Cmdjr85 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 This woman is a fraud. Most rape victims don't report it because they dont wanna have to relive the experience and face the accused in a trial. Why not press criminal charges? Probablu advised that lying to law enforcement can lead to heavy sanctions. Nothing to worry about when going for money either your believed and you as plaintiff win. Or not believed and you lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket94 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 If this was some ordinary guy, he would already be locked up and have a new nickname like Lola or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Just now, Rocket94 said: If this was some ordinary guy, he would already be locked up and have a new nickname like Lola or something. There doesn’t seem to be anything close to enough evidence to garner a criminal conviction in this case. Unless some corroborating witness come forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krf139 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Antonio Brown is far from a model citizen, but you have to wonder whether this is a strategically timed suit to maximize hush money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, krf139 said: Antonio Brown is far from a model citizen, but you have to wonder whether this is a strategically timed suit to maximize hush money. AB has been a multi millionaire for the last 7 years.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted September 11, 2019 Author Share Posted September 11, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Just now, YoloinOhio said: Can of Worms------------ OPENED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted September 11, 2019 Author Share Posted September 11, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCBillsBeliever Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 2 hours ago, JohnC said: What's truly mind-blowing about the news is that it makes the Raiders look borderline incompetent bringing him in. What's truly, truly mind blowing is that it makes the Bills, and McBeane, look extremely competent for passing on this trainwreck of a human... But the media will never admit to that. The Bills? Competent? Correct? Right? Not in the media's playbook, am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket94 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 26 minutes ago, Bills2ref said: There doesn’t seem to be anything close to enough evidence to garner a criminal conviction in this case. Unless some corroborating witness come forward. I was only kidding. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 22 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said: As he should be....WTF is he supposed to say? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 36 minutes ago, Bills2ref said: I feel in that situation the recognized authority would be the NFL thus negating anarchy? Except that your idea is for the authority to bow to the whims of the rabble rousing crowd based on unconfirmed allegations. Thus, anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted September 11, 2019 Author Share Posted September 11, 2019 Just now, whatdrought said: Except that your idea is for the authority to bow to the whims of the rabble rousing crowd based on unconfirmed allegations. Thus, anarchy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayoffsPlease Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 (edited) 53 minutes ago, whatdrought said: No. He doesn’t. I get the sentiment, but we live in a world where the presumption of innocence has been under attack for the past couple of years and it’s a standard that cannot be given up- it’s the fabric of our justice system. If brown is guilty of this, I hope he’s locked away and never plays a snap again. If Brown is not guilty, I hope the lice of a thousand camels infest his armpits and he never plays again. (Props to anyone who gets the ref.) He’s earned my disdain without being a rapist. I can hate him either way. People are always confused by presumption of innocence. In reality this presumption is and always has been very limited. Police arrest people they "presume to be guilty" Grand Jury's indict people they "presume to be guilty" Prosecutors prosecute people they "presume to be guilty". 12 jurors and a judge are duty bound to presume innocence. No one else is obligated to provide such a presumption. Outside of the legal system in press, and among the public at large the presumption of guilty increases in direct proportion to the accused's fame and wealth. In terms of general human fairness, there is no actual reason to presume anything unless you are personally familiar with the facts and/or people involved. Edited September 11, 2019 by PlayoffsPlease 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 ^add to the fact that legal proceedings generally find people 'not guilty' rather than innocent, and civil trials usually aren't jury trials not to mention burden of proof is not as high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wppete Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/09/11/pittsburgh-prosecutor-will-look-into-allegations-against-antonio-brown/ Pittsburgh prosecutor will “look into” allegations against Antonio Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said: People are always confused by presumption of innocence. In reality this presumption is and always has been very limited. Police arrest people they "presume to be guilty" Grand Jury's indict people they "presume to be guilty" Prosecutors prosecute people they "presume to be guilty". 12 jurors and a judge are duty bound to presume innocence. No one else is obligated to provide such a presumption. Outside of the legal system in press, and among the public at large the presumption of guilty increases in direct proportion to the accused's fame and wealth. In terms of general human fairness, there is no actual reason to presume anything unless you are personally familiar with the facts and/or people involved. I disagree. Police arrest people whom they have evidence against. Grand Jury's indict people whom have a preponderance of evidence against them. Prosecutors prosecute those whom have been indicted based on the preponderance of evidence. The tie goes to innocence. Always. This is how our system is built. I am sure there are plenty of situations where the system is abused and in function does not practice this way, but overall the system is built around the frame work of Innocent until proven guilty. I disagree with the principle behind your last statement as well. In light of human fairness, the benefit of the doubt must be given towards innocence when there is a lack of definitive evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayoffsPlease Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Just now, whatdrought said: I disagree. Police arrest people whom they have evidence against. Grand Jury's indict people whom have a preponderance of evidence against them. Prosecutors prosecute those whom have been indicted based on the preponderance of evidence. The tie goes to innocence. Always. This is how our system is built. I am sure there are plenty of situations where the system is abused and in function does not practice this way, but overall the system is built around the frame work of Innocent until proven guilty. I disagree with the principle behind your last statement as well. In light of human fairness, the benefit of the doubt must be given towards innocence when there is a lack of definitive evidence. You can disagree, but you are still wrong. Presumption does not mean proven. You are making a case about the word proven, not presumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts