Jump to content
DanteGabriel

NFL 2019 Preseason: Hard Knockin on Gruden's Door

Recommended Posts

 
 
 
1
5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Let's go to the tape, shall we?

  • You said that the plaintiff and AB were in a relationship. In the complaint, this is established as incorrect. 
  • You expressed confusion as to this part: This appears no where in the complaint. What does appear is the following: It is odd that you would have questions about these things when they are very clearly spelled out in the complaint - if you had read the complaint.

 

I never said - in the context of this complaint - that they were in a relationship.   What I said was that the ejaculation on her back was gross and that sexual contact between consenting adults was gross.  In other words, unless you know the context, it could be just gross if it was between consenting adults.  He says they were in a concentual relationship and that at all times all sexual contact was consensual.  I'm not surprised that he would say that - he almost has to. 

But my point here is that everything - literally everything - in that Complaint is an accusation and backed by only the verbiage she uses and scant else.  She has two text messages that are disgusting to read and angry and awful, but until we know more all I see is some angry shit.  She can write anything she wants; its not vetted by anyone in order to be a complaint. 

 

 
 
 
 
2
6 hours ago, Quijote Light said:

 

@Rockroi Whether or not you intended it, your post comes across as rape apologism and victim blaming. You shouldn’t be surprised if it’s responded to as Kal did.  

I can't be accused of being a rape apologist because I'm not apologizing for this if he did it.  We don't know.  I think that having an accusation -without any further information - land you out of football is not at all fair.  If he did it he should be thrown out of football.  That's not being a rape apologist; it's not being somebody who jumps at accusations. 

I'm also not victim-blaming because we do not know if she's a victim.  If she's a victim then she should get her money and he should go to jail.  

 
 
 
 
4 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Rock, in the Ray Rice case, she did not "come forward immediately." We found out about it because of the footage of him dragging her out of the elevator unconscious. She tried to protect her abuser. It wasn't until we actually saw the punch on the inside-elevator camera (except for Roger Goodell, apparently, who never saw the footage and was exonerated of having seen the footage by one Robert Mueller) that shit started to happen to Rice.

 

With regards to Ray Rice, your timeline as not entirely true.  Rice was arrested that very night and footage fo him dragging her from the elevator came out almost immediately (I think like 4 days later).  So there was a lot to go on pretty quickly even before the interior elevator footage came out.  They knew this all happened pretty early on - even before the footage was released.  He was then indicted.  So That's a FAR CRY from what's going on here- Rice was in the criminal system within a month of the incident.

Now, yes, I did say she "came forward" and that was an overreach by me.  My bad.  But even in just what I described above- its not the same as what is happening here - a woman waiting 18 months to bring a civil complaint.    

 
 
 
1
4 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm a little surprised and disappointed that you went with the "why'd she wait so long" and "why was she friendly to him after" arguments. Even one of the morning guys on Sports Hub (I can never tell Toucher and Rich apart) was more aware of the flaws in those arguments and was careful to say they aren't evidence against her.

I would like to see a real investigation of the accusations. I don't feel particularly protective of Antonio Brown's career. Would be fine with me if he never plays a down for the Patriots or for anyone else.

And yeah- I think looking at motivations is enlightening.  Here we have a woman who waited 18 months before doing anything and that was over the rape accusation (the last contact between them).  Its close to 2.5 years after the ejaculation.  I think you can ask "Is that relevant?"  I think timing matters.  IF she waited 18 months I am going to ask "why" and that's perfectly natural.  In many cases, it's because of embarrassment or financial ties or things like that.  And still, other times its because the accusations never happened and the person is looking for financial gain or revenge. 

As the lawyers' statement pointed out, the woman has (or had) a $30,000.00 IRS lein on her property (this is also an accusation, but its public info that's readily available). So something to consider is that maybe she lied about her taxes or, more innocently, did not know certain events trigger certain tax events.  That happens to.  But it could be that this is a shakedown of some sorts.  That could be true.  Is it?  I don't know.  But I think its perfectly justifiable to look at these data points and say "This is kinda iffy." I think that AB's position is that the accuser was his "other woman" and she wanted more (either in their relationship or monetarily. 

