Rosen-not-Chosen Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, blitzboy54 said: You made up your mind there is nothing to it and that is that. I made up my mind that he is innocent until proven guilty, which is how it works... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzboy54 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Just now, Rosen-not-Chosen said: I made up my mind that he is innocent until proven guilty, which is how it works... That's irrelevant So has everyone else. He's not convicted. Your point was it's not news. My point is yes it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, Rosen-not-Chosen said: I made up my mind that he is innocent until proven guilty, which is how it works... There is no "presumption of innocence" outside of the court system. Bill Cosby has only been found legally guilty of one sexual assault, but I personally am quite sure he is guilty of more than that. And I don't mind saying it whether or not he ever faces other charges. We hold the government to a higher standard than we hold ourselves, and for good reason. The burden required to throw someone in jail should be incredibly high, as opposed to the burden we use to make personal judgments of character. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napmaster Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 33 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: on the last point - I understand that courts don't "find" people innocent, but to my understanding, "innocent until proven guilty" is the guiding principle of the British legal system and of ours. So you are innocent UNLESS the court proves your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So legally, to my understanding, Patricia is in fact presumed innocent. Thank you for the clarification. I incorrectly believed guilty and not guilty were the 2 legal statuses, but you are spot on and presumption of innocence is an actual legal right in many jurisdictions. Some interesting stuff in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat "the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 42 minutes ago, Rosen-not-Chosen said: I made up my mind that he is innocent until proven guilty, which is how it works... ...and of course the NFL stated they will "investigate"......Spring Break 20 years ago sounds highly relevant..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 52 minutes ago, HappyDays said: There is no "presumption of innocence" outside of the court system. Bill Cosby has only been found legally guilty of one sexual assault, but I personally am quite sure he is guilty of more than that. And I don't mind saying it whether or not he ever faces other charges. We hold the government to a higher standard than we hold ourselves, and for good reason. The burden required to throw someone in jail should be incredibly high, as opposed to the burden we use to make personal judgments of character. I hear what you're saying, and I respect it. And in fact, that's a lot of how communities used to work - less emphasis on legal proceedings, and more emphasis on maintaining one's personal integrity/character in the community. But there's another side to what you say, a dark side....Anyone, at any time, may face accusations of wrong-doing. Those accusations may be founded or unfounded. If there was no legal proceeding in the matter, how can one protect oneself against community or personal judgements of poor character that may arise from decades in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, blitzboy54 said: The charge is literally "SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD". So stop Again I know as much as everyone else but her being 21 is not evidence it didn't happen. She could have been 16 and reported it as an adult. It doesn't matter. Whatever happened happened but an indictment is a real thing and news worthy. There is evidence. Evidence that says Patricia is not guilty because. Because...he was not guilty. You can presume something happened. Like the author, you can even make it sound like you *wish* something happened, but the bottom line is this: Patricia was not guilty. Literally no one involved in the case, including the alleged victim, has been able to recall or discuss a thing to change that fact. Literally no one. Except an author with a BS story to get clicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 2 hours ago, mead107 said: Has the women come forward again? No. The article stated that attempts to contact her had been unsuccessful. Just guessing here, but it's at least even odds that she made a decision 22 years ago to put whatever happened behind her and move on, and is not thrilled it has emerged. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: No. The article stated that attempts to contact her had been unsuccessful. Just guessing here, but it's at least even odds that she made a decision 22 years ago to put whatever happened behind her and move on, and is not thrilled it has emerged. Or maybe, as we often see these days, she made a decision 22 years ago to make up the story for attention. Ask Rolling Stone Magazine what it thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Except that then the charges were dismissed. What about the whole "right to a speedy trial if charged" idea, as opposed to having a smirch on your name forever while the court "gets around to" making its case? If charges are dismissed for lack of evidence, but it's legit to dig it all up 20 years later (when I believe statute of limitations would have expired), how is that different from not affording an accused person a speedy trial? What happened until "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"? It's not right, Mickey, and you know you wouldn't want to be treated that way or have a member of your family treated that way. There's a saying "a competent prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich" The story accurately set forth the fact that the charges were dismissed and that the dismissal was only because the victim decided that the trial would be too much for her. The DA was ready to try the case. Patricia absolutely is innocent