Matt Patricia story

[DriveFor1Outta5]

Nothing to see here. It’s all judgements that none of us can make. Just because he was deemed innocent doesn’t mean he’s not guilty, just as being judged guilty in court doesn’t always mean one is actually guilty. This stuff is never as black and white as many want to believe. It is what is, time to move along. We’ll never know what actually happened. You can’t destroy someone from something they might have done. I’m also not naive enough to say that he didn’t do it because he didn’t go to jail. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by DriveFor1Outta5

[Fortunesmith]

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Rebuttal with links showing your links to be crap.

Would be easy to provide and so easy I won't bother. But your links are not reasonably honest as no such statistics are kept by law enforcement. 

 

Hahaha classic..."I can disprove it easily, so I won't"

[boyst]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

Where did you get the statistic that 99% of statistics are made up? Did you just make that up? 

www.snopes.com/myth/99e7ff32

Duhr

5 minutes ago, Fortunesmith said:

Hahaha classic..."I can disprove it easily, so I won't"

Spare me and learn to internet better.

 

You googled it. Took the first result and a later result that showed the topic in the preview. Then posted them

 

Fact: 100% of material searched on Google will agree with the information sought

 

You suck at interneting.

[Max Fischer]

It's dispiriting and appalling to see more than a few posters who equate #Metoo with "Fake News."  

7 hours ago, napmaster said:

 

The author took a side by writing the article in the first place.  Bringing up an accusation from 20 years ago is solely intended to punish Patricia for the accusation itself.  That's the current witch hunt mindset and is the horrifying direction our society is headed.

 

 

The horrifying part is dismissing the fact that sexual assault is an all too common occurrence.  

 

Patricia is a public figure, he is subject to public scrutiny and this is part of his public life.  it's not a "witch hunt" to report what happened.  

[boyst]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/metoo-may-exaggerate-prevalence-sex-crimes/amp/

 

"

 

 

Ad closed by

Stop seeing this adAdChoices 

Ad was inappropriate

Ad covered content

Seen this ad multiple times

Not interested in this ad

We'll try not to show that ad again

Ad closed by

 

 

 

 

"

 

 

 

Yawn.

[Fortunesmith]

8 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

www.snopes.com/myth/99e7ff32

Duhr

Spare me and learn to internet better.

 

You googled it. Took the first result and a later result that showed the topic in the preview. Then posted them

 

Fact: 100% of material searched on Google will agree with the information sought

 

You suck at interneting.

You're assuming quite a bit and are completely wrong. Since you seem to be good at interneting, google "Appeal to trust" fallacy. 

[MRW]

5 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:

It's dispiriting and appalling to see more than a few posters who equate #Metoo with "Fake News."  

 

The horrifying part is dismissing the fact that sexual assault is an all too common occurrence.  

 

Patricia is a public figure, he is subject to public scrutiny and this is part of his public life.  it's not a "witch hunt" to report what happened.  

 

So are you satisfied if Patricia denies that he committed the crime?  It doesn't seem to me that there's much to debate about a 20 year old alleged crime that was never prosecuted and that the original complainant won't discuss.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 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? 

 

I have no patience for this kind of thing.  The charges were dismissed.  There was no trial, there was no conviction.  In the eyes of the law, there was no crime.

 

Furthermore - hypothetically, let's say there was a trial, and there was a conviction.  At this point, Patricia would have served his sentence and been released.

The whole premise of our criminal justice system is supposed to be crime -> trial -> conviction -> punishment -> "paid your debt to society" -> move on

 

If someone re-offends, it's legit to look at past behaviour, sure.   But if they haven't?

 

 

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, Fortunesmith said:

You're assuming quite a bit and are completely wrong. Since you seem to be good at interneting, google "Appeal to trust" fallacy. 

Sure. But only.if you Google image goatse with censor filter off.

 

I don't need to Google something that has absolutely no logical or intelligence. There is no statistic kept by law enforcement on what charges are kept or dismissed. Even if there was there are many other factors

 

 

Your being obtuse

 

[Royale with Cheese]

1 hour ago, Jay_Fixit said:

I don’t think teef has any electricity where he lives. 

 

Or good food.  Saying Rochester has good food is like saying Maui has good baseball.  

[Fortunesmith]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

 

Your being obtuse

 

The projection is strong with you, comrade.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 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. 

 

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. 

 

7 hours ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

I can tell you from professional experience, that while not at all common, it happens more often than most people realize. A witness is upset, contacts police, and there is some evidence of a potential crime, the person is arrested, and the grand jury hears the facts presented as the prosecutor edits and shows just their side and an indictment is handed down.

 

There's a saying "a competent prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich"

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

25 minutes ago, Max Fischer said:

It's dispiriting and appalling to see more than a few posters who equate #Metoo with "Fake News."  

 

The horrifying part is dismissing the fact that sexual assault is an all too common occurrence.  

 

Patricia is a public figure, he is subject to public scrutiny and this is part of his public life.  it's not a "witch hunt" to report what happened.  

