Royale with Cheese Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 20 hours ago, Big Turk said: Maybe he should be renamed Georgy Porgy Pudding Pie, kissed the girls and made them cry? They already said they are not criminally trying the case. Likely because the DA knows all it takes is one or two to be exposed as not being truthful to take down the entire case. And they likely know it's far more than one or two not being truthful about it. Probably 3 or 4 legit ones and the rest are money grabs. Okay if you really believe this then he’s guilty. You are trying hard to give the benefit of a doubt to Watson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 14 minutes ago, Big Turk said: That is what criminal trials are for, not civil trials. There is a much lower burden of proof for civil trials. Hence one cannot be used to do the work of the other. I could not agree more with your final sentence - civil trials should not be used to do the work of criminal trials and indeed vice versa (although the creeping trend is definitely in one direction). As for the distinction between the two... it is civil trials that are an opportunity for a person who feels they have been wronged to pursue justice against the wrong doer. The criminal law (and I know that this a fundamentalist and traditional view and not one that is popular these days) is not about the victim. It is about the accused and whether they have engaged in conduct that is to the detriment of society. That is why it is the accused vs the state. When we start importing concepts of direct justice into the criminal justice system we increasingly confuse the point of what it is there for, and to my mind we must protect that at all costs. The 24 civil suits are an opportunity for each of those plaintiffs to seek individual recompense for the wrong they believe that they suffered - normally that equates to financial recompense but sometimes it can simply be a finding by the court in their favour (i.e. that their version of events is believed and held by the courts to be accurate). So I wouldn't quite agree with your conclusion that if a plaintiff simply wants to make a point about what has happened to them then the civil courts are not the place for that. They can be. What they can't be a substitute for is a ruling of guilt and the punitive measures that we agree as a society come with such a ruling - whether that be imprisonment and deprivation of liberty or any of the other things that flow from that. Those are decisions for the criminal courts and that is where they must remain. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 14 minutes ago, Big Turk said: Proving that someone is "more likely to have done something versus not done something" is a far, far lower standard than proving "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you don't understand the difference and why that matters, you should go read up on the law. Got ya. You must be very happy OJ is still free to go find that killer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: Okay if you really believe this then he’s guilty. You are trying hard to give the benefit of a doubt to Watson. I do believe he is guilty in at least a 3 or 4 cases. I also believe there is a strong likelihood at least half of these women participated of their own free will for additional money and then once they saw there was a lawsuit, they decided to pile on as a once in a lifetime opportunity for a huge payday. Also, perhaps some regretted it after the fact, but regretting it after the fact does not make it a crime or put Watson in the "wrong" if it was agreed to in the moment. Edited June 6, 2022 by Big Turk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotAGuy Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 1 hour ago, Big Turk said: The more money the person being accused has, the more stringently I look at the possible motives behind the accusers. When a potential settlement gets to an amount more than many of them have ever seen in their life, that gives quite the incentive to pile on, wouldn't you think? People constantly want to pretend money isn't a strong enough motive for people to fudge the truth, but time and again we have seen it IS, and in amounts far less than what is being bandied about here. So in any civil case, in your mind if the accuser has less money than the accused, it’s a money grab? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 (edited) 2 minutes ago, WotAGuy said: So in any civil case, in your mind if the accuser has less money than the accused, it’s a money grab? Depends on the amount of money at stake, the number of people "piling on" and the likelihood of wrong doing having taken place. Am I saying ALL of these women are lying? No. Am I saying at least half of them probably are fudging the truth a little? 100% Edited June 6, 2022 by Big Turk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 (edited) 21 minutes ago, WotAGuy said: Got ya. You must be very happy OJ is still free to go find that killer. He had a criminal trial and was acquitted by a jury of his peers. If you choose not to accept the verdict, that's your choice. Apparently you would prefer someone to be tried in perpetuity until your preferred verdict is rendered. Unfortunately for you, that's not how the legal system works here...maybe you should go to one of these communist countries where they just have Kangaroo Courts? Edited June 6, 2022 by Big Turk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 33 minutes ago, Big Turk said: I do believe he is guilty in at least a 3 or 4 cases. I also believe there is a strong likelihood at least half of these women participated of their own free will for additional money and then once they saw there was a lawsuit, they decided to pile on as a once in a lifetime opportunity for a huge payday. Also, perhaps some regretted it after the fact, but regretting it after the fact does not make it a crime or put Watson in the "wrong" if it was agreed to in the moment. If 4 are telling the truth, 20 would be lying? More than half isn't 85% or so. Money doesn't have to be the only motivating factor. If no one comes to the public about this, the number of women he's soliciting for sex will continue to increase. I'm not saying all are telling the truth, I don't know but I'm not going to say the vast majority are doing this for a money grab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 1 hour ago, Big Turk said: Kraft did not really do the same...he went to a known place where that type of behavior was expected and welcomed. There was no "forcing" those women to do that, they knew that is what they were there for. He was