until proven guilty and I would be the first to defend him if anyone tried to throw him in jail without a fair trial. But we aren't talking about criminal charges, we are talking about reputation and at present, there is no law that prohibits publication of accusations that were already published 22 years ago because doing so might tarnish one's reputation. I hardly think the reporter involved should be a candidate for a Pulitzer or win a blue ribbon for fairness. At the same time, this is news. It might be crappy, unfair and old news but given the current social movement towards ending the societal compact in favor of silence when it comes to sexual assault, this is definitely news. In the end, it was inevitable that some reporter somewhere was going to publish this already public information. As for a speedy trial and the unfairness of not having a chance to make his case to a jury, Patricia could have sued her for defamation back then and cleared his name if he had proof that she was lying. For that matter, if the DA thought she was lying he could have brought charges against her. Neither happened. In this case, they had medical evidence collected at a local hospital and it was presented to the grand jury who considered it in handing down an indictment. It sounds like more than a ham sandwich case to me. Some people are going to look at this and think he did it, others will look at it and say no way he did it. I can't make up my own mind so I can't really disagree with either side of it. One thing I am sure of, I have a lot more sympathy for the woman involved who hoped to leave it all behind but had the bad luck to "maybe" have been assaulted by a guy who later became famous. I am sure this is a nightmare for her. She is being called a liar on a national TV and she can't possibly respond without bringing ruin and mayhem down upon whatever kind of life she has fashioned for herself. Matt Patricia is going to be just fine. He is a pubic person, wealthy and has ample resources with which to defend he reputation. Her? We'll hopefully never know unless someone outs her to the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinitum Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Unfortunately these days, character assassination is the way of the world, especially the western world, especially the media in the western world, especially the media in the USA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Just now, LABillzFan said: Or maybe, as we often see these days, she made a decision 22 years ago to make up the story for attention. Ask Rolling Stone Magazine what it thinks. That's possible in theory, but the absence of any evidence or suggestion of that and the whole language "often see these days" with the Rolling Stone Magazine reference make it seem more like an agenda. Otherwise why not just state the possibility? Yep, she could have made up the story (for whatever reason) and then dropped it. Or she could have described what happened, and then decided she wanted to move on. There's no evidence either way. I wrote a longer response with references and so forth and deleted it so I don't have to tell myself to take it to PPP. Hopefully the thread can continue on the football-relevant issue regarding Matt Patricia and not veer off into the Rolling Stone/etc weeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Weird to include “He was 21 and on Spring Break” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 13 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? Original Detroit News article:https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2018/05/09/matt-patricia-indicted-sex-assault/34742627/ Lions statement: http://www.detroitlions.com/news/news-short/article-1/Detroit-Lions-organizational-statements/96575cc7-d2bd-41a1-a143-42936bc81630 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Could have filed counter suit for defamation if he really wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 minute ago, GoBills808 said: Could have filed counter suit for defamation if he really wanted. He could have. But he'd be a young, broke college student suing a young broke college student. Gonna go out on a limb here and say probably not many lawyers willing to take that one on contingency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: He could have. But he'd be a young, broke college student suing a young broke college student. Gonna go out on a limb here and say probably not many lawyers willing to take that one on contingency. Heh...you must not know many lawyers. Just name the university as an additional party and I bet some up and comer would take that in a heartbeat. *Edit: Actually no, I just reread the story and you’re right. I should probably refrain from commenting on things I don’t care enough about to research properly. Edited May 10, 2018 by GoBills808 Facts are hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 35 minutes ago, Infinitum said: Unfortunately these days, character assassination is the way of the world, especially the western world, especially the media in the western world, especially the media in the USA. Do you assume that all or most reported sexual assault is “character assassination?” You say “these days,” as if the concept of character assassination is a new concept. When did it start? 2016? 1066? How is this “the media’s” fault? Who is this “media” you speak of? Is more prevelent at the New York Post or Info Wars than say the Sun in England, or maybe in Australia or Russia Today? Actually, save it, I know exactly where you get your talking points. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 11 hours ago, Boyst62 said: #metoo is a thing. It is lame. But it gets people famous, including "journalists." Pattricia innocent. A lady I work with asked me today what the # means on a phone. I said, typically, “pound”. She said right, and then said does #metoo actually mean pound me too? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 I just thought of something. Forget the facts, why do any of us want anything less than Leavenworth for a former Pat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts