Marshall Faulk, 2 others suspended from NFL Network.

[GoBills808]

15 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Yes.  

 

Say a person grows up tough on the streets and thinks violence and aggression is a way of life to assert a dominant role and not be victimized. 

 

That's no different.   See?

I was referring to 'learning' as in the a posteriori knowledge one gains postcedent to their personal experiences and lifestyle you referenced. And I wouldn't begrudge the folks who can't distinguish the difference, it's not like there's a clear distinction between learned and predisposed behavior. What I do find problematic is the absolutist position that 'equality' means treating these cases of accuser/accusee in a vacuum without acknowledging the historic arc of the male-female dynamic with respect to sexual overtures. That seems dogmatic and shortsighted.  

[Jobot]

6 hours ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

this sexual allegations stuff is way out of hand and frankly ridiculous. don't get me wrong, have some respect for the ladies but it's looking more like gold diggers coming out of the woodwork.

 

Factless opinions to justify the status quo that doesn't impact you.

[jrober38]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

A bit over simplified, but if that is actually the case, and a logical argument is forwarded that we should not do that, you cannot use it as a justification to do the exact same thing to a different group.

No, it would not be incredibly easy to prove you did not steal from me.  This is the entire basis for RICO laws, and why almost none of the assets seized under RICO forfeiture are returned to it's owners.  You might be able to prove some money was not stolen, but you'll never be able to prove that all money was not stolen, especially if you aren't in possession of the money I say you stole.

 

Proving innocence would be incredibly easy. Also, none of these accusers go to the cops. They don't just go out arresting people who get accused of sexual misconduct. 

 

These cases are tried in civil court, and rarely if ever do the people accused wind up suing the accuser for defamation. These cases are almost always settled out of court so that there's no record of the accused having to testify or be deposed. 

[teef]

1 hour ago, T-Bomb said:

 

What I'm getting at is what makes a female nurse so special when compared to a female scientist, or accountant, or waitress?

for me it was the willingness to sleep with people in their departments, especially the ones who had some authority.  and typically, the nurses/assistants were far more aggressive than the males were.  if they had a guy in their sights, they went for it.  there was no policy against it at the time.

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I was referring to 'learning' as in the a posteriori knowledge one gains postcedent to their personal experiences and lifestyle you referenced. And I wouldn't begrudge the folks who can't distinguish the difference, it's not like there's a clear distinction between learned and predisposed behavior. What I do find problematic is the absolutist position that 'equality' means treating these cases of accuser/accusee in a vacuum without acknowledging the historic arc of the male-female dynamic with respect to sexual overtures. That seems dogmatic and shortsighted.  

Individuals are equal under the law or they are not.  You cannot have equality if you insist of prejudicing.

[billsfan1959]

18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

A bit over simplified, but if that is actually the case, and a logical argument is forwarded that we should not do that, you cannot use it as a justification to do the exact same thing to a different group.

No, it would not be incredibly easy to prove you did not steal from me.  This is the entire basis for RICO laws, and why almost none of the assets seized under RICO forfeiture are returned to it's owners.  You might be able to prove some money was not stolen, but you'll never be able to prove that all money was not stolen, especially if you aren't in possession of the money I say you stole.

That is not even remotely close to the basis for RICO laws - and most seized assets are not returned because they are either assets obtained from criminal activity or substitute assets - as determined through our legal process.

Edited December 12, 2017 by billsfan1959

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Proving innocence would be incredibly easy. Also, none of these accusers go to the cops. They don't just go out arresting people who get accused of sexual misconduct. 

 

These cases are tried in civil court, and rarely if ever do the people accused wind up suing the accuser for defamation. These cases are almost always settled out of court so that there's no record of the accused having to testify or be deposed. 

/facepalm

 

We aren't talking about legalities. How many times does this need to be said?  Are you simply not reading?

 

We are talking about the importance of the notion of innocence until proven guilty, why that standard evolved in the liberal tradition, and why it's a good idea as a baseline.

