Big Ben Texted Bell Before Deadline-NO ANSWER

[NoSaint]

9 hours ago, Bills2ref said:

People talk like this, but it isn’t really correct IMO. If you have ever played on a sports team or been involved in a team activity, you know it is nothing like going to the office 9-5. You go to battle with these guys. At least that is the attitude the true winners in sports tend to have. When you treat it like a job is when you fail to produce and do not meet your potential. Sports teams are nothing like a 9-5 job. 

 

Which sports your job?

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Herc11 said:

 

All over the place, or actually argued each of your points and you have no real rebuttal so you resort to ad hominem? Face buddy, you are wrong. Here's some evidence since you don't seem to understand:

 

"Myth: If the assailant, victim, or both are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim is free to consent to sex and the assailant therefore cannot be charged with rape.
Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity. Forcing sex on someone who is too drunk to give consent is still Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree. Rape is a serious offense, and people who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not considered free from guilt."

 

and once again, since you stated that you were married and don't have to worry about this and don't seem to believe it can still apply to you, here you go:

 

"Myth: If a husband has sex with his wife without her consent, it is not legally considered rape.
Fact: Regardless of the marital or social relationship between the assailant and victim, if an individual does not consent to sexual activity, he or she is being sexually assaulted. In fact, 14% of women are victims of rape committed by their husband."

 

The legal role of consent

There is no single legal definition of consent. Each state sets its own definition, either in law or through court cases. In general, there are three main ways that states analyze consent in relation to sexual acts:

• Affirmative consent: Did the person express overt actions or words indicating agreement for sexual acts?
• Freely given consent: Was the consent offered of the person’s own free will, without being induced by fraud, coercion, violence, or threat of violence?
• Capacity to consent: Did the individual have the capacity, or legal ability, to consent?

Capacity to consent

A person’s capacity, or ability, to legally consent to sexual activity can be based on a number of factors, which often vary from state to state. In a criminal investigation, a state may use these factors to determine if a person who engaged in sexual activity had the capacity to consent. If not, the state may be able to charge the perpetrator with a crime. Examples of some factors that may contribute to someone’s capacity to consent include:

• Age: Is the person at or above the age of consent for that state? Does the age difference between the perpetrator and victim affect the age of consent in that state?
• Developmental disability: Does the person have a developmental disability or other form of mental incapacitation, such as a traumatic brain injury?
• Intoxication: Was the person intoxicated? Different states have different definitions of intoxication, and in some states it matters whether you voluntarily or involuntarily became intoxicated.
• Physical disability: Does the persona have a physical disability, incapacity, or other form of helplessness?
• Relationship of victim/perpetrator: Was the alleged perpetrator in a position of authority, such as such as a teacher or correctional office?
• Unconsciousness: Was the person sleeping, sedated, strangulated, or suffering from physical trauma?
• Vulnerable adults: Is the person considered a vulnerable adult, such as an elderly or ill person? Is this adult dependent on others for care?

Remember: each state’s law is different. If you are unsure how a state law applies to specific circumstances, consult an attorney.

 

 

 

Exaclty. Read what you copied, not what you editorialized. You have obfuscated generalized misunderstood and misapplied your interpretation, for some agenda.  

 

Your assertion is any drunk couple that ever hooked up while drunk committed sexual assault. 

 

You clearly don’t understand what you are talking about.

 

But please for your own conscience please don’t ever drink with you partner/spouse whatever and then hook up... you’d have to turn yourself in. 

 

Also on Ben, you have no clue what happened

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

 

I was trying to make a point, because he had argued that if both people having sex are drunk then it can not be rape because the accused was also drunk.

 You’re speaking in absolutes buddy not me 

[Herc11]

5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

Exaclty. Read what you copied, not what you editorialized. You have obfuscated generalized misunderstood and misapplied your interpretation, for some agenda.  

 

Your assertion is any drunk couple that ever hooked up while drunk committed sexual assault. 

 

You clearly don’t understand what you are talking about.

 

But please for your own conscience please don’t ever drink with you partner/spouse whatever and then hook up... you’d have to turn yourself in. 

 

Also on Ben, you have no clue what happened

 

 

 

 No, that is 100% NOT my argument. Geez this is worse than my 8 year old arguing with me.

 

My argument is that a person who is drunk CAN NOT GIVE LEGAL CONSENT. If they say they were raped, they can go to the police and in the eyes of the law, this is RAPE and if the accused is drunk too, IT DOESN'T"T MAKE IT NOT RAPE.

 

Once again:

"Myth: If the assailant, victim, or both are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim is free to consent to sex and the assailant therefore cannot be charged with rape.
Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity. Forcing sex on someone who is too drunk to give consent is still Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree. Rape is a serious offense, and people who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not considered free from guilt."

