DriveFor1Outta5 Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) Nothing to see here. It’s all judgements that none of us can make. Just because he was deemed innocent doesn’t mean he’s not guilty, just as being judged guilty in court doesn’t always mean one is actually guilty. This stuff is never as black and white as many want to believe. It is what is, time to move along. We’ll never know what actually happened. You can’t destroy someone from something they might have done. I’m also not naive enough to say that he didn’t do it because he didn’t go to jail. Edited May 10, 2018 by DriveFor1Outta5 1
Fortunesmith Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Rebuttal with links showing your links to be crap. Would be easy to provide and so easy I won't bother. But your links are not reasonably honest as no such statistics are kept by law enforcement. Hahaha classic..."I can disprove it easily, so I won't" 1
boyst Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 1 minute ago, JohnC said: Where did you get the statistic that 99% of statistics are made up? Did you just make that up? www.snopes.com/myth/99e7ff32 Duhr 5 minutes ago, Fortunesmith said: Hahaha classic..."I can disprove it easily, so I won't" Spare me and learn to internet better. You googled it. Took the first result and a later result that showed the topic in the preview. Then posted them Fact: 100% of material searched on Google will agree with the information sought You suck at interneting.
Max Fischer Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 It's dispiriting and appalling to see more than a few posters who equate #Metoo with "Fake News." 7 hours ago, napmaster said: The author took a side by writing the article in the first place. Bringing up an accusation from 20 years ago is solely intended to punish Patricia for the accusation itself. That's the current witch hunt mindset and is the horrifying direction our society is headed. The horrifying part is dismissing the fact that sexual assault is an all too common occurrence. Patricia is a public figure, he is subject to public scrutiny and this is part of his public life. it's not a "witch hunt" to report what happened. 1
boyst Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/metoo-may-exaggerate-prevalence-sex-crimes/amp/ " Ad closed by Stop seeing this adAdChoices Ad was inappropriate Ad covered content Seen this ad multiple times Not interested in this ad We'll try not to show that ad again Ad closed by " Yawn.
Fortunesmith Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 8 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: www.snopes.com/myth/99e7ff32 Duhr Spare me and learn to internet better. You googled it. Took the first result and a later result that showed the topic in the preview. Then posted them Fact: 100% of material searched on Google will agree with the information sought You suck at interneting. You're assuming quite a bit and are completely wrong. Since you seem to be good at interneting, google "Appeal to trust" fallacy.
MRW Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, Max Fischer said: It's dispiriting and appalling to see more than a few posters who equate #Metoo with "Fake News." The horrifying part is dismissing the fact that sexual assault is an all too common occurrence. Patricia is a public figure, he is subject to public scrutiny and this is part of his public life. it's not a "witch hunt" to report what happened. So are you satisfied if Patricia denies that he committed the crime? It doesn't seem to me that there's much to debate about a 20 year old alleged crime that was never prosecuted and that the original complainant won't discuss.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 10 hours ago, LittleJoeCartwright said: And we thought the sports writers at the Buffalo News were bad. https://sports.yahoo.com/swirl-questions-surround-lions-matt-patricia-dismissed-sex-assault-case-comes-light-062930363.html Why would this Detroit reporter dig this up and write an article about it after Patricia was already hired as head coach? Does he have an axe to grind with the Lions? Did Patricia not give him an interview? To go back and dig up this story 20 years later, how does this help anyone involved? I have no patience for this kind of thing. The charges were dismissed. There was no trial, there was no conviction. In the eyes of the law, there was no crime. Furthermore - hypothetically, let's say there was a trial, and there was a conviction. At this point, Patricia would have served his sentence and been released. The whole premise of our criminal justice system is supposed to be crime -> trial -> conviction -> punishment -> "paid your debt to society" -> move on If someone re-offends, it's legit to look at past behaviour, sure. But if they haven't?
boyst Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Fortunesmith said: You're assuming quite a bit and are completely wrong. Since you seem to be good at interneting, google "Appeal to trust" fallacy. Sure. But only.if you Google image goatse with censor filter off. I don't need to Google something that has absolutely no logical or intelligence. There is no statistic kept by law enforcement on what charges are kept or dismissed. Even if there was there are many other factors Your being obtuse
Royale with Cheese Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Jay_Fixit said: I don’t think teef has any electricity where he lives. Or good food. Saying Rochester has good food is like saying Maui has good baseball.