 

You also have a very flimsy understanding of how difficult it is to prove a negative.

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

/facepalm

 

We aren't talking about legalities. How many times does this need to be said?  Are you simply not reading?

 

We are talking about the importance of the notion of innocence until proven guilty, why that standard evolved in the liberal tradition, and why it's a good idea as a baseline.

 

You also have a very flimsy understanding of how difficult it is to prove a negative.

 

There's a reason why there's criminal court and civil court. 

 

No one is threatening to send any of these guys to jail........

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

That is not even remotely close to the basis for RICO laws - and most seized assets are not returned because they are either assets obtained from criminal activity or substitute assets - as determined through our legal process.

Most assets obtained are not returned because assets, unlike individuals, do not enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven guilty; which provides the government with the legal justification to keep them.  In order to have the assets returned, the complainant must prove that the assets were not ill-gotten, which is substantially more difficult than the government having to prove that they were ill-gotten.

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

There's a reason why there's criminal court and civil court. 

 

No one is threatening to send any of these guys to jail........

No, you just propose that their lives be destroyed because of brand new unfounded accusations made of indiscretions many years prior.

 

Tell me, how does an individual go about proving that they did not sexually assault someone 10, 20, or 30 years ago?

[BobbyC81]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Hear, hear.  

 

 

Dilly, dilly!

[billsfan1959]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Most assets obtained are not returned because assets, unlike individuals, do not enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven guilty; which provides the government with the legal justification to keep them.  In order to have the assets returned, the complainant must prove that the assets were not ill-gotten, which is substantially more difficult than the government having to prove that they were ill-gotten.

Not in criminal RICO cases. The burden is still on the government to prove the assets were obtained with proceeds of criminal activity. If the direct proceeds/assets are not available, then equal assets can be substituted. Even though the forfeitures, for the most part, happen on the civil side of those cases, there is still a burden that has to be met by the government.

 

BTW: This has nothing to do with your argument regarding the presumption of innocence, which is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

Edited December 12, 2017 by billsfan1959

[corta765]

6 hours ago, Steptide said:

I dunno, for me I just think of it this way, you had a sexual revolution in the 60s and 70s, then released porn movies into theaters in the 80s, and now everything in media and on TV is overly sexualized. Meanwhile theirs probably 40 different websites you can stream free porn on, but the public is shocked and outraged when a sexual allegation happens. Again, Im not justifying it, but what does the public expect. It is a result of culture that we've created. On top of that, our president owns or owned the miss America pageant and is married to a very attractive woman who's posed nude for magazines. 

 

Well stated and obviously your not justifying the actions either which are horrendous, but American's like to pretend our cultural is clean and cut yet you have half naked girls flaunting guys for beer on commercials. It's kind of an insane standard of what we accept yet proceed to condone.

 

So one of the interesting things most American's don't know is how this type of stuff overseas in Europe is a non issue because it is borderline just accepted that women are cat called and harassed. My wife studied in Spain for 5 months and they said on the trip to be incredibly careful because if you go home with a guy and but don't want sex and he proceeds to force himself on you the laws protect the men and there is nothing that can be done. So with the lack of enforcement on something like rape cat calling and harassment etc.. are quite common there and most other European countires. I think currently the can of worms has been opened where this behavior is being treated more seriously so the initial spill of awful people is hitting and it will subside in a bit.

 

That said I do not doubt some are using this as an opportunity to gold dig which is problematic to true victims when those cases are proven to be lies which some will then use to discredit real allegations..

Edited December 12, 2017 by corta765

[jrober38]

10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, you just propose that their lives be destroyed because of brand new unfounded accusations made of indiscretions many years prior.

 

Tell me, how does an individual go about proving that they did not sexually assault someone 10, 20, or 30 years ago?

 

Their lives often get destroyed because they can't prove their innocence. Usually there are multiple accusers, and those accusers have usually told other people about what happened at some point in time. 