 

This is my last post on the topic, cause if you still don't get it... I'll stop there before I break CoC.

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Herc11

[ExiledInIllinois]

10 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

Way more that goes into it. 

 

1. Health

2. Wear and tear

3. He’s now going into free agency fully healthy with less wear and tear, and he’s absolutely going to break the bank.

4. If he gets hurt this year while having another year of wear and tear on his body, his value plummets. Especially as a soon to be 27 year old running back. 14 mil would be absolutely nothing compared to the value he would lose if he got hurt.

 

Yep!  Running backs are ground up, spit out and done by 32.

 

A male athlete is in their prime @ 29.

 

If this is successful.  It will be the way other star RBs negotiate.

[LSHMEAB]

25 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

 No, that is 100% NOT my argument. Geez this is worse than my 8 year old arguing with me.

 

My argument is that a person who is drunk CAN NOT GIVE LEGAL CONSENT. If they say they were raped, they can go to the police and in the eyes of the law, this is RAPE and if the accused is drunk too, IT DOESN'T"T MAKE IT NOT RAPE.

 

Once again:

"Myth: If the assailant, victim, or both are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim is free to consent to sex and the assailant therefore cannot be charged with rape.
Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity. Forcing sex on someone who is too drunk to give consent is still Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree. Rape is a serious offense, and people who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not considered free from guilt."

 

This is my last post on the topic, cause if you still don't get it... I'll stop there before I break CoC.

 

Then aren't both parties guilty of rape?

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

25 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Then aren't both parties guilty of rape?

 

Dude let it be, he cant even win arguments with his 8 yr old. 

[4merper4mer]

12 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

 

12 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

 

We are just saying it could be a potentially smart BUSINESS move to not play this year.

Mathematically impossible although it is his life and his decision.

[Chandler#81]

1 hour ago, Herc11 said:

 

I was trying to make a point, because he had argued that if both people having sex are drunk then it can not be rape because the accused was also drunk. My point was, just like ignorance is not an excuse, neither is being drunk in the eyes of the law.

 

Consider yourself counciled to calm down.

[TwistofFate]

5 hours ago, Herc11 said:

 

All over the place, or actually argued each of your points and you have no real rebuttal so you resort to ad hominem? Face buddy, you are wrong. Here's some evidence since you don't seem to understand:

 

"Myth: If the assailant, victim, or both are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim is free to consent to sex and the assailant therefore cannot be charged with rape.
Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity. Forcing sex on someone who is too drunk to give consent is still Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree. Rape is a serious offense, and people who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not considered free from guilt."

 

and once again, since you stated that you were married and don't have to worry about this and don't seem to believe it can still apply to you, here you go:

 

"Myth: If a husband has sex with his wife without her consent, it is not legally considered rape.
Fact: Regardless of the marital or social relationship between the assailant and victim, if an individual does not consent to sexual activity, he or she is being sexually assaulted. In fact, 14% of women are victims of rape committed by their husband."

 

The legal role of consent

There is no single legal definition of consent. Each state sets its own definition, either in law or through court cases. In general, there are three main ways that states analyze consent in relation to sexual acts:

• Affirmative consent: Did the person express overt actions or words indicating agreement for sexual acts?
• Freely given consent: Was the consent offered of the person’s own free will, without being induced by fraud, coercion, violence, or threat of violence?
• Capacity to consent: Did the individual have the capacity, or legal ability, to consent?

Capacity to consent

A person’s capacity, or ability, to legally consent to sexual activity can be based on a number of factors, which often vary from state to state. In a criminal investigation, a state may use these factors to determine if a person who engaged in sexual activity had the capacity to consent. If not, the state may be able to charge the perpetrator with a crime. Examples of some factors that may contribute to someone’s capacity to consent include:

• Age: Is the person at or above the age of consent for that state? Does the age difference between the perpetrator and victim affect the age of consent in that state?
• Developmental disability: Does the person have a developmental disability or other form of mental incapacitation, such as a traumatic brain injury?
• Intoxication: Was the person intoxicated? Different states have different definitions of intoxication, and in some states it matters whether you voluntarily or involuntarily became intoxicated.
• Physical disability: Does the persona have a physical disability, incapacity, or other form of helplessness?
• Relationship of victim/perpetrator: Was the alleged perpetrator in a position of authority, such as such as a teacher or correctional office?
• Unconsciousness: Was the person sleeping, sedated, strangulated, or suffering from physical trauma?
• Vulnerable adults: Is the person considered a vulnerable adult, such as an elderly or ill person? Is this adult dependent on others for care?

Remember: each state’s law is different. If you are unsure how a state law applies to specific circumstances, consult an attorney.

 

 

The legal role of consent

There is no single legal definition of consent. Each state sets its own definition, either in law or through court cases.

 

/end

 

There was no rape, nor evidence of rape according to the prosecuting DA. The DA went on further to say he believed if it had gone to trial it would have ended in a loss as well, because they had no evidence.   It was all HERSAY. 

 

rape kit was negative.

 

Victim answered NO when asked by initial officer if she had been raped. 

 

Zero evidence to substantiate victims claims according to the evidence collected by the prosecution. 

 

You can claim he's a rapist til you're blue in the face.   I don't give a ***** what you believe, the investigation led to no charges because there was little to no evidence of a crime. 

 

Forget the "edjumacation" you are trying to give us on rape and sexual harassment, go learn something about law, justice, and being innocent until proven guilty. 

 

People like you are the downfall of society.  Your feelings, intuition and beliefs mean squat in a criminal investigation.  Facts and evidence mean everything. 

 

The facts are, there was no where near enough evidence to charge the man with rape, so he wasn't charged. 

[cba fan]

15 hours ago, Returntoglory said:

I'm interested in what the apologist's have to say about this class act on Bells behalf? Not even returning a text from your QB thanking him ?

 

 

Bell is in Pittsburgh. Ben is in Pittsburgh.

 

He should have just driven over and said hello and...……….what's up.

15 hours ago, Mark80 said:

 

It does when you have your security staff guard the door so none of her friends can come in and stop it.

and when one of them is an off duty police office.

[BigDingus]

As odd as it may sound, I can easily see the Bills going after him with all that cap money, and the desire to make some kind of move to get fans excited going into next season.

 

Let's also not forget the Bills have an obsession with coaches who come to Buffalo & immediately say they want a run-first, grind opponents down, tough defense team & prioritize RB's more than most other teams.

We even went through a cycle where we'd use 1st round picks replacing Pro Bowl RB's just for the hell of it! Travis Henry into Willis McGahee into Marshawn Lycnh (insert Fred Jackson in here as a FA signing) into CJ Spiller. Then we decided to just trade for one with Shady, but now we may go the FA route. I dunno, all I'm saying is I could easily see it.

[The Process]

16 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

Way more that goes into it. 

 

1. Health

2. Wear and tear

3. He’s now going into free agency fully healthy with less wear and tear, and he’s absolutely going to break the bank.

4. If he gets hurt this year while having another year of wear and tear on his body, his value plummets. Especially as a soon to be 27 year old running back. 14 mil would be absolutely nothing compared to the value he would lose if he got hurt.

 

Here's a great scenario.....Steelers win the Superbowl this year.....Bell becomes the highest paid running back to never win a Superbowl Ring. Sweet move...very shrewd.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

15 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

As odd as it may sound, I can easily see the Bills going after him with all that cap money, and the desire to make some kind of move to get fans excited going into next season.

 

Let's also not forget the Bills have an obsession with coaches who come to Buffalo & immediately say they want a run-first, grind opponents down, tough defense team & prioritize RB's more than most other teams.

We even went through a cycle where we'd use 1st round picks replacing Pro Bowl RB's just for the hell of it! Travis Henry into Willis McGahee into Marshawn Lycnh (insert Fred Jackson in here as a FA signing) into CJ Spiller. Then we decided to just trade for one with Shady, but now we may go the FA route. I dunno, all I'm saying is I could easily see it.

 

Certainly possible and would even expect it with certain past regimes.

 

with the current front office though;

 

I suspect they’ve indicated they don’t value RB as a premium position: 

 1) they don’t draft RBs really, even late round thus far

 2) they’ve shown propensity to pick up older cheaper FAs ie ivory, Tolbert, Taiwan, Murphy 

 3) McCoy trade rumors indicate there may at least have been openness to dealing him at some value 

 

And even say above is untrue,  even still, does a season long contract hold out on a sure playoff contender fit with a ‘team over individual’ mcprocess? 

[mannc]

41 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

As odd as it may sound, I can easily see the Bills going after him with all that cap money, and the desire to make some kind of move to get fans excited going into next season.

 

Let's also not forget the Bills have an obsession with coaches who come to Buffalo & immediately say they want a run-first, grind opponents down, tough defense team & prioritize RB's more than most other teams.

We even went through a cycle where we'd use 1st round picks replacing Pro Bowl RB's just for the hell of it! Travis Henry into Willis McGahee into Marshawn Lycnh (insert Fred Jackson in here as a FA signing) into CJ Spiller. Then we decided to just trade for one with Shady, but now we may go the FA route. I dunno, all I'm saying is I could easily see it.

Not impossible.  It’s not going to be easy to find offensive skill players who want to come here, even with all the cap room, so we’d probably have to overpay for someone like Bell.  RB is a devalued position, but Bell is an excellent receiver so he could be worth the $, especially if McCoy doesn’t come back. 

[BillsFan130]

8 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Mathematically impossible although it is his life and his decision.

If he got badly injured it wouldn’t be impossible.

 

If he didn’t then yes it would be

[CountDorkula]

On 11/14/2018 at 4:44 PM, PittsforDave said:

Apples to Apples. You can’t predict injuries. 

 

What if he pulls a Shazier and never plays again? Then what. 

 

NEXT!!!

 

 

What if Shark tornadoes hit Pittsburgh tomorrow and they all die?

 

Next

23 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

If he got badly injured it wouldn’t be impossible.

 

If he didn’t then yes it would be

 

Every single player should be sitting out right now in that case, yet its only Bell sitting out cause "he may get injured"

[Bill from NYC]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 2:06 PM, TwistofFate said:

 -- The woman who accused football star Ben Roethlisberger of raping her in March in a bar in Milledgeville, Georgia, described the alleged incident to police as the culmination of a night of bar-hopping.

A prosecutor decided this week that he would not pursue criminal charges against Roethlisberger, saying he could not prove that a crime had been committed.

 

I'm pretty sure prosecutors don't just let accused rapists walk free.   If there was even a shred of evidence, he would have been charged. 

That's right. People with power, connections, and money NEVER go free. NEVER!!!!!

 

Signed,

Hillary and Bill Clinton

[BillsFan130]

1 hour ago, CountDorkula said:

What if Shark tornadoes hit Pittsburgh tomorrow and they all die?

 

Next

 

Every single player should be sitting out right now in that case, yet its only Bell sitting out cause "he may get injured"

Different scenarios:

 

1. He’s a RB- It’s not a high value position so if he were to get badly injured his value would diminish big time.

2. He has tons of miles on him and the Steelers would surely add another 300 plus touches this year to him. 

 

At the end of the day Its a BUSINESS decision for him. Don’t understand why people care so much. He can do whatever he wants as it’s his career.

 

He had no obligation to sign the franchise tag. If the Steelers wanted him that bad then they should have offered him to a long term contract with guaranteed money

Edited November 16, 2018 by billsfan11

[CountDorkula]

36 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

Different scenarios:

 

1. He’s a RB- It’s not a high value position so if he were to get badly injured his value would diminish big time.

2. He has tons of miles on him and the Steelers would surely add another 300 plus touches this year to him. 

 

At the end of the day Its a BUSINESS decision for him. Don’t understand why people care so much. He can do whatever he wants as it’s his career.

 

He had no obligation to sign the franchise tag. If the Steelers wanted him that bad then they should have offered him to a long term contract with guaranteed money

So it has come out that he and his agent didnt understand the rules. 

not only did he lose out on his money. he lost out on his benefits this year too.

It is a colossal mistake.

There are only a few teams that have cap room to sign him.

He F)*& up, there is no other way to look at it.

Conner coming in and performing and has also hurt his value.

Make the money while you can, it was fully guaranteed.

 

 

[BillsFan130]

1 hour ago, CountDorkula said:

So it has come out that he and his agent didnt understand the rules. 

not only did he lose out on his money. he lost out on his benefits this year too.

It is a colossal mistake.

There are only a few teams that have cap room to sign him.

He F)*& up, there is no other way to look at it.

Conner coming in and performing and has also hurt his value.

Make the money while you can, it was fully guaranteed.

 

 

Once again, not sure why people care about his business decision as it doesn't effect you in anyway. It was HIS choice. 

 

This is the way he probably saw it.

 

1. He signs the tag, plays well, stays healthy, and signs a long term contract in the offseason with another team. That's the ideal scenario

2. He signs the tag, gets tons of carries, gets a serious injury, and now enters free agency as a 27 year old RB whos injured and has a TON of miles on him.

 

I can definitely see why he chose to sit out from a business standpoint.

 

OK he lost 14 mil this year. But he would have lost possibly a lot more if he blows an Achilles or ACL.

 

The perfect example is Earl Thomas. We'll see how much it effects him going into FA. If he gets like a 1 or 2 year deal with barely any guarantees, then Bell absolutely made the right decision from the business side. I understand Thomas is 3 years older than Bell, but it is all relative in terms of position as most RBS don't get big contracts heading into their late 20s, especially coming off a big injury.