be associated with the charge), and then have trouble getting another job.  Imagine what this can do to a person's marriage.

 

You act like proving innocence is always simple.  If a woman says "This person touched me inappropriately at work when nobody was watching," then how can you prove it was a lie?  It's one person's word versus another. 

 

I agree that multiple accusations can (sometimes) lend additional credibility.  But not always.  When it comes to celebrities, most of these cases result in settlements (because it's easier than fighting the bad press) and the first accusation often signals that an individual is an easy target.  Believing these things about politicians is almost always hard to swallow.  Especially when they conveniently seem to happen around election time.

 

 

 

 

[Augie]

56 minutes ago, teef said:

that's what's great about my staff.  no one is catty.  everyone gets along and does their job at a high level.  we even just hired another team member that is working out great.  still, i can't help but to think more of how i have to protect myself moving forward, even though i've never done anything remotely wrong.  it's just a reality now.

 

This whole thing is just awful. No woman should be harassed, and no guy should have to run the risk of being ruined by a false accusation, especially now that it’s so in the news - which may just give some people the idea. There are enough guilty idiots out there to make it almost seem like a normal way of life. Disgusting. 

 

I have a buddy who coaches a girls high school tennis team. These young ladies can be emotional and hormonal, like all teenagers. I keep telling him “NEVER be alone with any one girl”. He tries hard to live by that, but it still worries him to some degree, and that’s too bad it has to be that way. All it takes is one girl to get upset, maybe from some sensitivity to constructive coaching, or losing her position to another girl....who knows what could set it off. High school girls is a whole new level of trouble! YIKES! 

[JaCrispy]

8 hours ago, Kmart128 said:

Wow this is getting out of hand. Watching the news last night and someone claimed sexual harrassment for a unwanted hug... Like really? What the hell is wrong with women in today's world? I don't condone men sexual harrassment at all but seems to me that women are just throwing out allegations to anyone somewhat famous. This is like the 8th time in past 2 weeks.

So, then all we have to do is make sure we don’t get too famous...that way we can continue our sexual harassment of women and no one will care. 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

There's no one size fits all. 

 

If you didn't do something, you should be able to convince people of that. 

 

Just because something can't be proved, doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

How?  Ever been accused of something you didn't do, something that there is no way to disprove or prove, something that was blown up by the media and poor policy on something that's very terrible?  Yeah, once that happens... You can't prove anything to anyone until you get to know them... And guess what nobody wants to get to know that guy

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

Sure there are. The legal system isn't perfect, but as I've said many times in this thread no one is threatening to send any of these guys to jail. 

 

For the most part, all of the stories in the news are about men who have had a long history involving numerous accusers. Does anyone really think they're all lying?

Sooh, it's okay because you're not sending them to jail... But we are potentially destroying lives, marriages, careers, families, Etc. And that's okay?

[Augie]

Again, I will never condone any of the treatment that some of these women are subjected to. It can NOT be allowed. At the same time, this kind of stuff can be used as a weapon in the workforce. My wife manages an eclectic group of professionals. She has young 20 somethings out of college, and some experienced people in the 50’s and 60’s. One day the 20 somethings were standing around talking about who was older when a guy in his 50’s made a joking comment implying he was only slightly older. A lady of about the same age took offense, because she felt he was implying she was the old one in the group. It was a JOKE, but they were far from best of friends, and she immediately went to the “I can get you fired for that” card. 

 

After bringing HR into the picture, he learned that he needs to watch his words more carefully. And SHE learned that trying to leverage something fairly innocent into a threat to get someone fired is also a problem. It turned into a big stinking deal because someone was sensitive and had an agenda. And that was just age. Sexual harassment is a few rungs up the ladder. 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, teef said:

i think you're right with hipaa policies in place.

I've known many doctors who do this, they walk right in with their tape recorder and just set it down and expect you to say something about turning it off

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

....and insurance companies have been cashing in selling Employment Practices Liability coverage which insures against sexual harassment, discrimination, etc and other similar occurrences in the work place.....we are seeing it becoming a requirement in our construction world on the competitive bid market side of our operations.....$ 1million dollar policy is about 8 grand annually......and if you look at some of the latest settlements (ie. Fox News), $1 million doesn't cover much at all...