As you said earlier, they need to take responsibility for their actions. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by jrober38

[GoBills808]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

Individuals are equal under the law or they are not.  You cannot have equality if you insist of prejudicing.

Some would argue equal treatment, in situations legal or otherwise, involves a thorough analysis of relevant historical context and an acknowledgement that an amount of subjectivity is often appropriate when adjudicating specific situations. Oftentimes framing an issue in its proper milieu is the responsible method of decision making in general, and doesn't constitute prejudice but rather an understanding that certain cases are messy, informed by past events and behaviors, and warrant some level of scrutiny beyond the confines of absolute equality in all circumstances.

 

This is just an opinion, however. I know we disagree philosophically. I'm not claiming the moral high ground here, just offering another view.

[SoCal Deek]

This madness has to stop!  Everyone can't be running around with the hair on fire ALL THE TIME!   We had this national 'conversation' about twenty years ago with Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton.  The entire nation has mandatory training at work.  Every company has a policy and procedure manual for reporting such incidents.  If people (women and men) are not going to say anything at the time things are said to have happened.....there is pretty much no fixing it. 

[mjt328]

I'm against sexual harassment/assault just as much as anyone.

 

But at some point, doesn't there need to be at least some proof about all these allegations going around?  New claims against celebrities/politicians suddenly seem to be coming every few days now, but virtually none of them have evidence.  Most have happened so long ago that proper investigations can't even be done.  Yet if a victim makes a claim, it's pretty much believed without question.  The accused loses their reputation, their job, their marriage, etc., without a fair trial even taking place.

 

Honestly, it's a scary place for society to go.  Guilty until proven innocent.

Especially when the definition of harassment is getting broader almost daily. 

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

I'm against sexual harassment/assault just as much as anyone.

 

But at some point, doesn't there need to be at least some proof about all these allegations going around?  New claims against celebrities/politicians suddenly seem to be coming every few days now, but virtually none of them have evidence.  Most have happened so long ago that proper investigations can't even be done.  Yet if a victim makes a claim, it's pretty much believed without question.  The accused loses their reputation, their job, their marriage, etc., without a fair trial even taking place.

 

Honestly, it's a scary place for society to go.  Guilty until proven innocent.

Especially when the definition of harassment is getting broader almost daily. 

 

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. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by jrober38

[Rob's House]

23 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Proving innocence would be incredibly easy. Also, none of these accusers go to the cops. They don't just go out arresting people who get accused of sexual misconduct. 

 

These cases are tried in civil court, and rarely if ever do the people accused wind up suing the accuser for defamation. These cases are almost always settled out of court so that there's no record of the accused having to testify or be deposed. 

You speak very confidently on a topic you know very little about. People often settle false claims because it is often far less expensive than litigating and they avoid bad press.

 

An accusation alone can be devestating, especially when it's high profile. People don't wait for and weigh the evidence. They make judgments based on their prejudices.

 

And defamation cases are difficult to win because you have the burden of proving a negative, litigation is expensive, and even if you win you may never collect if the respondent doesn't have much in the way of assets.

[SoCal Deek]

People please.  This is not the 1950's!  Every company has a program in place to deal with such issues.  If you choose not to do anything about it at the time.....that is a choice made at the time.  It doesn't make the harassment right, but you lose all credibility by waiting years to say anything.  There is NOTHING else that society can do to make this issue go away.  See something....say something!

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Their lives often get destroyed because they can't prove their innocence. 

As you said earlier, they need to take responsibility for their actions. 

What actions?  The actions no one has been able to prove occurred?

 

Again, demonstrate to me how an individual proves themselves innocent of charges of inappropriate sexual behavior the accuser says happened last week.  Now do the same for charges of behavior 30 years old.

[jrober38]

5 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

You speak very confidently on a topic you know very little about. People often settle false claims because it is often far less expensive than litigating and they avoid bad press.

 

An accusation alone can be devestating, especially when it's high profile. People don't wait for and weigh the evidence. They make judgments based on their prejudices.

 

And defamation cases are difficult to win because you have the burden of proving a negative, litigation is expensive, and even if you win you may never collect if the respondent doesn't have much in the way of assets.

 

Clearing your name should be invaluable, yet most of these men never try to do that.  I don't think that's by accident. 

[Rob's House]

4 minutes 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. 

There are many many men sitting in jail right now for crimes they didn't commit. This goes deeper than high-profile celebrity cases.

 

It's very common for couples going through a divorce to make up allegations of abuse to gain leverage. There are many other examples of jilted lovers seeking revenge.

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What actions?  The actions no one has been able to prove occurred?

 

Again, demonstrate to me how an individual proves themselves innocent of charges of inappropriate sexual behavior the accuser says happened last week.  Now do the same for charges of behavior 30 years old.

 

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. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by jrober38

[Rob's House]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Clearing your name should be invaluable, yet most of these men never try to do that.  I don't think that's by accident. 

Better to keep your name from ever being tarnished by paying off the accuser before it goes public.

[jrober38]

Just now, Rob's House said:

Better to keep your name from ever being tarnished by paying off the accuser before it goes public.

 

Sorry but it's 2017 and nothing stays swept under the rug for long. 

[teef]

3 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

You speak very confidently on a topic you know very little about. People often settle false claims because it is often far less expensive than litigating and they avoid bad press.

 

An accusation alone can be devestating, especially when it's high profile. People don't wait for and weigh the evidence. They make judgments based on their prejudices.

 

And defamation cases are difficult to win because you have the burden of proving a negative, litigation is expensive, and even if you win you may never collect if the respondent doesn't have much in the way of assets.

this is the only thing that really scares me.  one angry accusation and your career can be ruined.  is it likely? no, but it's still a possibility.  i have a daughter, so i want her to work in a completely safe work environment.  i understand why this is happening, but it still makes me nervous.  

 

i have a staff made up of all women, and often times i see women at my office after hours by myself.  for the first time in my life that make me nervous.  if i hired a new staff member that didn't work out, and she was upset, what's to stop her from making those claims?  whether or not i'm innocent, once it's out in the community, my name is tarnished.  i love my staff and really don't see this as an immediate issue, but it's something that now hangs over my head.

[Rob's House]

Just now, 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. 

 

Unfortunately it's not that easy. I know of a guy who did 5 years before his accuser recanted. Think of all the wrongful convictions that have been overturned by DNA evidence.

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

There are many many men sitting in jail right now for crimes they didn't commit. This goes deeper than high-profile celebrity cases.

 

It's very common for couples going through a divorce to make up allegations of abuse to gain leverage. There are many other examples of jilted lovers seeking revenge.

Case in point...in the current Alabama Senate race where one of the accusers has ADMITTED to forging the yearbook inscription that she claimed was from the alleged harasser!  Does anyone need more evidence than that?

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

There are many many men sitting in jail right now for crimes they didn't commit. This goes deeper than high-profile celebrity cases.

 

It's very common for couples going through a divorce to make up allegations of abuse to gain leverage. There are many other examples of jilted lovers seeking revenge.

 

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?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, 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. 

Now you're all over the place.

 

You're stating that "the accuser deserves to be believed", offer no method by which the accused would be able to prove their innocence, and then claim that if you didn't do something you should be able to convince people; all while pushing a standard which has no use for evidence, and telling people to believe the accuser.

 

Would you care for some mustard with that pretzel logic?

[T-Bomb]

2 minutes ago, teef said:

this is the only thing that really scares me.  one angry accusation and your career can be ruined.  is it likely? no, but it's still a possibility.  i have a daughter, so i want her to work in a completely safe work environment.  i understand why this is happening, but it still makes me nervous.  

