Texans' Deshaun Watson accused of indecent conduct in civil lawsuit; QB denies wrongdoing

[YoloinOhio]

No helmet or jersey… bizarre

 

 

[JoPoy88]

14 hours ago, PatsFanNH said:

First the case would be in Houston where everyone knows who he is even non football fans.  (My wife hates football still knows who Cam Newton is. )  Second the press and social media down there be 10X worse and the chances of getting 12 people who truly didn’t know anything about it is slimmer than winning the lotto.

 

second as I said the reason. I charges are filed because there is no evidence he did anything. Unlike civil cases to get a conviction or heck even an a grand jury to endite you need SOME proof. Right now it’s all “he made me do this” with hi. Saying he didn’t. 
 

As for football they are tough when the player is either at the end of his career or sucks.. even then they usually get it wrong. 

wow all that legal lecturing and then you throw an “endite” in there 🤡.

[Doc]

With that many accusers, convicted or not, there is no way he’s not getting suspended for a good period of time.  If I am the Texans, I hold onto him until the legal stuff/suspension is done and then look to trade him and get the maximum value.

[PatsFanNH]

54 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

wow all that legal lecturing and then you throw an “endite” in there 🤡.

Lmao hey I watch enough cop shows!! Lol seriously though I’ve seen it before.. there is zero chance to get an unpolluted jury.

[Beast]

9 hours ago, PatsFanNH said:

Lmao hey I watch enough cop shows!! Lol seriously though I’ve seen it before.. there is zero chance to get an unpolluted jury.

 

No?

 

Did nobody hear of OJ Simpson?

 

Bill Cosby?

 

You can hear about things all you want before jury selection. One of the questions jurors get asked is can they come to a just and fair decision regardless of who it is on trial.

[PatsFanNH]

11 minutes ago, Beast said:

 

No?

 

Did nobody hear of OJ Simpson?

 

Bill Cosby?

 

You can hear about things all you want before jury selection. One of the questions jurors get asked is can they come to a just and fair decision regardless of who it is on trial.

If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) 

[Warcodered]

3 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) 

Not everybody cares about football.

[Beast]

9 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) 

It doesn’t matter if they’ve heard of the case or they haven’t. What matters is can they be fair and impartial.

 

End of story.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Beast

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) 

 

They must not ask that question on the cop shows.

 

That’s his point - it’s not important whether the juror have heard of the case or not, the question is, can they be fair and impartial?  

 

Whether or not you think it’s stupid is irrelevant.

[Putin]

10 minutes ago, Beast said:

It doesn’t matter if they’ve heard of the case or they haven’t. What matters is can they be fair and impartial.

 

End of story.

Well if they/jury  already lied  not hearing about the case  (then ? ) 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Putin

[GunnerBill]

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

[Johnnycage46]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

 

Agreed.  Jury selection almost becomes the most important event of any trial.  If, for instance, there is a high-profile case with a polarizing nature to it, whichever lawyer is able to be more effective with the jury selection begins the trial with a huge advantage.

[sherpa]

41 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

 

We kind of think the same about the way you "choose" your king/queen.

JK.

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

We kind of think the same about the way you "choose" your king/queen.

JK.

 

You won't get any disagreement from me on that.... 🤣

[PatsFanNH]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

They must not ask that question on the cop shows.

 

That’s his point - it’s not important whether the juror have heard of the case or not, the question is, can they be fair and impartial?  

 

Whether or not you think it’s stupid is irrelevant.

I believe the question is stupid because everyone comes partial one way or the other in those cases. For example up here the Boston Marathon bomber there is zero chance anyone answered that question honestly. Because everyone wanted blood after it happened and we ALL saw the victims faces. Also the OJ Case was perfect too for the other side, he was found not guilty because those jurors feared for their Lives and everyone else’s lives in LA if they convicted.  All I am saying is just because you have a question doesn’t mean people will be honest, there is a very good chance in high profile cases they will lie for one way or the other. 

