Matt Patricia story

[boyst]

13 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

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?

That's hilarious.hahaha

 

But it's an octothorpe.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

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?

 

You can't protect yourself against community or personal judgments that result from issues that happened in the past and brought up in the present. People can believe whatever they want to believe. Fighting against meritless views is not only exhausting but counter productive. You are keeping the issue alive. Your best defense of having the past not overwhelm the present is to conduct yourself in a respectable and honorable manner and hopefully over time your behavior will speak for itself. As it has with him, a person who has lived an exemplary life from that early period of an accusation to now. Because of the way he has conducted himself since I have no problem giving him the benefit of the doubt. 

 

This is a case where the system worked. Maybe not perfectly but reasonably well. The charges were dropped. Was it fair to bring up the issue nearly a quarter century later? I can't say it was fair but I can't say that it is unfair to bring up an issue that actually happened (court proceeding) to a public figure. 

 

 

[BigDingus]

12 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. 

 

Bingo!

The OP complains about journalistic integrity, whining about the press printing a story that actually happened, all while simultaneously spreading that same story for more people to read. Makes sense...

If you found it so abhorrent, maybe don't get more people to read it. 

Also, it's a matter of record, and a grand jury found enough evidence to warrant an indictment, and prosecutors were ready to go to trial. Those facts alone speak volumes, whether he was convicted of anything or not. But hey, he's innocent in the eyes of the law, has a cushy coaching gig, and has made millions of dollars in his lifetime, so it is what it is.

You guys who say things like "it's been ____ amount of years, who cares now?!" or "if it mattered, why did it take so long for anyone to say something/find out!?" also have issues. It's not like a crime suddenly wasn't committed because X amount of time went by.... If I shot my wife and nobody found out for 40 years, guess what? I still shot my wife.

Simply reporting on actual events isn't some scandalous thing to do, regardless of how long ago the event occurred. If you don't care about it, move on. If you do, then have at it. But to vilify the journalist who reported on a very serious event in someone's past that they found of possible interest to the public (as if past actions are automatically absolved because time went on...), is ridiculous when you found it worth mentioning yourself, and shared it with more people. Don't be a hypocrite.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

35 minutes ago, DriveFor1Outta5 said:

I just thought of something. Forget the facts, why do any of us want anything less than Leavenworth for a former Pat?

 

Because "former"?

Now, if he were still the Pat***s DC -> can I get a HELL YEAH?  JK, NJK

(anything which distracts or disrupts the Pats*** is just karma to me, but the journalist should have waited until just before a big game)

 

11 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

(...)

You guys who say things like "it's been ____ amount of years, who cares now?!" or "if it mattered, why did it take so long for anyone to say something/find out!?" also have issues. It's not like a crime suddenly wasn't committed because X amount of time went by.... If I shot my wife and nobody found out for 40 years, guess what? I still shot my wife.

Simply reporting on actual events isn't some scandalous thing to do, regardless of how long ago the event occurred. If you don't care about it, move on. If you do, then have at it. But to vilify the journalist who reported on a very serious event in someone's past that they found of possible interest to the public (as if past actions are automatically absolved because time went on...), is ridiculous when you found it worth mentioning yourself, and shared it with more people. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

There's a couple issues.  One is statue of limitations.  The law says, "if it was long enough ago, we no longer care".  Question: if there's a point where the law no longer cares, does that impact when we no longer care?  Should it?

 

I agree with you that the journalist is just covering a story, and that he reported factual past events (the accusation, Grand Jury indictment, scheduled trial, dismissal of charges)

 

On the other hand...I think as a society, there has to be a way for an individual to preserve or protect his or her reputation. 

[Richard Noggin]

13 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

#metoo is a thing. It is lame.  But it gets people famous, including "journalists."

 

Pattricia innocent.

You're thoughtful.

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Because "former"?

Now, if he were still the Pat***s DC -> can I get a HELL YEAH?  JK, NJK

(anything which distracts or disrupts the Pats*** is just karma to me, but the journalist should have waited until just before a big game)

 

 

There's a couple issues.  One is statue of limitations.  The law says, "if it was long enough ago, we no longer care".  Question: if there's a point where the law no longer cares, does that impact when we no longer care?  Should it?

 

I agree with you that the journalist is just covering a story, and that he reported factual past events (the accusation, Grand Jury indictment, scheduled trial, dismissal of charges)

 

On the other hand...I think as a society, there has to be a way for an individual to preserve or protect his or her reputation. 

 

I suppose my take goes a bit like this....

 

this story is news, or at least on the edge of newsworthy, and fair to report

 

but not all news needs a reaction. Not every story needs an action item from the viewer. We can note that he was accused, indicted, and as much associated story as possible - and simply as individuals decide if that effects our own opinions of him. 

 

It’s a 22 year old accusation without a ton of information from the article I read. I don’t think that disqualifies him from coaching 30 year old men to play a game at the situations current state. I think it’s fair for reporters to dig at and question and see where it goes. 

 

Ill admit, while I like watching good guys succeed instead of jerks.... at its core I sometimes wonder, how many crimes should disqualify someone from playing or coaching football? If you are too far outside the bounds of society to be in a locker room or on the field- what job are you able to have? 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[stuvian]

didn't know he was from Sherrill, NY

[hemma]

Has anyone found out the woman's name?  

 

Maybe 10,000 internet turds could call her at home, disrupt her marriage, possibly shame her kids and dent, if not destroy their lives.