Fortunesmith Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Boyst62 said: Your being obtuse The projection is strong with you, comrade.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 8 hours ago, Mickey said: It makes sense that they would research this stuff after he was hired, it would make no sense to commit that level and resources to check the background of someone the Lions might hire. Moreover, we have no idea when they first came across whatever information they had that triggered their research. As interested as I am in the finer points of journalistic practices I am quite a bit more concerned that a grand jury in Texas found sufficient evidence that Patricia, now a head coach of an NFL franchise, sexually assaulted a woman. Blaming the paper for writing a story seems to miss the point. The information was out there and was bound to come out sooner or later. Newspapers are not in the business of covering up sexual assault charges against prominent persons. Their only obligation is to try and get the fact right. Has Patricia denied the facts of the story? On a side note, by posting the link to the story here, you have actually engaged in what legally is an act of publication yourself. Except that then the charges were dismissed. What about the whole "right to a speedy trial if charged" idea, as opposed to having a smirch on your name forever while the court "gets around to" making its case? If charges are dismissed for lack of evidence, but it's legit to dig it all up 20 years later (when I believe statute of limitations would have expired), how is that different from not affording an accused person a speedy trial? What happened until "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"? It's not right, Mickey, and you know you wouldn't want to be treated that way or have a member of your family treated that way. 7 hours ago, BigBuff423 said: I can tell you from professional experience, that while not at all common, it happens more often than most people realize. A witness is upset, contacts police, and there is some evidence of a potential crime, the person is arrested, and the grand jury hears the facts presented as the prosecutor edits and shows just their side and an indictment is handed down. There's a saying "a competent prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich"
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 25 minutes ago, Max Fischer said: It's dispiriting and appalling to see more than a few posters who equate #Metoo with "Fake News." The horrifying part is dismissing the fact that sexual assault is an all too common occurrence. Patricia is a public figure, he is subject to public scrutiny and this is part of his public life. it's not a "witch hunt" to report what happened.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 7 hours ago, Kwai San said: Wow.....whats interesting is the victim went to ground like she did......that speaks volumes imo. It's actually pretty common - even if something did happen without consent. The alleged victim figures out what he or she will have to go through to move the criminal case forward and says "I really just need to try to move on". Or he or she is hammered at by disbelieving police until she or he recants (there are several (in)famous cases of recantation where the rape was later proven to have happened exactly as the victim originally described). And then of course there's the third option, the alleged victim made sh*t up and then got cold feet about going through with the false or fuzzy accusations. You really can't conclude too much from that I think. 8 hours ago, Boyst62 said: #metoo is a thing. It is lame. But it gets people famous, including "journalists." it's a thing. there are valid points to be made. I personally tend to go with Lisbeth Salander** on that topic, but I ain't gonna diss it off as fame-seeking lameness either. 8 hours ago, Boyst62 said: Pattricia innocent. under the law, yes, and there IMO it should rest. **girl with the dragon tattoo, book version
boyst Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 24 minutes ago, Fortunesmith said: The projection is strong with you, comrade. Son, there's a lot of irony in what you just said... And I'm betting that you have no idea why
Max Fischer Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 32 minutes ago, MRW said: So are you satisfied if Patricia denies that he committed the crime? It doesn't seem to me that there's much to debate about a 20 year old alleged crime that was never prosecuted and that the original complainant won't discuss. I think it was a fair story and unless there is any further action by the accuser, the matter is settled. I was addressing the general comments about sexual assault.
Sky Diver Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I have no patience for this kind of thing. The charges were dismissed. There was no trial, there was no conviction. In the eyes of the law, there was no crime. Furthermore - hypothetically, let's say there was a trial, and there was a conviction. At this point, Patricia would have served his sentence and been released. The whole premise of our criminal justice system is supposed to be crime -> trial -> conviction -> punishment -> "paid your debt to society" -> move on If someone re-offends, it's legit to look at past behaviour, sure. But if they haven't? Correction, alleged crime. It's up to the jury to determine if the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have the right to the presumption of innocence. Edited May 10, 2018 by Sky Diver 1
Fortunesmith Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 8 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Son, there's a lot of irony in what you just said... And I'm betting that you have no idea why Enlighten me, o' wise one.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 7 hours ago, napmaster said: Now I will state my opinion. The accuser came forward, provided evidence, and an indictment was in place. She had an obligation to testify in open court to protect other woman in society from potential future attacks if her allegations were true. That's my strong opinion. I hope we are clear. Everyone, men or woman or non-binaries, should come forward to report sexual assault to protect the rest of society. But... the accused deserve their day in court to vigorously defend themselves. This never happened, and now they author is digging this up punish the Patricia in the court of public opinion. I find it appalling. And for the record for you and the author - Patricia is not innocent in the court of law. No one is ever found innocent. You are declared guilty or not guilty, but he is neither as this never went to trial. on the last point - I understand that courts don't "find" people innocent, but to my understanding, "innocent until proven guilty" is the guiding principle of the British legal system and of ours. So you are innocent UNLESS the court proves your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So legally, to my understanding, Patricia is in fact presumed innocent. On the bolded part - Yes. This is part of my problem with the #metoo thing. Most of the people coming forward now did and said nothing at the time. Why? It was in their personal and career interests to shut up and put up or move on. But in staying silent, they enabled other people to be victimized, sometimes for decades. There is nothing admirable about saving yourself some combination of emotional pain, career impact, time and public scrutiny at the cost of other people's pain and suffering through the years. The rest of my problem is how it seems to vitiate a whole set of legal principles - the whole right to a speedy and fair trial, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, etc etc. We have a situation in which people can be tried and convicted in the court of 'public opinion' indefinitely, with seemingly no way to clear their name, years after the statute of limitations would run out on their alleged crime. It ain't right. I don't think there's anyone here who would think it is, if they or a family member were subjected to it. 1 1
blitzboy54 Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Rosen-not-Chosen said: Exactly, this #metoo **** is part of the fake news paradigm more often than not. It's all about sensationalism, clicks, attention whores, 3rd wave feminism, stirring some kind of pot. Bunch of BS. Was it proven to be sexual assault? You and many others have made up your mind that is was sexual assault even though the courts did not find it to be sexual assault? YOU and your ilk are the problem in this country. I haven't make my mind up about anything. I know as much as you. But, and indictment is not "nothing" its sufficient evidence to bring charges. I have no dog in the fight but it's beyond weird that the Lions didn't find it. It was not hidden and he has a high profile job that invites scrutiny. Also, Railing against the Media, Liberals or whoever as a setup or bias is doing exactly what you are yelling at me about. You made up your mind there is nothing to it and that is that. 4 hours ago, LABillzFan said: The part where there is no evidence of sexual assault, and the part where the girl in question was not a minor. But other than that...you totally nailed it! The charge is literally "SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD". So stop Again I know as much as everyone else but her being 21 is not evidence it didn't happen. She could have been 16 and reported it as an adult. It doesn't matter. Whatever happened happened but an indictment is a real thing and news worthy. It just is 4 hours ago, LABillzFan said:
Recommended Posts