[Beast]

10 hours ago, Putin said:

Well if they/jury  already lied  not hearing about the case  (then ? ) 

I don’t even know what you are talking about here.

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

It’s not crazy at all. If people bring a prejudice into the jury box the whole case can be decided on that.

 

But we do have what you prefer but it’s called our Grand Jury process to see if there is sufficient cause to proceed with a case. To get back to your point, we’ve had absolute slam dunks of a cases presented before Grand Jury’s where, during the month they sit, there is one person that votes to no-bill all those cases. If that person sits on an actual trial jury, it will result in a hung jury. 
 

The process we have isn’t perfect but I have yet to hear of a better one.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Beast

[SinceThe70s]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

 

Agreed on this. I got cross examined for jury duty twice (both civil cases). The first time I  thought it would be nice to sit on a jury for a week instead of going to work (I got paid either way) so I answered all of the questions in a way that neither the defense nor the prosecution would have a reason to disqualify me and I got selected. When the trial started I realized what a dumb-ass I was for wanting to be on the jury but fortunately the case settled that morning and I went back to work the next day.  The second time I made it clear that I couldn't be partial and I got thrown out.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy totally cray-cray to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

 

FIFY. Though the cross-examination is probably less extensive and less dramatic than Bull and other TV shows make it seem.  At least when I’ve been selected for a jury pool it was.  

 

But I think you guys do civil cases completely differently - no jury?

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

FIFY. Though the cross-examination is probably less extensive and less dramatic than Bull and other TV shows make it seem.  At least when I’ve been selected for a jury pool it was.  

 

But I think you guys do civil cases completely differently - no jury?

 

Yep, most civil trials are judge alone in the UK. There remain a very small number of civil matters - false imprisonment, fraud and defamation - where there is a possibility of jury trial in theory but it almost never occurs in practice. Defamation was the last civil matter to have a presumption for jury trial (although again in practice it was a presumption that was always rebutted) but I worked on reforms under the coalition Government in 2012/13 to abolish that presumption. 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[unbillievable]

Would wearing a Texans hat be grounds for dismissing a juror for the Prosecution or Defense?

[Punching Bag]

31 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

There is probably a market for a t-shirt with a big Circle with line drawn through it with Watson's silhouette and words "no penis".

Same info as tweets:

https://clutchpoints.com/nfl-news-deshaun-watson-accusers-call-out-league-investigation/

Quote

“My forensic interview [with HPD] was very respectful and trauma-informed,” Baxley says. “They let me speak uninterrupted, whereas with Lisa Friel and the [other NFL investigator], they would cut me off, they would question things, they would circle back.” Baxley believes that they were “trying to trip me up. They didn’t, but they were really looking for the weaknesses that they thought they could exploit.”

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Limeaid

[BuffaloBills1998]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/08/13/report-grand-jury-subpoenas-are-being-sent-out-in-connection-with-deshaun-watson-allegations/ I know it’s been said before but we really are potentially looking at the end of a career. Just think years ago this guy was on top of the world.  What a ***** waste, all those kids that don’t even make it that are hungry for the opportunity and this guy who ends up making it throws it all away for sexual power 🤦‍♂️

Edited August 13, 2021 by BuffaloBills1998

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Rico]

FBI Investigating Deshaun Watson  

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/08/17/tony-buzbee-says-fbi-has-contacted-him-regarding-deshaun-watson-case/

[mannc]

On 8/13/2021 at 1:19 PM, BuffaloBills1998 said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/08/13/report-grand-jury-subpoenas-are-being-sent-out-in-connection-with-deshaun-watson-allegations/ I know it’s been said before but we really are potentially looking at the end of a career. Just think years ago this guy was on top of the world.  What a ***** waste, all those kids that don’t even make it that are hungry for the opportunity and this guy who ends up making it throws it all away for sexual power 🤦‍♂️

It's just a damned shame that the Jets or Dolphins didn't give up three or four first round picks for him in January.... 

[JohnNord]

On 8/13/2021 at 6:57 PM, YoloinOhio said:

 

So….is this why Houston made Watson the highest paid member of a scout team defense and not QB1?

 

Or do you think Houston is trying to humble him for speaking out last year?

 

Maybe it’s both?

Edited August 17, 2021 by JohnNord

[JoPoy88]

1 hour ago, JohnNord said:

So….is this why Houston made Watson the highest paid member of a scout team defense and not QB1?

 

Or do you think Houston is trying to humble him for speaking out last year?

 

Maybe it’s both?

Probably a bit of both. They can’t really give him meaningful reps in camp knowing that the prospects of him being able to play are getting bleaker by the day. 
 

I’d assume Houston is completely resigned to being absolutely horrible this season, but they still have to make some sort of effort.

[YoloinOhio]

 

[H2o]

12 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

One or two "opportunists" hopping on board the train to the tune of hoping for $$$? Sure. But to think that ALL of these women are lying? Yeah, not likely at all. That seems like the picture that Watson's lawyer wants to try and paint.  

[YoloinOhio]

 

[EmotionallyUnstable]

34 minutes ago, H2o said:

One or two "opportunists" hopping on board the train to the tune of hoping for $$$? Sure. But to think that ALL of these women are lying? Yeah, not likely at all. That seems like the picture that Watson's lawyer wants to try and paint.  

I’ll say it again, the NFL is embarrassing themselves with how they’re handling this situation. 

[HOUSE]

FBI

[yall]

15 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

FBI

Is this some "Female Body Inspector" joke?

[unbillievable]

1 hour ago, H2o said:

One or two "opportunists" hopping on board the train to the tune of hoping for $$$? Sure. But to think that ALL of these women are lying? Yeah, not likely at all. That seems like the picture that Watson's lawyer wants to try and paint.  

 

They could be telling the truth AND trying to get money.

I wouldn't begrudge a person who wants to get paid for their trauma.

[H2o]

10 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

They could be telling the truth AND trying to get money.

I wouldn't begrudge a person who wants to get paid for their trauma.

I understand they may want some form of recompense for what happened to them. I, personally, hope he faces criminal charges and jail time if these accusations are true. We know what would happen to the average person if they were guilty of these same accusations. What I am saying though is some may have hopped on just because they see it as an opportunity and only for that opportunity, not because they are necessarily looking for any form of justice for those with legitimate claims. 

[Orlando Tim]

3 hours ago, EmotionallyUnstable said:

I’ll say it again, the NFL is embarrassing themselves with how they’re handling this situation. 

I agree it is embarrassing but how could they handle it better at this point? What does suspending him do that the Texans are not doing themselves?

[ColoradoBills]

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I agree it is embarrassing but how could they handle it better at this point? What does suspending him do that the Texans are not doing themselves?

 

And that is their problem. Let's say there is no criminal charge. If it is only civil then he will play in the league again and the NFL don't want to suspend him for a season he intended to sit out. It isn't an easy situation for the league. 

[EmotionallyUnstable]

26 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I agree it is embarrassing but how could they handle it better at this point? What does suspending him do that the Texans are not doing themselves?

They can do a number of things: 

 

First, and foremost, is that they should place him on the commissioners exempt list. Essentially, this would remove him from the Texans 53 and make him ineligible to play (while still being paid). The NFL has an extensive history (Vick, Hardy, Hunt, etc) of using this process while legal proceedings are underway. It puts the onus on the league, instead of the team, to step in and handle the situation. 
 

Second, they could suspend him temporarily or indefinitely. There does not need to be a civil/criminal charge or a conviction to do so. So to answer your question, it would remove him from the team facilities and dock his pay. 
 

The NFL’s inaction while the legal proceeding play out, although the norm lately in many player situations, is a cop out. In my opinion, they are taking the easy road out, hiding behind due process instead of taking a stand against some obvious injustices. The league claims to champion social issues, promotes equality and wants to appear to be a progressive voice in our country, yet when faced with the chance to take a stand, does nothing. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by EmotionallyUnstable