Now, as others have pointed out, it works both ways.  Here you have a guy that seems to have impulse control problems.  To put it mildly.  So you have somebody who is 1) used to getting his way, 2) has documented history of acting like a lunatic, 3) knew the alleged victim and 4) seems to have acted dishonestly in several areas (ie: Banging a woman on the side while married- I assume AB is married).    I will also state that I find Brown's time-line lacking.  It appears that she did the shake-down FIRST THEN she hung around and THEN they had the sexual relationship (according to Brown).  I would think that it would work the other way- they would hang out THEN the sexual relationship THEN the shake-down.  His time-line - in some ways - seems to raise more questions.  But I'm still listening to what may be answers.

I am saying that I think her story seems plausible but has many questions; AB is an easy target because he's such a fucking maniac.  I think saying "her story sounds fishy" does not make me either ar ape apologist nor a victim blamer.  I think it just makes me skeptical.  Justa s I do not think that anyone who says "I believe her" makes others dupes or bleeding-heart suckers.  They just take a different view.  

I should not have said "I call bullshit."  That I regret.  She MAY VERY WELL be bullshitting, but I think that started the trend of my dialog here and its not the direction I want to go.  I am still skeptical, but I think saying "Bullshit" I was aligning too far to one side and I can't try to stay open-minded if I go so far to one side.  

Thank you for reading.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun piece on Gardner Minshew here who came in for Nick Foles and went 22-25 but probably should have been 25-25 as all three incompletes were scored drops.  Sixth round pick.  Virtually no career until he ended up with Leach at Washington State as a 5th year senior last year.  

Really sucks for Foles.  The play on which he was hurt he threw a sick TD with a remarkable nose-turnover on the throw that many other NFL QB's couldn't make.  

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Last Storm said:

AB nutting on an unsuspecting woman seems about right. 

Well, he did nut all over an unsuspecting Jon Gruden - that's public record.  Maybe the complainant can call him as a corroborating witness.

7 hours ago, Rockroi said:

I can't be accused of being a rape apologist because I'm not apologizing for this if he did it.  We don't know.

Um, pretty much no rape apologist actually acknowledges or believes that the accused raped the victim, this seems like a deliberately obtuse depiction of the term.  It reminds me of the South Park episode where they pillory Glenn Beck and the like ("Dances with Smurfs") - "I'm just asking questions" like "is Wendy Testaburger a crack whore?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Triskele said:

Fun piece on Gardner Minshew here who came in for NIck Folds and went 22-25 but probably should have been 25-25 as all three incompletes were scored drops.  Sixth round pick.  Virtually no career until he ended up with Leach at Washington State as a 5th year senior last year.  

Really sucks for Foles.  The play on which he was hurt he threw a sick TD with a remarkable nose-turnover on the throw that many other NFL QB's couldn't make.  

Mississippi kid who was passed over by virtually every FBS program (including all the in-state schools, naturally) coming out of HS, now NFL starting QB with one of the best debuts of all time. The charm of football is in the absurd unlikelihood of stories like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pittsburgh's DA office is looking into the allegations against Brown, as two of the reported sexual assaults happened in Pitt. Seems like standard procedure when something like this is accused.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019/09/11/allegheny-county-district-attorney-antonio-brown-rape-allegations/amp/

Edited by Reny of Storms End

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
2 hours ago, DMC said:

Um, pretty much no rape apologist actually acknowledges or believes that the accused raped the victim, this seems like a deliberately obtuse depiction of the term.  It reminds me of the South Park episode where they pillory Glenn Beck and the like ("Dances with Smurfs") - "I'm just asking questions" like "is Wendy Testaburger a crack whore?"

This is great.  You are literally saying that if I do not believe from the start then I'm a rape apologist.  That's great.  Merely asking for evidence is akin to denial.  So, I'm good if I believe the accuser (armed with little more than the accusation) but I am terrible if I say "This sounds suspicious; I would like more evidence?" How is this not "Listen and Believe?"  How is this not anything but "Believe the party line?"