 

i have a staff made up of all women, and often times i see women at my office after hours by myself.  for the first time in my life that make me nervous.  if i hired a new staff member that didn't work out, and she was upset, what's to stop her from making those claims?  whether or not i'm innocent, once it's out in the community, my name is tarnished.  i love my staff and really don't see this as an immediate issue, but it's something that now hangs over my head.

 

It's our online, clickbait, reality TV watching society at work...

 

Luckily I work with mostly male engineers and not a bunch of catty women.

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes 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?

It makes no difference whether they are all lying or not.  The problem is that the accusers are waiting many years to come in and pounce on the accused when they feel the time is right to inflict the most damage.  That too is not right...and totally unprovable.

[teef]

1 minute ago, T-Bomb said:

 

It's our online, clickbait, reality TV watching society at work...

 

Luckily I work with mostly male engineers and not a bunch of catty women.

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.

[Rob's House]

3 minutes 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?

 

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.

[T-Bomb]

1 minute 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.

 

I've always told my GF to wear a personal recording device at work because of all the **** she has to put up with, but that's probably illegal in NYS... Plus probably not a good idea when seeing patients.

[Big Turk]

46 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

That is not even remotely close to the basis for RICO laws - and most seized assets are not returned because they are either assets obtained from criminal activity or substitute assets - as determined through our legal process.

or ones the police seize from normal law abiding citizens while not charging them with any crimes to pay for things in their department.  But lets not let facts get in the way of the police being authorized to steal from people on a whim.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?utm_term=.897cd1128fc9

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jeff-sessions-police-seizure-directive-cash-property-criminals-forfeitures-a7846441.html

Edited December 12, 2017 by matter2003

[teef]

2 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

I've always told my GF to wear a personal recording device at work because of all the **** she has to put up with, but that's probably illegal in NYS... Plus probably not a good idea when seeing patients.

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

[jrober38]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

It makes no difference whether they are all lying or not.  The problem is that the accusers are waiting many years to come in and pounce on the accused when they feel the time is right to inflict the most damage.  That too is not right...and totally unprovable.

 

Timing shouldn't matter because there's no right or wrong time to come forward. Obviously it would be best if it happens immediately, but in a lot of these cases people are reluctant because the initial belief is that they won't be believed. 

 

Say you're a secretary and your boss assaults you at work. There are no witnesses. Do you come forward and risk not being believed, and possibly fired from your job. Or do you just internalize it and pretend it didn't happen and live with it knowing you'll keep your job and be able to pay your bills? Some people might come forward right away, but it should be easier to see why not everyone does. 

 

Then imagine years down the road you've moved onto another job and someone else comes forward accusing the same person of wrong doing. It might seem "convenient" to come out of the shadows making accusations, but it might also seem like an easier battle to be believed for an accuser once they know someone else has experienced the same ordeal, and the two of them together are more convincing than one of them on their own.

 

There's no right or wrong way to do these things. It's like all the Priest abuse cases from the early 2000s. Why did all those hundreds of boys stay quiet for decades? Once the whistle was blown, it was easier to come forward because there was a much greater chance of being believed. 

[Big Turk]

34 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

Not in criminal RICO cases. The burden is still on the government to prove the assets were obtained with proceeds of criminal activity. If the direct proceeds/assets are not available, then equal assets can be substituted. Even though the forfeitures, for the most part, happen on the civil side of those cases, there is still a burden that has to be met by the government.

 

BTW: This has nothing to do with your argument regarding the presumption of innocence, which is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

Not in civil forfeiture they aren't

[billsfan1959]

2 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

or ones the police seize from normal law abiding citizens while not charging them with any crimes to pay for things in their department.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?utm_term=.897cd1128fc9

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jeff-sessions-police-seizure-directive-cash-property-criminals-forfeitures-a7846441.html

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

Just now, matter2003 said:

 

Not in civil forfeiture they aren't

When it comes to RICO convictions they are