Matt Patricia story

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, BuffaloRebound said:

How can anyone have an issue with this story being reported?  Everything reported is a fact.   That’s the media’s job. I think disclosing that you were indicted by a grand jury for a sexual assault is something that an employer would like to know.  Sucks for him if he was innocent, but still something you should come clean about if you got nothing to hide.  

 

If everything was reported as fact, the story would be two sentences long.

 

But it's not.

 

Why?

 

Because once you get past the facts, that Patricia is legally innocent, the writer doesn't stop there. The writer MUST push the questions against a legally innocent man.

 

Quote

Patricia is legally innocent. Yet the allegation is so terrible that to some people, he’s forever stained. Yet if he was wrongly accused, then he’s the victim. Then again, how could the case proceed as far as it did if nothing happened at all?

 

Do thse sound like facts to you about Patricia's case? No. It sounds like the author has his own ideas of what he thinks should have happened, and needs everyone to follow his train of thought.

 

Did the journalist stop when he stated Patricia was innocent? No. Of course not.

 

Now' let's add more reason to end the story.

 

Quote

The woman involved did not respond to repeated attempts for comment from the newspaper. She could certainly come forward and provide details, but it’s been more than two decades since the incident in question.

 

End of story? No. Of course not.

 

Not let's add yet another reason to end the story.

 

Quote

“The police chief, lieutenant, grand jury forewoman, prosecutor, assistant prosecutor and defense attorney.” None could recall a thing about it.

 

End of story? No. Of course not. The author needs you to get behind his implied belief that even though Patricia was legally innocent...

 

Quote

If Patricia is innocent, then he’s innocent.

 

 

IF he's innocent? Really?

 

Few people hate all things that have ever sprung from NE*, but this article is irresponsible.

 

Trashy. Clickbait. Embarrassing.

[HappyDays]

This is a bad story because they didn't consult with the alleged victim. They say right in the article "The alleged victim also did not respond to attempts by the News to contact her." Maybe she didn't want to be reminded or have the story spread around 20 years after the fact? And no one who was involved can remember the case. They should have left it alone.

[tumaro02]

Having recently served for over 18 months on a Grand Jury and having heard dozens of  cases. . . while I don't know what happened in this event,  I do know that the Grand Jury would not have returned and indictment unless there was overwhelming probable cause to prosecute.

[Royale with Cheese]

57 minutes ago, Jay_Fixit said:

No conviction. No charges. = No care.

 

This is the world we live in now. 

 

!@#$ off.

 

[boyst]

7 minutes ago, tumaro02 said:

Having recently served for over 18 months on a Grand Jury and having heard dozens of  cases. . . while I don't know what happened in this event,  I do know that the Grand Jury would not have returned and indictment unless there was overwhelming probable cause to prosecute.

You're naive as !@#$

 

Overwhelming evidence is easy to show from one side when the other can't defend itself and fabrications can be made.

 

It's as old as time "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for murder  without criticism"

 

GJ's are dumb.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Boyst62

[Jay_Fixit]

4 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Love it. What a great song.

[Heavy Kevi]

1 hour ago, Boyst62 said:

I so want to go somewhere with a reply on this on the actual power of twitter  but know it would get ugly fast.

 

I won't dispute the "power" of twitter. It's an information world, and it allows seeminly infinite amounts of information to be strewn across the country and globe with virtually no delay. Many good things have come from it, this is also a fact.

 

We have a President because of it. Like FDR with radio, or JFK with TV, it's was about mastering the media's hot new delivery method.

 

That does not mean it's good for us. Social media has decimated society. Look at some of the studies on screen time and social media's directly correlative effects on suicide rates, depression, and relationships. People are literally (in the real sense, not the modern coloquial sense) addicted to it. It was designed to provide little dopamine hits with every "like" since people are driven by peer approval.

 

Let's also not forget that since ISIS has very very little calaphate remaining, social media enables radicalization of new ISIS members and inspiration for so many domestic attacks that were radicalized solely online.

 

So I know you didn't want it to "get ugly", but I could go on for days about this particular topic. That doesn't mean I want to "do anything" about it. People are free to do what they like, and clearly they really like social media. I just think people should approach social media like cigarettes or alcohol- enjoy yourself- but realize it IS bad for you and you should limit it's control over your life.

 

Maybe I got a little too ppp... Sorry mods.

[JohnC]

11 minutes ago, tumaro02 said:

Having recently served for over 18 months on a Grand Jury and having heard dozens of  cases. . . while I don't know what happened in this event,  I do know that the Grand Jury would not have returned and indictment unless there was overwhelming probable cause to prosecute.

I'm not referring to this case about Patricia but it is openly acknowledged that the Grand Jury System without question favors the prosecution. The benefit of the doubt goes to the prosecutor in the room guiding the process without a challenging presence in the room. I'm not arguing that this system is right or wrong but I am saying that there are biases in the system that can be exploited. No system is perfect. But one needs to be cautious about how it works and recognize the flaws associated with it. 

[Haslett_Stomp]

15 minutes ago, Shotgunner said:

 

I won't dispute the "power" of twitter. It's an information world, and it allows seeminly infinite amounts of information to be strewn across the country and globe with virtually no delay. Many good things have come from it, this is also a fact.

 

We have a President because of it. Like FDR with radio, or JFK with TV, it's was about mastering the media's hot new delivery method.

 

That does not mean it's good for us. Social media has decimated society. Look at some of the studies on screen time and social media's directly correlative effects on suicide rates, depression, and relationships. People are literally (in the real sense, not the modern coloquial sense) addicted to it. It was designed to provide little dopamine hits with every "like" since people are driven by peer approval.