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, Kwai San said:

Wow.....whats interesting is the victim went to ground like she did......that speaks volumes imo.

 

It's actually pretty common - even if something did happen without consent. 

 

The alleged victim figures out what he or she will have to go through to move the criminal case forward and says "I really just need to try to move on".  Or he or she is hammered at by disbelieving police until she or he recants (there are several (in)famous cases of recantation where the rape was later proven to have happened exactly as the victim originally described).

 

And then of course there's the third option, the alleged victim made sh*t up and then got cold feet about going through with the false or fuzzy accusations.

 

You really can't conclude too much from that I think.

8 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

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

 

it's a thing.  there are valid points to be made.  I personally tend to go with Lisbeth Salander** on that topic, but I ain't gonna diss it off as fame-seeking lameness either.

 

8 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

Pattricia innocent.

 

under the law, yes, and there IMO it should rest.

 

**girl with the dragon tattoo, book version

[boyst]

24 minutes ago, Fortunesmith said:

The projection is strong with you, comrade.

Son, there's a lot of irony in what you just said... And I'm betting that you have no idea why

[Max Fischer]

32 minutes ago, MRW said:

 

So are you satisfied if Patricia denies that he committed the crime?  It doesn't seem to me that there's much to debate about a 20 year old alleged crime that was never prosecuted and that the original complainant won't discuss.

 

I think it was a fair story and unless there is any further action by the accuser, the matter is settled.  

 

I was addressing the general comments about sexual assault.  

[Sky Diver]

34 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I have no patience for this kind of thing.  The charges were dismissed.  There was no trial, there was no conviction.  In the eyes of the law, there was no crime.

 

Furthermore - hypothetically, let's say there was a trial, and there was a conviction.  At this point, Patricia would have served his sentence and been released.

The whole premise of our criminal justice system is supposed to be crime -> trial -> conviction -> punishment -> "paid your debt to society" -> move on

 

If someone re-offends, it's legit to look at past behaviour, sure.   But if they haven't?

 

 

 

Correction, alleged crime. It's up to the jury to determine if the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have the right to the presumption of innocence.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Sky Diver

[Fortunesmith]

8 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Son, there's a lot of irony in what you just said... And I'm betting that you have no idea why

Enlighten me, o' wise one.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, napmaster said:

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.  But... the accused deserve their day in court to vigorously defend themselves.  This never happened, and now they author is digging this up punish the Patricia in the court of public opinion.  I find it appalling.

 

And for the record for you and the author - Patricia is not innocent in the court of law.  No one is ever found innocent.  You are declared guilty or not guilty, but he is neither as this never went to trial.

 

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.

 

On the bolded part - Yes.  This is part of my problem with the #metoo thing.  Most of the people coming forward now did and said nothing at the time.  Why? It was in their personal and career interests to shut up and put up or move on.  But in staying silent, they enabled other people to be victimized, sometimes for decades.  There is nothing admirable about saving yourself some combination of emotional pain, career impact, time and public scrutiny at the cost of other people's pain and suffering through the years.

 

The rest of my problem is how it seems to vitiate a whole set of legal principles - the whole right to a speedy and fair trial, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, etc etc.  We have a situation in which people can be tried and convicted in the court of 'public opinion' indefinitely, with seemingly no way to clear their name, years after the statute of limitations would run out on their alleged crime.  It ain't right.  I don't think there's anyone here who would think it is, if they or a family member were subjected to it.

 

 

 

[blitzboy54]

4 hours ago, Rosen-not-Chosen said:

 

Exactly, this #metoo **** is part of the fake news paradigm more often than not.  It's all about sensationalism, clicks, attention whores, 3rd wave feminism, stirring some kind of pot.  Bunch of BS.

 

Was it proven to be sexual assault?  You and many others have made up your mind that is was sexual assault even though the courts did not find it to be sexual assault?

 

YOU and your ilk are the problem in this country.

 

 

I haven't make my mind up about anything. I know as much as you. But, and indictment is not "nothing" its sufficient evidence to bring charges.  I have no dog in the fight but it's beyond weird that the Lions didn't find it. It was not hidden and he has a high profile job that invites scrutiny.

 

Also, Railing against the Media, Liberals or whoever as a setup or bias is doing exactly what you are yelling at me about.  You made up your mind there is nothing to it and that is that.

 

 

4 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

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!

 

 

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. 

 

 

It just is

 

 

 

4 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

[Rosen-not-Chosen]

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...

[blitzboy54]

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. 

 

[HappyDays]

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.

[napmaster]

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”

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

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.....

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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?

 

[IDBillzFan]

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.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

 

[IDBillzFan]

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.

[Mickey]

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.

[Infinitum]

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.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

Weird to include  “He was 21 and on Spring Break”

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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

 

 

[GoBills808]

Could have filed counter suit for defamation if he really wanted.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

[GoBills808]

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

[Max Fischer]

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. 

[Beast]

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?

[DriveFor1Outta5]

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