facing a criminal trial, NOT a civil trial. Proving that someone is "more likely to have done something versus not done something" is a far, far lower standard than proving "beyond a reasonable doubt". If you don't understand the difference and why that matters, you should go read up on the law. Read my posts. Both of them solicited prostitution. Watson, for some reason, wasn’t indicted, yet his lawyer is now admitting his guilt. Kraft was charged and his lawyer successfully suppressed evidence of his guilt. Strive to keep up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 2 hours ago, Big Turk said: The more money the person being accused has, the more stringently I look at the possible motives behind the accusers. When a potential settlement gets to an amount more than many of them have ever seen in their life, that gives quite the incentive to pile on, wouldn't you think? People constantly want to pretend money isn't a strong enough motive for people to fudge the truth, but time and again we have seen it IS, and in amounts far less than what is being bandied about here. I’m sure you view class action suits with the same skepticism too😂😂😂 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: I’m sure you view class action suits with the same skepticism too😂😂😂 The only people getting rich in class action lawsuits are the lawyers. That $100 you get amongst 20 million other claimants doesn't do much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 2 minutes ago, Big Turk said: The only people getting rich in class action lawsuits are the lawyers. That $100 you get amongst 20 million other claimants doesn't do much. Then let me disabuse you of the notion that the legitimacy of a lawsuit is related to the potential settlement. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 1 hour ago, Big Turk said: Depends on the amount of money at stake, the number of people "piling on" and the likelihood of wrong doing having taken place. Am I saying ALL of these women are lying? No. Am I saying at least half of them probably are fudging the truth a little? 100% Sounds like he has personal experience with some women claiming he did something wrong so others claimed as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilthyBeast Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 If this guy isn't suspended for a large portion of the upcoming season (or indefinitely) than something is seriously wrong with the NFL especially when they preach how important character and image is for the league as a whole. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Process Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 (edited) I don't see how he plays at all this season. Different league but I'm sure the NFL is very aware of what the MLB did with Trevor Bauer. Would be a pretty bad look if Bauer gets two seasons, Ridley a full year for placing a $500 parlay, and Watson gets 8 games or something. Edited June 6, 2022 by Process 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 "Watson's lawyer claims that 'happy endings' are common in massage therapy and, short of paying extra for it, such conduct is not a crime," the lawsuit reads. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wppete Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 How in the world can anyone defend this dirtbag and how can the NFL even consider letting ever play again? Insane! New lawsuit claims Deshaun Watson secured massages from random strangers “more than a hundred times” https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/06/06/new-lawsuit-claims-deshaun-watson-secured-massages-from-random-strangers-more-than-a-hundred-times/ The 24th lawsuit filed against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson opens with general allegations regarding Watson’s alleged habit of securing massages via Instagram. One specific excerpt from the first page of the complaint stands out. “Defendant Deshaun Watson has a disturbing pattern of conduct,” the complaint contends. “Each of the cases against him is strikingly similar, evidencing a habit or custom: Watson seeks out random strangers on Instagram, as he has done more than a hundred times.” More than a hundred times. Presumably, there’s evidence to support that claim. Evidence that likely comes from efforts to develop relevant facts in the other cases. If it’s true that Watson has used social media to secure “more than a hundred” massages from “random strangers,” that’s a dynamic about which the league office clearly should be concerned. Regardless of the specific allegations and defenses in each of the various cases, these circumstances — combined with the recent efforts of attorney Rusty Hardin to normalize the practice of receiving and/or seeking “happy endings” — paint a troubling picture. One that tends to support if not confirm the general notion that Watson combined his immense fame with the relative anonymity of social media to create a system for seeking not legitimate massages but sexual encounters. It’s a “know it when you see it” situation. Hardin can pick nits and/or quibble over details. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Watson had a well-established habit of seeking out massages from strangers. Now, 24 of those strangers have sued him for the things he said and did during those massage sessions. The league continues to investigate. To ponder. To weigh the appropriate punishment to recommend, a decision that will spark an independent disciplinary process. In late March, the Commissioner took paid leave off the table, even though some in the league office believe Watson should be sidelined with pay until the various civil cases are resolved. Based on recent developments (specifically, the two new lawsuits and the comments made on Friday by Hardin), perhaps it’s time for the Commissioner to reconsider his position on leave with pay. If, as alleged in the latest lawsuit, Watson has used social media to arrange more than 100 massages with “random strangers” and if, as Hardin seems to suggest, Watson’s defense will include the position that there’s nothing wrong with receiving or pursuing sex during a massage, the most prudent course for the NFL could be to place Watson on the Commissioner Exempt list until each of the pending lawsuits are resolved, with formal discipline to happen thereafter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 If Deshaun Watson was, say, a backup linebacker, he'd never play another down in the NFL. Because he's a star quarterback, though, he'll likely get a year's suspension and then go on to enjoy a long and lucrative career. Disgusting. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.