 

Let's also not forget that since ISIS has very very little calaphate remaining, social media enables radicalization of new ISIS members and inspiration for so many domestic attacks that were radicalized solely online.

 

So I know you didn't want it to "get ugly", but I could go on for days about this particular topic. That doesn't mean I want to "do anything" about it. People are free to do what they like, and clearly they really like social media. I just think people should approach social media like cigarettes or alcohol- enjoy yourself- but realize it IS bad for you and you should limit it's control over your life.

 

Maybe I got a little too ppp... Sorry mods.

 

Amen, brother.  I have three teenagers and deal with the effects of social media every day.

[BuffaloRebound]

What would’ve happened to Patricia if he was a draft prospect and didn’t disclose this info to teams?  This is a lot more serious than a 15 year old’s twitter posts.  

[Royale with Cheese]

27 minutes ago, Jay_Fixit said:

Love it. What a great song.

 

I bet Teef thinks this is REM or something.

@teef

[IDBillzFan]

Just now, BuffaloRebound said:

What would’ve happened to Patricia if he was a draft prospect and didn’t disclose this info to teams?  This is a lot more serious than a 15 year old’s twitter posts.  

 

You're asking this of a league who took a man who killed dogs for pleasure and money and gave him a multi-million-dollar contract after spending 18 months in prison.

 

 

[teef]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I bet Teef thinks this is REM or something.

@teef

B word i know my genesis.  i watched that **** on mtv.

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, teef said:

B word i know my genesis.  i watched that **** on mtv.

 

Was it a 32" RCA like I had?

 

[teef]

4 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Was it a 32" RCA like I had?

 

it didn't have the cabinet look, but it was the same idea.  we had green shag carpet with wood paneling on the walls.  

[Boca BIlls]

7 hours ago, LittleJoeCartwright said:

And we thought the sports writers at the Buffalo News were bad.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/swirl-questions-surround-lions-matt-patricia-dismissed-sex-assault-case-comes-light-062930363.html

 

Why would this Detroit reporter dig this up and write an article about it after Patricia was already hired as head coach? Does he have an axe to grind with the Lions?   Did Patricia not give him an interview?   To go back and dig up this story 20 years later, how does this help anyone involved? 

B.c he knew people like you would give him free clicks...

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, teef said:

it didn't have the cabinet look, but it was the same idea.  we had green shag carpet with wood paneling on the walls.  

 

I bet your parents threw the most gnarly parties.  Was the fridge filled with Busch Light and the bowls were filled with Planters Cheeze balls?

[blitzboy54]

7 hours ago, LittleJoeCartwright said:

And we thought the sports writers at the Buffalo News were bad.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/swirl-questions-surround-lions-matt-patricia-dismissed-sex-assault-case-comes-light-062930363.html

 

Why would this Detroit reporter dig this up and write an article about it after Patricia was already hired as head coach? Does he have an axe to grind with the Lions?   Did Patricia not give him an interview?   To go back and dig up this story 20 years later, how does this help anyone involved? 

 

 

Because it's his job and shame on the Lions for not finding it?  

 

 

I mean what part of "sexual assault of a minor" is not news worthy?

4 minutes ago, SECRET SQUIRREL said:

Well unfortunately it's the truth... Twitter is a full blown libtard cesspool that censors anyone that's affiliated with conservatives and Republicans, it's beyond embarrassing.... 

As to this story, it is absolutely disgusting that someone can do this to someone over an allegation from 20 years ago. Indicted means absolutely nothing when it comes to if someone is guilty or not. This is a pure LAMP article that is nothing but a self serving character assassination that's beyond embarrassing and irresponsible. Gross. 

 

 

No part of this statement is true

[IDBillzFan]

14 minutes ago, blitzboy54 said:

I mean what part of "sexual assault of a minor" is not news worthy?

 

The part where there is no evidence of sexual assault, and the part where the girl in question was not a minor.

 

But other than that...you totally nailed it!

 

 

 

[Robert James]

4 hours ago, Mickey said:

 

It makes sense that they would research this stuff after he was hired, it would make no sense to commit that level and resources to check the background of someone the Lions might hire. Moreover, we have no idea when they first came across whatever information they had that triggered their research. As interested as I am in the finer points of journalistic practices I am quite a bit more concerned that a grand jury in Texas found sufficient evidence that Patricia, now a head coach of an NFL franchise, sexually assaulted a woman. Blaming the paper for writing a story seems to miss the point. The information was out there and was bound to come out sooner or later. Newspapers are not in the business of covering up sexual assault charges against prominent persons. Their only obligation is to try and get the fact right. Has Patricia denied the facts of the story? On a side note, by posting the link to the story here, you have actually engaged in what legally is an act of publication yourself. 

 

I disagree.  In addition to trying to get the facts right, newspapers also have to consider whether what they are publishing is newsworthy.  Here, it is reasonable to question that since the story is old news that was fully reported at the time it occurred and that has not suddenly become newsworthy again.  Interestingly, the EU recognizes a "right to be forgotten," which essentially holds that at some point citizens have a right not to have old indiscretions (or alleged indiscretions) republished.  This enables people to move on with their lives, and EU law requires Google to take down URLs after a valid delisting request is made.  I see no valid reason for this story to have been reported again now, and agree with the OP.

 

As for the OP being a publisher, the law is well settled that publishing a hyperlink to content does not make you a republisher of that content and you cannot be held legally liable for the accuracy of the content linked to.  It's treated as a suggestion to check out information published elsewhere.  So, legally speaking, me providing you a link to an article published on the Sports Illustrated website is treated more or less like me telling you that there is an interesting article you should check out on the Sports Illustrated web site.  I'm not treated as a publisher.