I mean I guess if I didn't float at least it would mean I was not a witch.  In other words, you only tolerate one reaction (belief) and anything else is rape apologism.  That is very GWB thinking- either you are with us or your a terrorist. That's not fair and you know it.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Triskele said:

Fun piece on Gardner Minshew here who came in for NIck Folds and went 22-25 but probably should have been 25-25 as all three incompletes were scored drops.  Sixth round pick.  Virtually no career until he ended up with Leach at Washington State as a 5th year senior last year.  

Really sucks for Foles.  The play on which he was hurt he threw a sick TD with a remarkable nose-turnover on the throw that many other NFL QB's couldn't make.  

 

2 hours ago, Ferrum Aeternum said:

Mississippi kid who was passed over by virtually every FBS program (including all the in-state schools, naturally) coming out of HS, now NFL starting QB with one of the best debuts of all time. The charm of football is in the absurd unlikelihood of stories like this.

I love how he’s been leaning into the Uncle Rico vibe since college.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darnold out for weeks with Mono.

Bell is getting a MRI.

Jets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Darnold out for weeks with Mono.

Bell is getting a MRI.

Jets!

Back in my day we taught quarterbacks to hold an aspirin between their lips. No problems then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Back in my day we taught quarterbacks to hold an aspirin between their lips. No problems then!

The Foster Friess mentality, though you need to use a different set of lips, Jace.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just ask the assembled: Did or did not James Develin torch the Steelers on this play? The defense rests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rockroi said:

This is great. You are literally saying that if I don't believe from the start then I'm a rape apologist.

He is not literally saying that. There's that hyperbole again!

Quote

Merely asking for evidence is akin to denial.

He is saying that you asking questions that are both rhetorical and then saying that it sounds like bullshit when you are not even getting the facts straight yourself is rape apologism. And you aren't asking for 'facts' - you're asking for rationalizations of why she returned to him months afterwards, even though those facts were stated. What you are doing is choosing to not accept the evidence (you stated it was flimsy) or simply ignore basic things both parties agreed to (such as neither party stated they were in a relationship when he came on her back) in order to cast doubt on the accuser, and then act like you've been horribly maligned due to the words you've stated. 

Hell, you yourself used the very standard 'but she's asleep' defense when questioning what happened (even though, ya know, it was explained what actually happened). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a heads up...I benched Chris Godwin in one of my money leagues, so don't be surprised if he finishes this game with 200 yards and a pair of touchdowns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rockroi said:

You are literally saying that if I don't believe from the start then I'm a rape apologist

HA!  How am I even suggesting that - let alone "literally" saying that?  Because I pointed out the very obvious fact that the term rape apologists has nothing to do with people defending the accused in a way in which they acknowledge that the accused probably raped the person?  Rape apologists are defending accused rapists.  Your depiction of the term is you're only a rape apologist if you say "ya know what, yeah he raped the girl, but, ya know, he also directed The Pianist."  And that's just a ludicrous understanding of the term, because obviously most people don't say that type of bullshit, at least publicly with their name on it.  

As for the rest of my post - the South Park allusion - that was referring to Kal's clear and succinct demonstration detailed in this post showing your original whining about her complaint was very far adrift from the actual content of her complaint.  Funny, you never really responded to Kal pointing that out, did you?  Even over the internet, it's nakedly plain the only reason you're defending AB is because you want him to football with the Patriots.  If he was still on the Steelers, or any team that may pose a threat to the Pats, there's no doubt in my mind you'd be leveraging your divorce attorney credibility in the entire opposite way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

He is not literally saying that. There's that hyperbole again!

 What you are doing is choosing to not accept the evidence (you stated it was flimsy) or simply ignore basic things both parties agreed to (such as neither party stated they were in a relationship when he came on her back) in order to cast doubt on the accuser, and then act like you've been horribly maligned due to the words you've stated. 

Hell, you yourself used the very standard 'but she's asleep' defense when questioning what happened (even though, ya know, it was explained what actually happened). 

Here is what you are doing and why I am not a rape apologist.  You are taking allegations she made in her complaint and ascribing them as "fact."  Case-in-point the fact that she says "This happened in 2017."  You do not know that.  You have a text message (the year is not in the text message) and then combining it with her allegation and saying "They were never in a consensual sexual relationship."  He says they were.  But you accept her info as fact.  