 

She's 43 now and it's not like she's a kid anymore.  Fair game, right?

[Ol Dirty B]

15 hours ago, Sky Diver said:

Patricia gets the presumption of innocence, but Foster is a guilty thug? Interesting.

 

If foster never went to Alabama would you still be making this post?

 

Your **** is so obviously biased it's cult like. Go to a bama board man. We don't give a !@#$. 

 

And I think Patricia is probably a creep. 

14 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

 

Looks like padre island during spring break. Not giving him a pass, but I went to school in Texas. Padre Island for the month of March is like soft core porn, it was like those girls gone wild ads you used to see before the internet existed late at night.

 

It's crazy. Can definitely see an idiot making some bad decisions there, male or female. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[Ol Dirty B]

14 hours ago, napmaster said:

 

You know nothing about me so please refrain from proclaiming what my opinion is on any topic.  Feel free to state your opinion on whatever you like, but check your arrogance.  It undermines whatever you state. 

 

Now I will state my opinion.  The accuser came forward, provided evidence, and an indictment was in place.  She had an obligation to testify in open court to protect other woman in society from potential future attacks if her allegations were true.  That's my strong opinion.  I hope we are clear.  Everyone, men or woman or non-binaries, should come forward to report sexual assault to protect the rest of society.  

 

 

 

 

Wow man, that is some !@#$ed up ****.

 

You believe in burdening rape victims, and forcing them to relive painful moments.

 

I can't put myself in the shoes of a woman who has been raped, so I don't think it's right for me to tell them how they should act, grieve, and try to recover and hopefully live with some normalcy.

 

 

10 hours ago, Dalton said:

Studies show that 100% of stats presented as facts without back-up evidence are not trust worthy.

 

I bet you thought you were clever with this one...

 

Then he faded you brah 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[Ol Dirty B]

51 minutes ago, hemma said:

Has anyone found out the woman's name?  

 

Maybe 10,000 internet turds could call her at home, disrupt her marriage, possibly shame her kids and dent, if not destroy their lives.

 

She's 43 now and it's not like she's a kid anymore.  Fair game, right?

 

For potentially being the victim of sexual assault?

 

Probably not. I also don't get the weird aggressiveness you have towards rape victims. Is what you listed what you think happens to rape victims?

 

Are you from the middle east? Or did you really just not think about what you wrote at all?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

For potentially being the victim of sexual assault?

 

Probably not. I also don't get the weird aggressiveness you have towards rape victims. Is what you listed what you think happens to rape victims?

 

Are you from the middle east? Or did you really just not think about what you wrote at all?

 

I thought he was being sarcastic ("10,000 internet turds") but that could just be me

[Ol Dirty B]

39 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I thought he was being sarcastic ("10,000 internet turds") but that could just be me

 Haha maybe I missed it. I usually pick up on the sarcasm.

 

I thought he was referring to the 10,000 internet turds as people who are potentially going to comment about Patricia.

 

I think it could go either way, or I could have completely misunderstood his point.

 

Which if I did I apologize and I'll delete my post. Or leave it up for him to make me look like an idiot if he prefers that. If I was wrong, it's only fair.

 

I interpreted it more as a point on how a scorned woman can destroy a man's life now, 25 years after something happened.  (Even though it doesnt apply to her as shr appearantly wants nothing to do with the situation) Which isn't a point I really care much for.

 

I actually do feel really bad for the woman involved and I feel for Patricia too. They were young, they were in whay was probably a wild environment. She may have been acting a little crazy, probably boozed up. He's boozed up too, girls are going crazy so he feels emboldened to behave a certain way. He does something, she hates it and reports it. Friends tell her you were doing this or that, or she thinks maybe it's my fault. Those conversations happen, and ultimately she decides, even if she was treated wrongly, she doesn't like how she represented herself and stops cooperating. She was ashamed and just wanted to move pass the incident.

 

I don't want to convict him or say anything about her. I just think a big gray area exists in these situations and so many people want it to just be black and white.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[Nitro]

This kind of reporting is annoying.  It does no good.  

[Hebert19]

Because it's sexual assault and that's a big fn deal?

[BobbyC81]

13 hours ago, prissythecat said:

There is a reason why school  and employment applications ask "have you been convicted of a crime"   rather than "have you been accused of a crime".

 

I've noticed on some recent job applications that those types of questions sometimes say "within the last 10 years".   If it's not a major crime like murder or assault, I think it makes sense to not punish someone for something done earlier in their life, especially as a kid.

[Hebert19]

6 minutes ago, LittleJoeCartwright said:

 

I've noticed on some recent job applications that those types of questions sometimes say "within the last 10 years".   If it's not a major crime like murder or assault, I think it makes sense to not punish someone for something done earlier in their life, especially as a kid.

A whole **** ton of nope.  People do not change...whether the world likes to think they do or not.  Once a douche.  Always a douche.  

[boyst]

5 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

You're thoughtful.

Yes, I am

[/dev/null]

4 hours ago, LittleJoeCartwright said:

 

I've noticed on some recent job applications that those types of questions sometimes say "within the last 10 years".   If it's not a major crime like murder or assault, I think it makes sense to not punish someone for something done earlier in their life, especially as a kid.

 

What is your definition of "as a kid?"  Most juvenile records are sealed at 21

 

You also have to take into account what crime the individual was convicted of and the job they are applying to.  An auto body shop probably won't care if an applicant had been convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute.  A pharmacy on the other hand probably would.