This is why by me merely saying, "I have questions" you say "That makes you a rape apologist."  Bullshit.  

See, unlike most people here I have written civil complaints (even at the Federal Level) and they do not require any vetting.  You can write anything and many peop[le do.  Just because they say something does not make it true.  The fact that you have already accepted them as true - though you would never come out and say that - is why this is a frustrating discussion.  You have, in effect, put the burden on him to proive they are ot true and that's not fair.  You think it is; DMC thinks its fair.  Because you both have you lean towards that side (for reasons I could only speculate on).  I lean towards the other side because, well, I have a lot of first-hand experience here (defended people accused of attempted rape when I did more criminal work; defended people accused of child sexual assault, defended people accused of assaulting minors etc).  I know that you need very little just to make an accusation.  Further that sometimes the people being so accused... are bad people but that does not make them guilty. Hence why peopel with criminal records are put upon. 

As far as the "was she asleep comment; I honestly questioned it.  You say "But she addressed that in her complaint."  Oh, so that makes it true?  

 

 
 
 
 
25 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

 the South Park allusion - that was referring to Kal's clear and succinct demonstration detailed in this post showing your original whining about her complaint was very far adrift from the actual content of her complaint.  

Again, not accepting everything in the complaint as true lands me as being a rape apologist.  The only reason you could categorize what I was doing as being a  rape apologist for asking questions would be to say "Those questions were already answered."  And where were they answered?  Oh, you say, in the Complaint!  Except, of course, a complaint is not evidence; it's not agreed-upon facts.  It's an allegation.

That you accept and you are virtuous; that I do not accept outright and I am a rape apologist.  That is mob mentality at its finest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, briantw said:

Just a heads up...I benched Chris Godwin in one of my money leagues, so don't be surprised if he finishes this game with 200 yards and a pair of touchdowns. 

Fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rockroi - sorry I'd usually quote, but I haven't been able to quote your actual text this entire time.  I don't know why, just mentioning it because it's weird - I can still quote everyone else's text.  I thought maybe it was cuz you blocked me or something, but that doesn't seem likely if you keep on responding to me.  Regardless, I can only quote things in your post that are quoted (if that makes sense), and that's strange.  Just wanted to mention that.

Anywho, please identify when I've ever called you a rape apologist?  I took issue with your definition of rape apologists because your definition was covered in horseshit.  The frequency and reliance you have on strawmen make me suspect you're the scarecrow from Oz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DMC said:

@Rockroi - sorry I'd usually quote, but I haven't been able to quote your actual text this entire time.  I don't know why, just mentioning it because it's weird - I can still quote everyone else's text.  I thought maybe it was cuz you blocked me or something, but that doesn't seem likely if you keep on responding to me.  Regardless, I can only quote things in your post that are quoted (if that makes sense), and that's strange.  Just wanted to mention that.

Anywho, please identify when I've ever called you a rape apologist?  I took issue with your definition of rape apologists because your definition was covered in horseshit.  The frequency and reliance you have on strawmen make me suspect you're the scarecrow from Oz.

1. I'm having the exact same problem w my posts.  When I quote somebody (well, first the quote creates an additional, extraneous block making my posts longer than they need to be) when my post goes up... I cannot Edit it after (which I do from time to time on many posts), I can't do anything after my post goes up and that is hyper-frustrating (on top of this discussion in and of itself).  

2. I didn't block you.  I think in the history of this board I have only blocked one person and that person is not anyone here.  

3. I believe you called me a rape apologist when you said "Um, pretty much no rape apologist actually acknowledges or believes that the accused raped the victim, this seems like a deliberately obtuse depiction of the term.  It reminds me of the South Park episode where they pillory Glenn Beck and the like ("Dances with Smurfs") - "I'm just asking questions" like "is Wendy Testaburger a crack whore?"" 

So you are comparing me debating here to a Glenn-Beck caricature in the direct context of the term rape apologist.  I don't appreciate that.

 

 

ETA: But it didn;t do it this time... 

Edited by Rockroi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL has just said they won’t suspend Brown for this weekend’s game. I disapprove of this, but the Straight Cash Homies, Storm’s End Sinners and King’s Landing Cullers deeply appreciate the lack of morality at the NFL’s headquarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×